Semetic Religions and Their Horrors of Fundamentalism

SEMITIC RELIGIONS Anwar Shaikh The Semitic religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are based on revelation which asserts that God reveals himself through the agency of man variously known as a prophet, messenger or messiah. These men, who project themselves as holy, claim that unless people seek God through their agency, they will never find Him. If God is the Father of mankind, then all of His children should have direct access to Him. What kind of God is He who needs an agent to approach Him? In fact, it is not God who requires an agent; it is these self-appointed messengers and messiahs who have imposed their agency on God. Why? Because they want to be treated as God in the disguise of God's agent. Why do they want to be treated as God? It is because they suffer from the most acute dominance-urge which impels a person to assert his superiority for establishing his right to rule and worship. Revelation is the most effective device to achieve this goal. A revelationist pretends that he asserts and does only what God tells him, to assure people that he has no axe to grind in it. Thus people fall for him more easily. When we critically examine the teachings and lives of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, we realise that they were human but urgently wanted to be acknowledged as God through the device of revelation. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have not served the purpose of mankind, but of their founders who enjoy divine status at the expense of human dignity. In fact, these religions are a continuance of the Middle Eastern mythology in varying forms which came into being for replacing the old gods with new ones. How has this happened? It is caused by the fact that each revelationist, that is, messenger or messiah, demands total belief in his self at the exclusion of others and thus becomes the sole saviour of his followers. This leads to fundamentalism which represents a condition of complete brainwashing turning the believer into a robot which loses the dignity of conscious behaviour. Fundamentalism is the chief source of human hatred, disunity and indignity. It clearly shows that revelation is the source of misguidance. Man has lost his way and is treading the oath which leads him in the opposite direction to his destination.

CHAPTER SIX JUDAISM Judaism may be treated as the fountain of both Christianity and Islam because the former is thought of as a Jewish heresy and the latter is claimed to be the reformed version of the Jewish doctrine which was supposed to have suffered the indignity of corruption over a period of centuries. Since all these faiths are rooted in the sands of Arabia, they qualify as the Semitic religions and naturally express a basic unity of purpose, display a common strand of thinking and employ methods of securing the goal which may look different on the surface but at the bottom are very similar. Mythology and faith-founders Concerned as the architects of these faiths might have been with the amelioration of mankind, principally, they were driven by the urge of dominance and sought Godhead through the activation of human instincts of fear and favour. Essence of their fundamental precepts, rituals, modes of action and magnitude of hope and despair, is firmly established in the mythological traditions of the Middle East which I have narrated in the previous Chapter and must be borne in mind by the reader for future reference. The Semitic Reformers, if I may so call the founders of these religions, as a mark of respect to their followers, though human, sought to replace the

existing gods and infuse the then current mythology with their own divinity embellished with the fascination of superstition and poetic verve. This theory represents a new point of view and may not be palatable unless the reader is prepared to weigh the argument with a cool and rational mind which the magnitude of this discussion deserves. I shall start with the analysis of Judaism, the root of all Semitic religions. What is Judaism? Primarily, it refers to Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, traditionally ascribed to Moses but in practice it is based on Torah (Law or Teaching) which included the sacred Scriptures as well as oral traditions, theological assertions, ethical proclamations' historical recollections and even the rabbinic interpretations. Thus the boundaries of Judaism have been made infinite to prove or disprove anything to suit the convenience of the interpreter. Pedigree and training of Moses Judaism, is also loosely called Mosaism after its founder, Moses, whose parents belonged to the tribe of Levi which was one of the Jewish groups settled in Egypt. Moses, the son of Amram and Jochebed, by a quirk of history ended up on the lap of Pharaoh's daughter and was brought up in the Egyptian court as a prince. He was trained in the noble arts of Egypt such as law-making, scribing, religion, civil administration and warfare. Moreover, as Egypt ruled Palestine and a part of Syria, he knew the history and geography of these countries from the court records. The biblical Hebrews led by Moses (Moshe) were variously known as Habiru or Hapiru. They lived in the Goshen district, near the north-eastern part of the Egyptian delta. Who were these Hebrews or Habirus? Origins of the Hebrews When Jacob, the Israel, entered Egypt, his company consisted of "'seventy souls" but when they were delivered from this land after 2 four hundred and thirty years, there were 3 about six hundred thousand men on foot excluding women and children. Estimating the number of wives and children, the size of the exodus has been put as high as 2,000,000 though scholarly criticism has reduced it to 15,000. Hebrews, it is claimed, did not constitute an ethnic group; the word refers to people who were stateless; they were considered bandits and vagabonds, and made their living by hiring themselves out for menial tasks. Like their numbers, this definition of the word "Hebrew" is by no means universally accepted. I am inclined to think that the numbers of the exodus approached half a million souls but they could not call themselves Jews or Israelites. There are good reasons for this assumption: 1. Firstly, there is no mention of Israel in the Egyptian records. 2. Secondly, it is not possible for seventy one people (including Joseph who was already in Egypt) to multiply into such a large multitude under conditions of severe slavery: their rate of death would have been abnormally high owing to the hard labour, malnutrition, disease and the genocidal policy of the Egyptian government. 3. Thirdly, as the history of negro slaves shows, the white Americans frequently seduced their slave women. Thus, modern American Blacks are black in name only; they are a mixed race. This is even more true of the Jews who suffered far worse conditions of bondage in a period when the moral conscience of mankind was still infant. Promised Land 4. Finally, the members of the exodus had ceased to be Jewish because they descended from the various ethnic groups of slaves which the Egyptian pharaohs brought with them from the conquered territories of Canaan (Palestine) and Syria; the number of prisoners of war that

Amenhotep II (1450-1425 B.C.) took during his nine-year campaign alone, stood at 89,600. This explains the unusual increase in the numbers of slaves who eventually came to be known as Jews or Hebrews. They were badly needed in Egypt for building-work. The significance of slave labour becomes evident when we realise that an average Egyptian temple involved the transporting' hewing and laying of 2,300,000 blocks, weighing on average two and a half tons each. This was one of the causes of the Egyptian military expeditions However, these slaves or Hebrews remained Semitic for originating from Palestine and Syria. Therefore, Canaan, projected as the "Promised Land" was not a new country but the original homeland of the Jews, and their return amounted to home-coming in the same sense as it has happened in the 20th Century after a "wandering" of 1,800 years. Egyptian attitude towards Jews Without further harping back on their past, now I may call them Jews or Israelites for the sake of clarity. Much to the consternation of the Jews, as it may seem, the Old Testament makes it clear ' that they were not trusted by the Egyptians who thought of them as a threat to their national security for having no loyalty to the land of their sojourn. Mosaic miracle Emergence of the Jews into a tenacious, fruitful and self-confident race, is more attributable to the genius of Moses and less to their own contrivance. The Mosaic miracle lies in the psychological and intellectual understanding of his people and prescribing the remedy for converting their weakness into strength, capriciousness into resoluteness and stubbornest into willingness. Moses knew that his people had been toughened by the hard labour and perpetual cruelty of their Egyptian masters; tenderness was neither a part of their culture nor theyyearned after it. Survival was their natural concern as it would be of anyone else's, constantly subjected to fear and rape, murder and cruelty. They had no intrinsic regard for discipline which was imposed upon them from without and whose only purpose was exploitation, and provision of sadistic enjoyment to the persecutors. Unity of purpose or social cohesion that springs from conscience or pursuit of a noble common goal, was alien to them. Yet they possessed a loose sense of social belonging rooted in helplessness and servitude, and a desire to be free, happy and human. This understanding must have been assisted by the common ambition to escape and the fact that they all had originally come from the lands of Palestine and Syria. Over the long period of their sojourn they had probably evolved a communal language and a common culture based on inferior values compatible with the traditions of servility. It leads to a startling conclusion, that is, the Jews are the original Palestinians who had lost their identity and were forced to conquer their land of origin! Jewish character and potential Curiosity, search for the beautiful, and will to engage in a struggle to secure the best, made no part of their mental make-up. They needed the cover of ignorance to protect themselves against the harshness of reality and shunned the realm of thought and enquiry. Intellectually, they ranked no more than a pigmy who naively feels ten foot tall, and mistakes vice for virtue, peevishness for perseverance and silliness for sagacity. This attitude of the mind emanated from lack of education and absence of a firm belief in the values of righteousness, ascendancy and self-respect. Yet this weakness of the mind verged on the virtue of potential docility and adaptability that had resided in their "stiff necks" for a long time. Constant and habitual suffering, having become an integral part of their daily lives, had assumed the role of a protective shield which acts as a barrier against timidness and may stir one's dormant spirit to protest or even challenge the oppressor. The audacity of a hebrew who questioned the authority of Moses (Ex. 2:14) must have assured him that underneath the Jewish ashes of servitude, gleeds of freedom impatiently glowed to become a bonfire. The wisdom of great Moses spotted the infirmities of his people, which he knew possessed the potential for greatness. How? He knew that being stateless and idolatrous, they owed no

allegiance to Egypt or any particular deity; their minds were blank and flexible; their ignorance desperately needed a code of conduct based on faith which allows no rational enquiry and loves the varnish of superstition, made fascinating by never-ending tales of miracles and supernatural deeds. Mosaic intentions What was in it for Moses? Of course, he was already a prince, but he was a prince of unknown origin, without any portfolio. His immense talents, stupendous ego and colossal will looked for a venture that was way beyond the reach of ordinary princes. Such a dream could be realised only by fathering an ambitious, tenacious and upward-looking nation. So he adopted the Mesopotamian theory of viceroyalty. It was not quite original because its elements were practiced in various degrees in the Middle East, but the emphasis he laid upon it and the spirit of collectivity he breathed into it, were original. Mesopotamian theory of viceroyalty The Mesopotamian faith held that the king is not a god but his viceroy; it is the former who makes law and the latter who enforces them. King is god's vicar and possesses no authority of his own. The famous Hammurabi received his laws from Marduk, the Chief City God. Power belonged to god in theory only because it was the ruler who wielded it and could forge any law in the name of the deity. Choosing doctrine of viceroyalty for the Hebrews was an act of extraordinary vision on the part of Moses because it suited their psychological make up; they would have shown no reverence to a god-king like the pharaoh who was above law, and had been the source of affliction to them for centuries. A viceroy like Moses who was one of God's subjects as they were, and equally bound by the divine law, was quite acceptable. Neither they had the gumption to enquire into the process of law-making nor did they have any cause to question the integrity of Moses. In fact, the device of viceroyalty suited Moses quite well: it gave him the divine powers to make law and rule them without having the responsibility to face the consequences of hard luck or bad management. If anything went wrong, it was God's fault; he himself acted as God without being called so. Mosaic skill lay in exploiting the superstitious minds of the Hebrews. He narrated the episode of the burning bush which suffered no consumption at all. It was the genius of Moses which realised that the introduction of a new god, who professed to be the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, should be accompanied by such an uncanny event. Yet God observing the prevailing Hittite manners, does not reveal his name and declares: "I AM THAT I AM". Quite sagaciously, he did not forget to express the usual apparent reluctance of the dominant for assuming the reins of power. Moses told God that he was not willing to act as the divine viceroy owing to his stammer and lack of eloquence. He agreed to carry the yoke of authority only because his attitude infuriated the Lord! Thus Moses had no choice but to become God's viceroy who must announce that God sent him to His people! The sweetest sound that the stateless Hebrews ever heard was the offer of a national home the Promised Land. It was nothing like Egypt which had caused them untold misery, it was "a land flowing with milk and honey". Psychological skillof Moses When Moses declared that God had chosen the Children of Israel as his own people, it inflated their most miserably deflated egos. All of a sudden their sense of.inferiority turned into a complex of superiority and they felt the urge to stand on their own feet to gain self-respect. Nobody questioned Moses: why had God preferred a rabble of tattered, tortured and tasteless slaves to the rest of mankind, and how such a one-sided, bigoted and unfair God, who ignored all his other children to adore a handful of Jews, could be trusted or genuinely respected? They

loved this celestial opium and pretended their choice to be the pure gift of God which admitted no ifs or buts. Jews, the superior race The chosen people, being the superior race, expected their chooser to deliver them from Egypt miraculously. So to lead them personally, the Lord went before them in a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of light at night (Ex. 13: 21-22). Contest between Yahwe and Pharaoh Yahwe, the Jewish God, entered a stern contest of miracles with Pharaoh, the Egyptian godking, to demonstrate His might both to the Pharaoh and His newly-adopted children of Israel! For displaying a lot of supernatural acts, He deliberately hardened Pharaoh's heart1 so that he should not allow the Children of Israel to leave! To multiply His miraculous signs: a. He turned Aaron's rod into a serpent; b. He turned all Egyptian water into blood; the fish died and rivers stank; c. He filled the land of Egypt with frogs; d. He turned dust into lice and both man and beast became infested with them; e. He sent a swarm of flies upon Pharaoh, his servants, his people and the houses of all the Egyptians; f. He killed all the cattle of the Egyptians such as horses, asses, camels, oxen, sheep, etc; g. He turned the ashes of the Egyptian furnaces into brains which affected all magicians and Egyptians; h. He sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran upon the ground and heavy rain caused dreadful flood everywhere except where the Children of Israel were! i. He then sent heavy swarms of devastating locusts against the Egyptians. j. He inflicted a thick blanket of darkness on all Egypt except where the Jews dwelt, and this phenomenon lasted for three days. False interpretations To believe in such fairy tales, one has to be either imbecile or totally brainwashed. Moslems have also invented similar miracles about the Prophet Muhammad. The Jews dismiss them as irrational, but when it comes to Moses they believe in their veracity literally. It shows that their faculties of reason are programmed right from the cradle through a highly biased system of nurture. Even the Jews trained in physics and chemistry do not seem to be able to escape from the golden cage of superstition, and insist that these biblical events are historically true. For example, they say that the mention of rivers of blood and destruction of fish refers to the period when heavily excessive rains in Etheopia caused erosion of the deep-red soil. It affected the colour of the river whose dashing currents also happened to carry flagellates i.e. red algae. What a pity! The Old Testament does not refer to red water and flagellates but real blood and real fish. One also wonders why it was necessary for Yahwe to indulge in such a drama when he claims to be All-powerful and possesses the ability to manipulate natural events. Instead of repeatedly asking Pharaoh to let his people go, it would have been a lot more dignified to strike Pharaoh and his armies dead to deliver the chosen people. What a shame that they had to escape like thieves. Giving them the courage to fight their way out of Egypt, would have been far more honourable. Above all, the fact that Yahwe deliberately 2 hardened the heart of Pharaoh so that he should violently resist the release of Israelites, makes the whole episode a gigantic farce.

Mosaic skill and Jewish nationality It was traditional for almost every community in the Near East to stabilise communal life around a particular deity by establishing a special relationship with it through their Chief or ancestor. Moses realised that his disunited people most urgently needed a common bond of unity which could be provided by an exclusive God who should care more about them than anybody else because this was the only way to give them the feeling of being chosen. Yahwe's claim to be the creator of all mankind sounds hollow in view of his special leanings towards the Jews. Moses chose Him as the God of Israel for His truculency to give his people military qualities so that they could conquer the "Promised Land". The so-called "Song of the Sea" in Ex 15:1-8 and the "Song of Deborah" in Judges 5, praise Yahwe, the divine warrior. Realising the slavish mentality of the Hebrews who had learnt to obey the person of the commander without scrutinising the quality of his commands, Moses founded Judaism on the superstition of Yahwe to create a similar relationship between him and the Children of Israel as exists between a lord and vassal. Blood ties did not originally form a part of the Jewish nationhood; it developed much later through the exclusivity of divine bigotry. Scholars have remarked that such a prototype was present in the treaties made between the Hittite kings and their vassals during 1450 - 1200 B.C. Mosaic urge of dominance Of course, we read in the Old Testament that Yahwe spoke to Moses face to face as friends talk to each other, and we also note that the Jewish people had seen Him when He visited them in the wilderness. It makes Him a physical and visible entity. If this is the case, why can't He be contacted in person now when He is most desperately needed by mankind, including the Jews? The truth is that He was an invisible nonentity then as He is now. Moses deliberately founded Judaism on the abstract doctrine of divinity to appoint himself as the Lord's viceroy to create and rule the Jewish nation through the mechanism of fear and favour. The Covenant Setting himself up as the mediator, the great Moses suggested a contractual relationship between God and man and called it a "Covenant". And to make sure that nobody challenged his innovation, he declared that such a covenant had always existed between Yahwe and the Jewish patriarchs such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In fact, he portrayed it as a continuation of the old Covenant which emphasised a two way obligation - one side is based on fear and the other on favour. In plain language, it means that God will favour the Children of Israel if they fear Him, through exclusive worship by crying, cringing and crawling before Him. What is worship? Worship means obeying Yahwe's laws which are eternal and seek to control all man's aspects of life such as what to believe in, how to think, walk, talk, sleep, wear, eat, drink, deal with other people, and so on. These are the characteristics of slavery and the ingredients of brainwashing for turning people into robots which can be operated by the flick of a switch. The Covenant and mechanism of fear and favour Now let us see how the Covenant exploits fear and favour mechanism of mankind: a. To activate fear, the Covenant stipulates: A Jew shall love Yahwe from the bottom of his heart and instill His love in the hearts of his children. Moses tells his people that the Lord God is "a consuming fire, and even a jealous God" who wants blind and total obedience from the Children of Israel. If they swerve a bit, He promises to lay an utter and most agonising curse upon them by way of lethal diseases, physical destruction, slavery, homelessness, foreign domination, and all the humiliation and torture one can think of. Further, Yahwe shall carry out complete destruction of the disobedient Jews, gleefully. b. The Covenant quite aptly remembers the human quest for favours:

If Jews obey Yahwe in the prescribed manner, He will lay all these curses on the enemies of the Jews and hate them. Further, to strengthen the Covenant and to make it workable, Yahwe adds some sweetest clauses to it and tells His loyal children what favours they can expect of Him: 1. He assures them that he is a faithful God and shall keep His covenant with a thousand generations of the loyal Jews who shall be "blessed above all people" and there will be no barrenness amongst them or their cattle because they are holy to God who has chosen them to be a special people. 2. They shall be loaded with earthly riches. 3. God s promises that the Jewish race shall multiply immensely. 4. Yahwe shall make the Jews reign over many nations but they shall not be reigned-over by the foreigners. He will enable Jews to subdue all antagonistic nations, and shall deliver them to his chosen people for total destruction: this process shall continue until no man is left to be able to stand up to them. Further, Yahwe promises to make them the head and not the tail. Nature of the Jewish Covenant One should note that in this covenant there is no reference to humanity, moral virtue or life after death. It is simply a secular contract founded on materialism! It clearly follows that whatever makes a Jew rich and powerful, is proper. Moses and Yahwe While Jacob is the father of the "Children of Israel", Moses is the founder of the Jewish nation. His sincerity as the national father is beyond doubt. But his fervent desire to be obeyed and adored has been overlooked. He did not declare himself to be God; he presented himself as God's servant but in such a way that God can be approached only through his medium. It is the Moses-made laws that have come to be known as God's laws and there are several biblical accounts which show that Moses was wiser, and better tempered than God and could rebuke Him and prevail upon Him. I have no doubt that this apparent viceroy was Yahwe himself. How? Coming of Yahwe a. As the story goes, Moses acts as a medium between God and his people at their request, and not that he wants power! When people noticed the glorious coming of Yahwe through thunder, lightning, musical noise and mountain-smoking, they promised to listen to Moses but he should not let God speak to them because it might lead to their death. It is obvious that Moses was made of different materials from the rest of the people; he could withstand God's majesty without coming to harm but the folks were sure to suffer death by Yahwe's contact. Again, Moses had the power to dissuade God from talking to people. Contest between Moses and Yahwe b. Worship of the molten calf by the Jews kindles God's jealousy which far excells the possessive attitude of a petty lover, afraid of losing to his rival. Quite cleverly, Moses uses this event to demonstrate that Jews are his people and not Yahwe's: God angrily commands Moses to get out of His sight. In a temper, He disowns Jews and calls them "Moses' people" whom he had brought out of Egypt and who had corrupted themselves (Ex. 32:7). However, the sagacity of Moses rises to the occasion and with a view to staying in the background he asserts that Jews are the Lord's people and it is He who brought them out of

Egypt but he does not allow the episode to rest here. As God at this point, intends to consume the Children of Israel with his boiling wrath, Moses cannot afford to lose the opportunity of humiliating Him for establishing his (Moses') own superiority: He tells God impolitely that He is about to do a wicked thing against His own people and shames Him by asserting what the Egyptians would say. Moses Commands the Lord to refrain from this evil and repent (Ex. 32: 12-14). Here God Surrenders to man! What a blasphemous attitude it is! Yet the Jews claim to be a monotheistic people. Here Moses depicts his serenity, cool and virtuousness in contrast to the impetuosity, hotheadedness and vicious temper of Yahwe. Thus, he projects himself as the controller who drives from behind instead of leading from the front. c. Numbers, the fourth book of Moses, narrates yet another episode when the Jews denigrate the Promised Land and want to return to Egypt. Yahwe's wrath, which seems to dwell on the surface and keeps waiting for the smallest breeze of discord, flares up again: Yahwe, the Jewish God once again feels provoked by His people and threatens to destroy them. Moses steps in and shames Him. God yields to Moses as usual (Numbers 14: 11-20). Moses the Divine d. Moses returned to his people after staying forty days and forty nights with the Lord. The Jews noticed that his face shone; they were afraid to talk to him, and he had to mask his face to alleviate their fears (Ex. 34:30,33). One must realise that Yahwe has a similar radiant face (Ex. 33:20). Semitic theory of viceroyalty The theory of viceroyalty seems to be the crux of the Semitic culture. Instead of declaring that the protagonist is propounding his personal views or prescribing his own principles, he pretends that whatever he says or does, he simply carries out the commands of a supernatural being. Thus he convinces people that he has no personal motive; they easily fall for it especially when the viceroy's teachings and commandments carry a promise of secular or celestial rewards. Since the supernatural being is, as portrayed by the viceroy (prophet), and cannot be seen or contacted directly by the people, the viceroy and God become one and the same person. Significance of Mosaic Law to Jews A divine viceroy possesses super ego and ardently desires to be worshipped. In fact, worship is a form of total obedience to the legal commands of the lawgiver. To make sure that he was eternally adored, Moses created a nation whose identity was founded on the law that was immortal, inviolable and immutable. The Mosaic Law has determined the Jewish vision, vanity and way of life over the last thirty two centuries. The value of Mosaic Laws should be judged as follows: a. The purpose of the Mosaic Laws; b. Relevance of the Mosaic Laws to the Jewish nationhood; The nature of the Mosaic Laws as a form of legal code. a I have already said that the purpose of the Mosaic law was to secure the highest possible position of adoration for Moses. I have explained this point by describing him as the viceroy, and stated that since Yahwe cannot be contacted or traced Moses, who is capable of rebuking and dominating Yahwe, is Yahwe himself but in the cloak of a viceroy.

b. However, I have not as yet touched upon the second part of this assertion i.e. the founding of Jewish nationality on law. The understanding of this point is not possible unless we first realise the significance that the Mosaic law attaches to itself: All those who do not obey the Jewish law literally are cursed as well as those who disagree with this principle (Deut. 27:28). Not only every comma, full stop and word of the law is binding on a Jew but it is also eternal (Deut. 29:29). The rise and fall, mirth and misery, honour and dishonour - in fact, the entire Jewish destiny depends upon obedience or disobedience to the law. Chapter 8 of Deuteronomy makes it amply clear. After this introduction, now I may proceed to describe the Jewish legal nationalism: Jewish legal nationalism 1. Moses portrays God as Jewish for making covenants exclusively with the Jewish patriarchs Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is obviously not interested in other nations: If the Jews keep Yahwe's covenant, He will exalt them over all other nations and treat them as His treasure (Ex 19:5). 2. His sole, or at least major concern, is confined to the Jews. Why? Because He has chosen them from the rest of mankind. This is the reason that they are the best, the special, the holy and the blessed. 3. Jewish law ensures final victory of the Jews over the insolent Gentiles who will be presented to the Chosen race bit by bit for their total destruction, and whose destiny it is to become the Jewish inheritance (Ps. 2: 8-9). The true relationship between Jews and Gentiles is that of a master and slave! 4. Jewish law declares the land of the "Canaan" as the "Promised Land" or legal homeland for the Children of Israel. 5. Since God personally went to Egypt and brought them to the "Promised Land", it is distinctly the home for the Jews; they are forbidden to mix with or make covenants with non-Jews (Philistines) who should be expelled from there. (Exodus 23:32-33) 6. Jews must maintain their racial purity by not marrying the Gentiles. (Ex. 34:12-16). Eventually this law was made so fierce that the Jews were required not only to divorce their non-Jewish wives but also disown their own children from such spouses (Ezra 10:2-24). 7. To maintain racial purity, a bastard shall not be allowed to enter into congregation of the Lord even to his tenth generation (Deut. 23:2). 8. Even in foreign lands, Jews must organise themselves as distinct communities for practicing the Mosaic law (Deut. 4:5-6). 9. To make Jews an equitable fraternity, they are forbidden to have Jewish bondmen and bondmaids. Nor are they allowed to rule over one another with rigour. On the contrary, their slaves must be Gentile, and any non-Jew born in the land where Jews dominate, may be treated as a Jewish possession and inheritance (Lev. 25:43-46). To foster this sense of communal belonging, a Jew is not allowed "to lay usury" upon a fellow-Jew (Ex. 22:25). 10. To make Jewishness the central point of law, and thereby the focus of every Jew's dream, the Old Testament declares Jerusalem the Holy City where Yahwe dwells. Thin in the ferret of Zionism which teaches (Isiah 4:3. 52:1) every Jew to treat Israel as his real home and pine to return, regardless of where he is born.

c. Should I analyse the Jewish code as the law in its national sense i.e. legislative enactment, case law etc.? This is not necessary because the Jewish law like any divine law, is based on faith, and not reason. Thus, it is something which may be adored but cannot be practiced. Let me give you a few examples: 1. It is more concerned with retribution than reform and justice (Ex. 21:24-26). 2. It commands complete rest on Saturday (the Sabbath) and prescribes death even for gathering sticks (Numbers 15:32). Jesus was accused of blasphemy for healing people on the Sabbath Day! In the modern times, at least 50~o of all Jews shall qualify for divine execution owing to their business activities associated with Saturday. 3. It prescribes death by stoning of a son who does not obey his father or mother. (Deut. 21:18-21) If this law were applied strictly, how many Jewish children would survive? Nature of Yahwe Since Jewish nationhood is based on the laws of Yahwe (as claimed by Moses and prophets), one cannot evaluate the role of Judaism without assessing the nature of Yahwe. It is a highly emotional subject for its psychological connotations, yet it cannot escape scrutiny because of its fundamental importance to the seekers of truth. Let us have a look at Him: Yahwe, the reluctant God 1. God repented when He looked at the wicked state of the earth and He thought of destroying man along with reptiles, animals and birds. He repented for creating them. However, Noah found favour with Him (Gen. 6:5-8). God's repentance determines His attitude towards creation which is absolutely negative. Secondly, He did not know what He was doing. Thirdly, He did not have the ability to create righteous beings. It also shows His callous nature - Why destroy animals, fowls and reptiles for man's sins? It also indicates the illogical and simple mind of God. If Adam's children were wicked, how could Noah's children be good? After all, Noah was a descendant of Adam, and hence belonged to the same species. The fact is that this type of mythology regarding blood, wickedness of man and his destruction had been rife in the Middle East long before the advent of Moses. He simply incorporated these tales in his authorship. Yahwe the Old Man 2. God is a kind of old man who is liable to forget and cannot remember things easily. Therefore, when He established a covenant with Noah, He set up His bow in the clouds so that whenever He looked at it, it would remind Him of the covenant (Gen. 9:13-16). 3. The biblical narrative about Abraham, the common ancestor of Jews and Arabs is rather distressing. Moslems claim that it is distorted and fake but the Jews who are extremely respectful to their elders, have never denied it. Abraham and Self-Glory This is how the story goes: Abraham, at the age of 100, had a son Isaac, from Sarah, his wife. An Egyptian bondwoman called Hagar also bore him a son, Ishmael. Sarah looked down upon Ishmael for his inferior birth and denied him equal status with Isaac. God sided with Sarah and told Abraham to get rid

of Ishmael. To glorify himself in the eyes of God, Abraham did exactly what he was told and left the baby along with Hagar to perish in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba (Gen. 21:12-14). This story is compatible with the Jewish tradition; they believe in themselves as the superior race, thus implying the inferiority of the Gentile. Ishmael depicted this racial philosophy. It also conforms to the Arabian attitude: their children from concubines never ranked equal to the progeny of their wives. Ishmael was a baby, an innocent baby. How could God, who created both Isaac and Ishmael, be so partial and unfair? And what about Abraham himself? Would a kind father do such a thing to his baby son under any circumstances? This type of obedience to God shows the selfish nature of the obedient who would go to any length for securing the pleasure of his superior. The fact that Abraham was also willing to murder Isaac to amuse God, proves this point. Again, the God who issues such commands to gratify His own ego, is not worthy of worship because firstly, His commands prove that He possesses an insatiable ego; secondly, His commands set-up evil and unreasonable precedents and thus corrupt mankind, and lastly when He does such things to try the believers, He obviously does not know their mind and thus lacks the much heralded omniscience. Yahwe, the patron of thieves 4. God is out to patronise the Jews at all costs, even if it involves deceit, dishonesty, and despoilment. This is the reason that some rabbinic interpretations hold that there is no sin if a Jew manipulates a Gentile for his own benefit: As Jews prepare to leave Egypt, Yahwe commands Moses that he should tell his people to borrow precious things of their neighbours such as jewellery and diamonds. Yahwe softens the hearts of the Egyptians who lend them what they want and then scarper with their hoodwinked possessions. And Yahwe approves of this theft! He should because it is He who organised it (Ex. 11:2 and 12:35-36) The jealous God 5. Jewish God is infested with jealousy, acts out of spite and rejoices in excessive retribution: He warns Jews that they must not serve other Gods because He is a jealous God and avenges the iniquity of fathers to the fourth generation of their children (Ex. 20:5 and 34:14). This is the reason that in Numbers 21: 5-9, we find that God sends fiery serpents to Jews for complaining about lack of bread and water. 6. Jews claim to have made monotheism i.e. oneness of God, as the foundation of the human culture but Yahwe does not claim to be the only God because He forbids them not to assail other gods with abuse (Ex. 22:28). In fact, Yahwe is the God of Israel (though He claims to have creative powers) (Ex. 24:10). Yahwe, a physical entity 7. Jewish God is a visible and physical entity; He walks and talks; possesses a soul 2, and human characteristics such as loathing and loving, meanness and munificence, kindness and cruelty etc. No sense of justice 8. Yahwe has no sense of justice: He rewards and punishes people not according to any particular principle. This is fully borne out by the story of Rahab (Josh 6:17). One good act saves the harlot and all her associates irrespective of their character but the entire city is marked for destruction without any reference to individual investigation! Like all dictators, Yahwe's word is the law, and reason forms no part of it.

Yahwe, the slave of desire 9. Jewish God has desires and dreams like ordinary mortals but there is a difference: an ordinary mortal may check or renounce his desire but God does not; desire to Him is what intense light is to a moth, flower is to a bee, air is to a homosapien or water is to fish. His greatest desire is to be loved and worshipped. This is all he exists for, and this is the sole reason that He created mankind and the universe. The intensity of such a desire, gives Him a lopsided mind and an extremely selfish ego. Obviously, when the number of worshippers dwindles, he feels derided and His destructive urge descends upon people for vengeance suffused with virulence, vice and vitiosity. Worship, the lowest form of behaviour Worship is simply a euphemism for self-degradation which consists of crying, cringing and crawling before someone who is haughty, self-centred and psychologically disturbed. Selfdegradation is a sin against one's own sanctity, honour and dignity. The God who loves to humiliate man is not praiseworthy. This renders worship the lowest desire which equates divinity with vanity and all its attendant vices. Moses declared that the Lord had commanded him to declare His laws. In fact, he claimed to have received "two tablets" containing Yahwe's laws written with His own finger. The truth is that he was a capable nomothete in his own right. He was brought up in the Egyptian court where scribing was considered as one of the noblest arts and law-making was the most sacred priestly function. The fact that the Jewish priesthood went to the descendants of his brother Aaron whose loquacity asserts itself through the pages of the Old Testament, clearly confirms the hypothesis that Moses was a scribe and law-expert. Yet he chose to declare himself as the Vicar and not God. Why? Because he knew that Akhenaton, the Egyptian monotheistic high priest of God, retained all the trappings of celestial divinty and secular dignity. Why not follow the same approach which was likely to be more fertile, fecund and forceful because the rabble which he led would not have sincerely obeyed a Pharaoh-like God whose tyranny, trickery and torture had reduced them to subhuman level. Again, there had existed the tradition of viceroyalty in the Mesopotamian lands. It declared that God was the real ruler and the king wielded power as His deputy or viceroy. Egyptian roots of Jews Moses knew well that there was no hope of winning the Promised Land without welding the Egyptian slaves into an effective and cohesive force. These slaves had been originally deported from the Syrian and Palestinian territories by the conquering Pharaohs. Thus what came to be known as the Jews were originally Palestinians whose social identity was diluted by their Egyptian masters. The purpose of Mosaic Law The whole purpose of the Mosaic law was to create a nationality based on supernatural reverence to God who was stern and frightening, yet could shower favours upon those who believed in Him sincerely and obeyed His commands readily. Since all the divine business was to be done through the viceroyalty of Moses, it was more prudent to stay in the background than lead from the front because if anything went wrong, it could be blamed upon God or the people -and the viceroy was always there to intercede for them and claim the credit. Yahwe, the creation of Mosaic Law In fact, not only the nationhood of the Jews but the entity of Yahwe, is also the creation of the Mosaic law. I applaud the ingenuity of Moses because it was all in a good cause. Giving the helpless, hopeless and homeless slaves a chance of freedom and self-elevation, is no mean task. The long story of wandering in the wilderness is an integral part of this process. For no fewer than forty years, Moses toughened and trained his people in a certain way of life which eventually came to be known as "Judaism". As the third generation emerges, we find, welldisciplined armies of the "Children of Israel" settling in Canaan as the conquerors. Faith and unsociality

Orthodox Judaism is a fine example of blind faith which blurs senses and becomes the antithesis of rationality, eventually leading to a total incompatibility between one's beliefs and deeds. In simple language, it represents a way of life which demonstrates contradiction between one's theory (the basic doctrine) and actions because people expect realism in social dealings. Thus, unconsciously, one begins to live in a world of hallucinations. As a result, the life turns into a continuous process of make-believe culminating in a split personality. Since the believer is no longer capable of showing realism in his dealings with others, he develops an ego based on insincerity, hypocrisy and escapism, or alternatively an attitude wishing destruction to those who stand in his way. Fear is the hallmark of this attitude which incites believers to look down upon non-believers; it persuades them to seek seclusion, and become either a community within a community or dominate the rest of the community through mischievous but wellgroomed plans of domination. This is necessitated by the fear of losing one's identity, no matter how ugly and inhuman, and provides the motive for reinforcing and inflating it by antisocial measures. In a nutshell, submission to blind faith leads to unsocial behaviour and the loss of the faculty of social adjustment. Shudras of India and Jews Faith moulds personality. Take, for example, Shudras of India who accepted inferiority of birth as the foundation of their faith, suffered totally inhuman indignity voluntarily without ever raising a sigh of protest. However, the faith of the Jews was based on self-superiority which actively incited them to look down upon the rest of mankind. This inflated view of self, temporarily gave them national conscience, social cohesion and also high moral piety compatible with their claim as a chosen race but the natural consequences of such a philosophy soon generated the psychological patterns of behaviour, injurious to honourable existence; it turned their national conscience into obsession and bigotry, their social cohesion suffered through a process of dispersion, mainly brought upon by themselves, and their piety suffered from the exotic gales of odium which they frequently encountered in the lands of Gentiles. Manipulation of Judaism by David In fact, the Jews as a nation were manipulated by their own heroes who inculcated in them the divine cult of royalty. David, the second king of Israel, who ranks second to Moses, replaced the old relationship of covenant between God and people through their tribal chiefs, with his own divinity, and that of his seed. It was he who in his capacity as the ruler and, the person as a descendant of Jacob, assumed the status of true relationship between God and the Children of Israel. YaLwe was enthroned on Mount-Zion, and at His right hand was seated King David, His anointed, who shared the divine authority as a coregent, i.e. the equal partner. It was, in fact, the existing Jebusite cult of Zion which he adopted for his own advantage. Messiah ("the anointed one"), the title of the kings of the line of David became the prototype of an awaited Messiah who would return to restore the dignity of the Jews the same way as he had done by nearly annihiliating the Philistines. The return of David which is equated with the coming of David's "son" was ascribed to the advent of Jesus who claimed to have come from the seed of David. By projecting himself a heavenly figure who ranked as the divine mediator, David assumed the role of a deity yet Jews claim to be strictly monotheistic people! David and Bathsheba David was human and not divine. This fact is well narrated in 2 Samuel, Chapter 11. One day, staring down from the roof of his house, he noted the figure of a "very beautiful" woman Bathsheba who was bathing herself. Her tender body froze his glances but warmed his heart. She became the focus of his palpitations, and his infatuation with her persuaded him to ignore the fact that she was the wife of Uriah, the Hittite. David had him murdered, married her and from this union came Solomon, the Wise. For welding together various parts of his kingdom, David took wives from many tribes. Does a god need indulging in political manipulations? Though the beauty, delicacy and fascination of these women served him well, the fact that most of them were heathen and came from cultures of conflicting values, contributed to the eventual disintegration of the Jewish kingdom. Again, the story of Abishag, a "very fair" damsel (I King 1:1-4) testifies to the humanity of David.

Solomon's anti-Jewish conduct Solomon, David's son, went even further. His wisdom involved him in the unusual hobby of concubine-collecting. Their number rose to 300, and it was in addition to his 700 wives who came from different nationalities and religions. He ceased to possess a purely Jewish faith because he erected shrines to Chemosh and Milcom, the Moabite and Ammonite gods. Their sancturies were built on the mountain ridge east of Jerusalem (I Kings 11:1-13). Thus the special people of jealous Yahwe came to be governed by Solomon, the idolater, yet Yahwe, the perpetually violent God, addicted to frequent fits of rage and claiming to be allpowerful, could not punish Solomon. It is the natural causes that led to the fall of the Jewish kingdom, and not the wrath of Yahwe. Decline of the Jewish nation The eighty-year rule of David and Solomon marks the political apex of the Jewish race but it cannot be termed as an empire in the usual sense of the word. After Solomon, the Jewish kingdom split into Israel (Ephraim) the northern kingdom which contained ten tribes, and Judah which radiated with the heavenly City of Jerusalem. This division showed the inability of the Children of Israel to live as one nation, and was brought about by lack of mutual tolerance and co-operation. The two kingdoms, however, lasted for about two centuries. Samaria, the city of Israel, was captured in 722 B.C.E. by Assyria; it subsequently lost its identity in the Assyrian provincial system. Nobody knows what happened to the ten tribes of Israel. It has been remarked that the people of Kashmir are the descendants of these lost Jewish tribes, and another preposterous statement treats the Red Indians of the United States of America as the progeny of the missing Jews! By 597, Judah was captured by the Babylonians. The revolt of 589 attracted severe punishment leading to the burning and plundering of the Temple and Jerusalem. The era of Dispersion starts with these tragic events - marking the exile of Jews from their homeland. Diaspora and Jerusalem Diaspora proved painful to the Jews, not because they did any worse than they had done in their homeland. The source of chagrin lay in their love for Jerusalem, the divine city. It was not an ordinary remorse but tinged with a very deep sense of guilt which declared that their deportation was the result of their gross disobedience to Yahwe. The mere inability to defend the holiest shrine spelt eternal condemnation. However, the Jewish prophets, whose prestige, prosperity and popularity, depended upon the act of prophecy assured the Children of Israel that the condemnation was not eternal but would last only as long as it took them to repent and mend their ways. It was declared as their destiny to return to Jerusalem, their home, as a reward for their piety. Ezekiel/Jerusalem Ezekiel, the priest who was carried away in the deportation of 597 is considered to be the founder of Judiasm. He declared in 593 that he had been required by Yahwe to act as His prophet. He was prophet of both judgement and promise, that is, Jews were destined to discover delight after doom, and delight meant returning home - to Jerusalem where on MountZion, Yahwe was enthroned. This is the focal point of the Messianic message and this is the reason that the Jews in all countries even after so many centuries still think of their settlement as a soujourn. Perhaps, proper interpretation requires to state that the Jewish sojourn abroad is a form of punishment but Yahwe will bring them home as He delivered Them from Egypt (and Babylon). Zion, i.e. Jerusalem, is the Holy City and Bride of Yahwe, the Lord of hosts, who is pledged to be her redeemer. Only for a small moment had He forsaken her but would restore her with great mercies. Was it proper of Yahwe to forsake His bride? He left her again and again but blamed the believers for infidelity. No, the Jews were innocent. They were not gutless. Nor were they impious. No nation has served the Lord with greater fervour and devotion than the Children of Israel yet no nation has ever suffered from the divine wrath one-tenth as much as they have.

Jerusalem and Jewish fate To a Gentile, Yahwe is just an abstraction whose sanctity and omniscience have been drummed up by the ruling and priestly classes of the Children of Israel to foster their own interests. The Jewish loyalty to the Yahwe's City has been held as the fountain of disloyalty to their lands of settlement. It has been asserted that the Jews have failed to show patriotic respect for their exotic abodes which attract lip reverence only. This attitude has resulted in the greatest horrors that human mind can imagine. Is there any country where they have not been beaten, bruised and brutally treated, where they have not been molested, mangled and murdered, where they have not been pillaged, plundered and persecuted, where they have not been derided, despised and desolated? During the last 2,500 years, was there a century when their damsels were not raped, when their children were not considered a burden on the host country, when they were not thought of less desirable than animals, when they were not treated with contempt? Denial of human rights, denial of justice, denial of decent neighbourhood and denial of equal social status - formed integral parts of the Gentile attitude which was further inflamed by religious prejudices. In the Christendom, they were despised as murderers of Jesus and in the Islamdom, they deserved no grace as members of the "condemned" race. However, it will be unfair of me if I fail to add that the Jews suffered all this torture and humiliation in good faith and as a devotion to the Lord. Their loyalty to their ideal has no parallel in history. It ought to be eulogised, yet I hesitate to commend it. Why? Because it is based on blind faith and not reason, because the Jewish mind has been paralysed by the Biblical myth of self-superiority and because the irrational attitudes of every generation of Jews carry the seeds of destruction for their offsprings. The veracity of these statements is borne out by the fact that Yahwe has not multiplied the seed of Israel like the stars of the sky or the dust of the earth. Is He really capable of delivering His side of the covenant?: I have no doubt that the Jews have observed their religious principles with greater piety, zeal and sincerity than any other nation and thus discharged their side of the deal. History testifies to the fact that the Jews suffered because of fundamentalism, that is, following the biblical commands literally. As I shall show shortly, their social recovery began when some of them made reason a part of their faith. Unfortunately, the majority of them are still not ready to salute the goddess of reason, but practicalities of political sovereignty may bring the Children of Israel around to see things as they really are. The Jew Bill Strange as it may seem, the emancipation of Jews is directly linked with the emancipation of the European mind from the Christian dogma as a result of the Reformation. The (British) Plantation Act of March 19, 1740 was the first to treat Jews in the American Colonies as "His Majesty's natural born subjects of this kingdom" but "The Jew Bill" which was enacted in May 1753, had to be repealed a year later as a result of the vehement opposition by the Christian merchants of London. Cause of European hatred of Jews This revocation stemmed from the firmly-held belief, as in other European countries, that Jews were an Asian race which deserved anathema for circumcision, odd ways of worshipping the Supreme Being, unsocial attitudes toward the Gentile, as carriers of hereditary corrupt character, for setting up a state within a state, for lacking loyalty to their country of abode and for looking funny owing to their overgrown beards and wearing caftans. The modern Jews may not have changed their religious principles but they have certainly modified their looks. Their ancestors could not have imagined a Jew with blonde hair, blue eyes and pink complexion! French advocacy of human rights However, by 1789, France emerged as the active champion of civil liberties. HE dedication to eradicate inequality and the zest to humanise the human mind whicl has suffered from inhuman deformities such as racial prejudice, religious bigotry sectarian hatred, suppression of individual rights and denial of justice, extender the libertarian charter known as "The Rights of Man and of the Citizen" to emancipate Jewry from the shackles of social taboos and tortures. However

suspicion of the Jewry was so great that their admission to the European society was based not on grace but a stringent test which included several questions, raiser in the Assembly of Jewish Notables, held on 29th July, 1806, at the instruction of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. Here is the summary of the questions: French Test - Questions for Jewry 1. Do Jews believe in having more than one wife at the same time? 2. Do Jews believe in divorce, especially when the French law forbids it? 3. Do they believe in intermarriage with Christians? 4. Are non-Jewish Frenchmen considered as brethren or stangers by the Jews? 5. Do the Jews born in France and treated as French citizens, treat France as their country? Will they defend it, and be bound to obey the French laws? 6. Is a Jew forbidden by law to take usury from a fellow Jew? 7. Does the Jewish law allow usury in relation to strangers? Jewish reaction The answers that members of the Assembly of Jewish Notables gave contradict the Mosaic tenets through silence, evasion and utterly new interpretations. For example, about usury they said that the Hebrew word "neshekh" had been improperly translated as usury. It meant interest of any sort and not just usurious interest and therefore the existing meaning of the word lacked relevance! Did they, then, lie or deceive? Not at all. For the first time in their long history, they realise that stiff necks break easily but the flexible necks are durable. Their answers were based on wisdom, compromise and the will to modify their faith and the ways of life. This vicissitude transformed their lives completely and the dawn of the 19th century illumined their faculties of knowledge which had been darkened by the forces of ignorance such as bigotry, orthodoxy and social repression. The same people who had been seen fit to live in ghettoes started building mansions and skyscrapers for themselves and made a considerable contribution to the various branches of science, art and literature. This sudden burst of good fortune owed nothing to Yahwe's favours but to the bounteous attitudes of the Western nations that had made considerable strides in all walks of life. The simple proof of this truth lies in the fact that even today the eastern Jews stand at the same intellectual level as their eastern neighbours. While their contributions to the Western civilization are of high value, they lack the pioneering element. The spirit and direction of their achievements has been provided by the free-thinking, libertarian and humane West. Their own traditions brought them nothing but misery, humiliation and never-ending servitude. They are a boastful lot and claim to have civilised the West. It is not the Bible that has civilised the West, it is the West that has humanised the Bible, which provoked crusades through prejudice and bigotry to perpetrate international carnage for 400 years. Nature of Jewish Covenant with Yahwe Of course, one thing is indigenous to the Jews, that is, love of money and power. This is the whole purpose of their covenant with Yahwe which says nothing about morality, salvation or heaven, and solely confines itself to the worldly gains! It is for this reason that they believe in the godliness of riches, and devote their entire lives to wealth-creation which makes them tremendous merchants and entrepreneurs. Nothing pleases a Jew more than counting money. It is the possession of money which makes the Jews powerful, and the power brings in its wake vanity, arrogance, ruthlessness and the supercilious attitudes which tempt the powerful to look down upon others. This is something which is acquired as well as drilled into them from the cradle. It is a part of their faith which is founded on consciousness of self-superiority. Feeling of superiority on the ground of wealth alone is one thing, but when it arises from the belief that one belongs to God's chosen race, and is accompained by personal wealth, it becomes a mania which makes "Mr Superior" extremely self-centred and ignorant of reality; he

loses objectivity and indulges in subjectivity which constitutes his entire life. Regretfully, the sense of divine superiority combined with personal wealth, which leads to a vain and ostentatious life style, has become the bane of the Jews. This fact was self-evident during the 20th century when they were persecuted by the Nazi. What was the cause of it? The Nazi jealousy or the Jewish vanity - or both? Jewish untouchability It is claimed that the Nazi behaviour was inhuman and despicable because it subjected women and children to torture and sought to exterminate the Western Jewry. Of course, I abhor the Nazi but I cannot indulge in indiscriminate condemnation of the German people who have expressed manly qualities over the last 2000 years and made considerable contribution to civilization through Reformation, and scientific, literary and artistic innovations. Except for a short period when the Germans were misled by the slogans of extreme nationalism, they were God-fearing people who did not practice racism. The fact that the German lands constituted the Holy Roman Empire, and a Christian of any nationality could become the German Emperor, was an achievement of a high cultural order. Their nationalism is a recent phenomenon, indeed, but the Jewish nationality which has existed for at least 3000 years is based on racial superiority sanctioned by God himself. It is to maintain their physical and spiritual purity that they were commanded by their law to shun the company of the Gentiles, and not to eat food prepared by a non-Jew. This untouchability is the fundamental precept of the Hindu Caste system which raised a small section known as the Brahman to the highest social dignity, as their birth right, and created a large menial section of the Shudras, born of impurity. The Brahmans adopted exactly the same attitude towards the lower Indian classes as the Jews were legally required to practice against the non-Jews. I wonder if the Jews are not an offshoot of the Brahman Caste! I regret to say that Hitler's principles and practices were shaped by: a. The Jewish philosphy; and b. The Jewish historical conduct. Jewish philosophy a. The basic Jewish philosophy states that God is at the helm of history and natural phenomena. He has chosen Jews as a mark of divine love. Since God chooses the best, the Jews are the superior race and God's people who have been appointed by Him *to turn the wheel of history for executing the divine will which is nothing but the glorification of God through the glorification of the Jews because God has made a covenant with the Jews to raise them above the rest of mankind. All historical events of importance, therefore, must take place through the agency of the Jews and conform to their dreams and dignity, and schemes of splendour and supremacy. Further, Yahwe, the Jewish God, is committed by the covenant to enable the Jews to rule the Gentiles and present all hostile and refractory nations to them, one by one, for their total destruction by the Jews! As a symbol of their special relationship with God, and racial superiority, they claim that they were personally led out of Egypt by Yahwe who humbled pharaoh through miracles, and manipulated the operation of natural phenomena for theirrelease. This Jewish philosophy which is extremely rude and offensive to the Gentiles for treating them as inferior, ignorant and ill-fated, and whose ultimate destiny is to wear the yoke of Jewish servitude, has been loudly acclaimed and proclaimed by the Jewish philosophers over the centuries: Judah teen Samuel ha-Levi (C1075-1141) believed that it is not the contemplation of the cosmos but of the Jewish history which procures the knowledge of God! Nachman Krochmal preached that the Jewish people have a special relationship with the Universal spirit who is the God of Israel! Samuel Hirsch declared that in the early times of the Jewish history God revealed himself by miracles and wonders of prophecy but now He manifests Himself through the miracle of the existence of the Jewish people!

Solomon Formstecher held that when eventually the Jewish element in Christianity becomes dominant, it will then be proper for the Jews to give up their isolation! It is the anti-Gentile philosophy which has become the bane of the Jews who believe to be the superior race under the influence of their religious dogma. The Nazi, who were determined to exterminate the Jews, caught the disease of racial superiority from them yet they have learnt nothing from the horrors of the holocaust. b. I shall postpone discussion of the Jewish historical conduct to Chapter Nine of this book. * Revelation leads to brainwashing which restricts believers faculties of reason and moral conscience. Thus its benignant effects are far outweighed by its malignant influences. This truth is clearly bourne out by the Jewish faith which declares that: a. The Jews are the Superior (Chosen) race. b. They have the Divine Right to be at the helm of history and, therefore, all major human events take place through their agency. This is the reason that they want to control every organization for imprinting their own name on events of major significance, and this is why they resent the success of a rising Gentile and conspire to drag him down. Obviously, this is what makes them an ostentatious lot and they indulge in acts devoid of virtue for the sheer hell of keeping a grip on the oars of history. The crazy theories such as Marxism and lethal devices like atom bombs, originate from the Jewish infatuation with controlling human destiny. It is not that they are more intelligent than other races. Their behaviour is determined by revelation which goads them to be superior and they are trained right from the cradle to be assertive, enterprising, domineering and egotistic. They have been made to pay for their attitudes in every century but they prefer the hallucinatory delights of revelation to the honour of their virgins, safety of babes and dignity of mankind.

CHAPTER SEVEN CHRISTIANITY Christianity has exploited the human instincts of fear and favour with a skill which is peculiar to itself. It has been declared as the natural religion of mankind by projecting Jesus as the logos and the active revelatory principle of God which existed long before the creation. The medieval scholasticism indulged in balancing reason and revelation. Even in the 18th Century, the enlightenment theology tried to demonstrate Christianity as rational in essence. Mythology has never been delineated with a greater skill and charm than these statements have done. Christianity is an extension of mythology yet its spiritual fascination has aroused millions of Christians to die for the honour of their Saviour as willingly as a burning lamp incites moths to seek self-cremation. Christian Articles of Faith The Christian cult is the most beautiful mythological symposium owing to the aura of divine beguilement that pervades its major constituents, as follows: 1. The Creator God 2. Revelation 3. Virgin Birth 4. Trinity

5. Grace and Salvation 6. Sin (Human Nature) 7. Kingdom of God (Hell and Heaven)

Virgin Birth 3. Having already expressed my views about the Creator God and revelation, I may start this discussion with the third item i.e. Virgin Birth. None of what we know about the birth of Jesus, can be traced back to himself because neither he left any written account of his life nor the contemporary sources record anything about his existence. The Christian details about him emerged in the Synoptic (parallel view of sources) Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke at least seventy years after his crucifixion, and John's account did not appear until another three decades later. It is also said that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are names only because they were written some two hundred years after the death of Christ to satisfy the needs of the Church and believers! The evidence for the existence of Jesus himself is very tenuous indeed. He was said to be a learned man. If he really had a mission, it was his foremost duty to put it in writing but he never did. This makes him an imaginary figure, dreamt up by those whose purpose it serves. Small wonder that Christianity has become the largest business on earth. Parenthood of Jesus The picture has been further blurred by the Jewish traditions which declare Jesus as the illegitimate son of Panther, a Roman soldier. The Old Testament also seems to have been tampered with by the over-zealous Greek translators: Commenting on Isa. 7:14, scholars have remarked that the Hebrew word "Alma', has been wrongly translated as "virgin" in the Septuagint because it actually means "young woman". Despite all the manipulative efforts of the Christian Fathers, whose own sanctity rose and fell with that of Jesus, we can still trace his parenthood in the New Testament without making Jews the target of everything blasphemous and corrupt. St. Matthew, Chapter One, Verse Sixteen, records the genealogy of Jesus as follows: Jacob fathered Joseph who was the husband of Mary. She gave birth to Jesus who came to be known as Christ. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, the carpenter. Since every human, without exception, has a human father, Jesus must also have a human father. The doctrine of the Virgin Mary is very puzzling, indeed. Mark (6:3? clearly states that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and had several brothers and sisters. If Mary needed a husband to produce all these children, how come that she had no physical father for Jesus? According to the Christian mythology Mary was God's bride but she got married to a man. Obviously, she did not have the ability to stay a virgin. Nor did God care about her virginity. Yet the Christian Church has sung praises of celebacy! John 6:42 further confirms that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Luke 2:48, however, provides the conclusive evidence because Mary herself refers to Joseph as the father of Jesus. Of course the next verse seeks to contradict it but it is the evidence of the mother that shall be held reliable and final. Revealed religion is the greatest secular business that has ever existed and its success solely lies in its power to brainwash people with the promise of eternal life, an assured place in heaven and total safety from hell. Such fascinations being supernatural in character, are logically

beyond the power of a normal person. Therefore, the merchants of divinity have to create a mythological figure of super-gigantic proportions who must look great and numinous enough to make supernatural promises look natural, and deliver them with the same ease as an eagle shows in capturing a sparrow, an elephant in carrying a bag of cement or a camel in crossing a furlong of desert. The Virgin Birth is a part of the miracles that Jesus is supposed to have performed in rebuking the sea and winds, exorcising devils, healing the sick, raising the dead, transfiguring in the presence of his disciples, feeding thousands of people with a couple of loaves of bread and fishes and, above all, the resurrection. Trinity 4. Though Trinity is treated as the basic doctrine of the Christian faith, there is no evidence in the Bible that it is the original principle of Christianity. Reluctant though the Christians are to admit, it is a variant of the Hindu precept: Trimurti which is an expression of the Reality in three forms. This is a developed concept and was not finalised by the Christians until the end of the 4th century A.D. It grew out of the Great Commission which commands the disciples to convert and baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Math 28:19). In 11 Cor. 13:14 is to be found the apostolic benedictions which also contributed to the growth of this doctrine. Since Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, though blasphemous according to the Jews, it had to be displayed as based on the strict monotheism of the Old Testament. The Cappadocian Fathers eventually gave it its present interpretation which declares that the three constituents of Godhead are of the same essence In other words, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the three modes of expressing the One God, and are not distinct within the being of God Himself. Jesus and viceroyalty The faithful are always inclined to brush the fiction of their beliefs with the varnish of facts, no matter how feeble, fictitious and farcical, but an independent seeker of truth is entitled to look at their scriptures with investigative detachment. When we adopt this approach, Jesus appears to represent what I have repeatedly called "the theory of Divine Viceroyalty" which enables its practitioner to declare his own Godhead in the name of God as His prophet or messenger. Let us see how Jesus developed this theme: He propounded that God is one and all powerful; everything is possible for Him and He is love. Having declared that, he told mankind that God wanted to be loved sincerely and passionately. What was the relationship of Jesus with God? St. Luke (11:49) speaks of a divine system of prophets and apostles who are sent by God to guide mankind. For example' John, the forerunner of Jesus, was a prophet (John 3:27-28). And so was Jesus, People called Jesus ``the prophet of Nazareth". In fact, the Bible depicts Jesus as a prophet who came into the world to establish the truth. He himself made it known unambiguously that it is not he who dispenses salvation but God; what he preaches is God's doctrine and not his; he has come to the earth to do the will of his Father who is greater than he is. However, this relationship of prophethood and human inferiority starts crumbling when Jesus the man and son, begins to assert his own divinity. It is claimed; 1. Everything has been delivered to the Son by the Father who cannot be known without the agency of Jesus (Matt. 11:27). 2. Everything has to be asked of the Father in Son's name, and it may be granted (John 15:16). Father gives Son the entire power of judgement (John 5:22).

4. All-power in heaven and earth is claimed to be invested in Jesus who commands his disciples to baptise nations "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). 5. St. John, Chapter One advances the doctrine of God and Word which asserts the co-existence of God and Jesus. In Ch. 10:30, Jesus asserts that he and his Father are one, and verse 38 makes this claim final. 6. Eventually, Jesus dominates God by telling Him to glorify him (Jesus) because he had existed with Him (God) before the universe. 7. Through the device of viceroyalty which initially consisted of prophethood and Sonship, he wanted to establish his own Godhead (John 13:13). How Jesus sought Godhead The urge of dominance demands submission; devotion through love and self-debasement (known as worship) is the highest form of submission which is available to gods only. This is the reason that men with a burning dominance-urge seek Godhead. To start with, Jesus declares: 1. He who is not with me is against me (Matt. 12:30). 2. There is only one way that people can establish their relationship with Jesus, that is, loving him more than anybody else, including one's father or mother and son or daughter (Matt. 10:37). He goes even further and demands that to be his disciple, one must hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters and even his own life (Luke 14:26). Bribe to the Faithful 3. The only way to secure salvation is by giving up all one's relations and possessions. In return, one shall get a hundred fold reward and an everlasting life. What a model of divine love! It advocates renunciation and degradation of all those who have a natural claim on our love and respect, and thus undermines all cultural and spiritual values. Since this is the most difficult game to play. Jesus places irresistable temptation in the way of those who are equally self-centred and will stop at nothing for the hope of salvation. He tells them directly and through his disciples: 1. The true work of God, is the belief in Jesus (John 6:29). 2. Those who have not seen yet believe, are the blessed ones (John 20:29). 3. A Christian with a grain of faith can command a tree to be uprooted and planted in the sea (Luke 17:6). It is obviously the least that a Christian can do. Is there one Christian alive today, including the Pope, who can do so? Since there is not one Christian having this capability Christianity calls its own bluff and proves the hypocrisy of faith which is nothing but the extreme form of selfdeception. Grace and Salvation 5. Having pitched sky-high the value and sanctity of blind faith, his disciples struck at the root of law and morality despite the fact that the New Testament upholds the authority of the Mosaic laws, and purity of deeds. They did so to make conversion easy and developed the fascinating

trick of Crucifixion for tempting the unbelievers and sceptics to embrace the ravishing idol of faith and renounce the goddess of reason, who is deaf and dumb to the overtures of fools. The basic approach of this philosophy, though captivating, was simple: why suffer the pangs of deeds when the paramountcy of faith can secure the desired goal? It is the part of man's attitude to love the opportunities that guarantee him reward for doing nothing; man will not toil for food and shelter if he is assured a free and fruitful living. Therefore he is inclined to follow the religion that promises him eternity without moral effort which entails self-discipline and hard work. The process of salvation through faith and grace is well described in Chapters 4 and 5 of Romans. However, I may draw attention to the following: a. Christians are not under the law but grace (Romans 6:14). b. If you confess Jesus to be your Lord you shall be saved (Romans 10:9). c. Grace to be grace has got to be irrelevant to works (Romans 11:6). d. The life of a just Christian is based on faith (Gal. 3:11). e. Law is a curse, and Christ has liberated us from it (Gal. 3:13). f. Law is not for the righteous but the wicked (I Timothy 1: 9-10). Chapter 11 of Hebrews also glorifies faith to assure the faithful that they are on the winning wicket. Working of Grace Redemption from the curse of the law, contributed to the formation of the Christian principle known as Grace which is the gift of divine favour that ensures salvation of the believer. This grace is given in Christ, and is always initiated by God. Thereafter, man must respond to God and the responsibility to continue l this relationship solely rests upon him. It is believed by the Christians that God's saving grace is bound to the sacraments but it is not guaranteed by them. It is because God is free to grant grace to whom He likes and when He likes. He is not bound by any principle. What good is it to be God and observe a rule of conduct? Aren't God's viceroys and anointed rulers on earth dictatorial, despotic and destructive? Why should He be fair to the non-Christians? Hindus of India and Buddhists of China, when thrown into hell, shall have no right to complain that they did not receive the saving grace because they were born into nonChristian families. Obviously what is grace for the Christians, is disgrace for the nonChristians! Sin (Human Nature) 6. To give the principle of Grace a magical appeal, the Christian Fathers have devised an extraordinary interpretation of human nature. Genesis 1:26 declares that God created man in His own image, and likeness, and gave him superiority over other creatures. The Tree of Knowledge Here, the emphasis that God not only created man in His own image but also after His own likeness, seems to prove similarity between God and man, or at least their basic common nature. If this were true, man could not go astray, regardless of what he might believe in. Yet the Christian Fathers have invented a philosophy which renders man evil by nature and thus incapable of attaining salvation without God's grace. As the biblical story goes (Genesis, Chapter 2), God created man and woman and appointed the Garden of Eden as their abode where there was neither unhappiness nor sickness, nor death. Above all, they did not have to toil for their living. Everything was gratis, and as desired. However, God grew in the Garden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and forbade Adam, the genitor of mankind, to eat its fruit. Being misguided by his wife, Eve, they both ate the (1) forbidden fruit and (2) committed the cardinal sin which became the fountain of human sorrows such as toil of agriculture, the pain of

childbirth, disease and death. It is to encounter this sin that God sent Jesus as grace to mankind for saving them from eternal death. However, if we look deeper into this episode, Genesis 3:22 tells us that God is alarmed by the fact that man becomes like Him by knowing the difference between good and bad. Forbidden Fruit and its true meaning 1. It clearly shows that God had not created man in his own image and likeness because "man becomes like God" only after he had eaten the forbidden fruit. 2. God must have created man as an animal which had no sense of good and evil. Since the forbidden fruit gave man the knowledge of good and bad and thus increased his chances of selfelevation through moral conduct, i.e. the ability to avoid the evil and pursue the righteous path, God was alarmed by jealousy in case the man attained divinity. It follows that eating the forbidden fruit was a righteous act because it infused man with moral virtue but the good Lord branded it as a sin! Assuming that the biblical interpretation of sin is correct, even then man is innocent of this charge because: 1. It was wrong of God to expose man to such a devastating temptation which he could not resist 2. God is incompetent to give man an uncorruptable nature. 3 Since God claims to have created man in His own image and likeness, He is as much likely to go astray as man is. 4 Creation of man is just a childish fun for God, otherwise He would not have given man such a perishable nature which could not stand the test of one act of disobedience. The Original Sin The creator God is responsible for what He has created, yet man is used as a scapegoat to carry the can of divine follies. This event of eating the forbidden fruit against the express command of the Maker, is termed as the Original Sin. Explaining the Christian steriology, that is, salvation beliefs and doctrines, St. Paul described in his letter to the Romans that even at birth, a child was subject to God's wrath and condemnation for being a descendant of Adam who had committed the original sin. It meant that man's nature, if it was ever clean, had been polluted, and he was incapable of attaining salvation through his own will and skill. His only hope lay in the saving grace of Christ. Salvation as a business The lot of mankind would have been much easier, had St. Paul remembered that Adam committed the sin because he did not have the ability to show complete obedience for avoiding what he did. Had he said that it was unfair of God to punish the Children of a thousandth generation for the offence of their parents, it would have served the cause of. justice which man needs so desperately. But such a comment would have led to the dissolution of Christianity, and under such circumstances St. Paul himself would have gone out of apostolic business. After all, there is no business like salvation business because its customers are always willing to pay a disproportionately high price for this most illusive commodity with money, blood and life, and also impatient to crawl before the merchants of divinity. Crucifixion: Resurrection 7. However, we should remember that the Christian concept of sin transcends the boundary of disobedience to God because it also implies man's subjugation of himself to the devil. Therefore, Christology propounds that Christ was incarnated, that is, appeared in human form as divine grace; he was crucified as an atonement for the original sin and rose again for the resurrection and salvation of mankind (the believers).

"Treasury of the merits of the Saints" It is the merit of atonement by crucifixion which had made salvation possible At papal level, the philosophy of merits cost the Christians a good deal in money and lives. The Church held that although man is a sinner, he is given by God a measure of grace which he can augment by his own deeds. Thus he may die with a greater credit than he needs for his salvation. These extra credits, not needed by the saved people, constituted, what was called in papal jargon, "the treasury of the merits of the saints". Those who lacked sufficient credit of their own but did not want to suffer the pangs of purgatory, could pay the papal authorities an appropriate sum of money for transferring some credit from the Saints' treasury of merit to balance the sinners' books! Spiritual Banking: Indulgence This transfer was called "indulgence" and the sinner had to make a contribution to the Church for it. It was Martin Luther of Germany who first protested against this spiritual banking, effectively. Many a woman had agreed to mortgage her chastity, for the promise of salvation, to the local priest whose celebacy played havoc with him. This was one of the major causes of concubinage in the Christendom. Examination of Crucifixion Though the Saints' treasury of merits has been exposed, the merit of Christ's crucifixion as grace for the original sin has not yet been questioned by the faithful. Let us have a rational look at it: 1. Jesus is the Lamb of God who carries away the sins of mankind (John 1:29). 2. Jesus tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9). 3. Jesus died for human sins and rose again for our resurrection (Romans 4:24-25). 4. God loved the world so much that He sacrificed His only son to save the world (John 3:1618). 5. God is one. Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for mankind, is the mediator between God and man (Timothy 2:5-6 also Matt. 20-28). 6. Jesus, the beloved Son of God, existed before the creation (John 17:24). 7. God redeemed mankind through the blood of Jesus. Everything was created for him, and in him should dwell all fullness (Coloss 1:14-19). From these paraphrased verses, it becomes evident that: 1. Jesus was the Lamb of God who was crucified as atonement for man's sin. 2. Since he tasted death for every man, he ranks as Grace. 3. Jesus was crucified for human offences and raised up for our justification, that is, to make our resurrection possible. 4. Jesus was God's only begotten son. 5. God crucified His Son to save the world because He loves it most dearly. 6. Whoever believes in Christ cannot perish but shall live for ever. 7. Jesus is the Saviour of mankind through his crucifixion because he was crucified as a ransom

8. God is one. Therefore, there can only be one mediator between God and man - that is Jesus Christ. 9. Jesus existed before the world and was loved by God in the state of preexistence God created everything for Jesus. 10. He is the image of God and represents "all fullness". Even a cursory look at the above postulates is sufficient to shatter the edifice of Christianity: 1. The concept of Jesus as "Lamb of God" was developed to exploit man's weakness for the sacrificial cult which holds that gods are appeased and pleased when members of the human species or animals are killed as offerings to them. This custom has been practiced all over the world since inception of history. Though human sacrifice has become extinct with the advance of civilization animal offering is still as rampant as ever, especially in the Islamic lands. a. Crucifixion was a device of torture and death, used to eliminate the wicked such as traitors, murderers, rapists, robbers and the like. Using such a heinous contrivance to achieve the purpose most holy, negates the value of Christ's death on the cross. 2. Christ's death could not have been Grace because he did not die for mankind. The Christians believe it as a matter of faith and not as fact. Mark clearly states in verses 60-63 of Chapter 14 that Jesus was convicted by the Jews on a charge of blasphemy. Though Pontius Pilate, the governor, believed in his innocence, the Jews were so sure of his guilt that they fully accepted the responsibility for his crucifixion (Matt. 27:25). To them it was the greatest blasphemy (John 19:17). a. The vice or virtue of an act depends upon the volition behind it. If I join the army voluntarily to defend my country against an aggressor, I am a patriot but if I am enrolled against my volition, then I qualify as a conscript. It goes without saying that though they both serve the same purpose, the difference between a patriot and a conscript is the same as it is between gold and brass or diamond and coal. The Bible bears testimony to the fact that Jesus did not accept crucifixion voluntarily. He was so scared of crucifixion that he fell on the ground and prayed to his Father to relieve him of this agony, knowing full well that it had been predestined for him (Mark 14: 35-36). b. My assertion that the intention of an act determines its Duality becomes even more significantin this context because the process of history as envisaged by the Bible is based on predestination. Predestination I have already stated that Jesus' crucifixion had been predestined by God and, therefore, his prayers could not avert it. Now let us look at the further evidence that the Bible provides on the subject: God has complete grip over the conduct of every particle and nothing can move without His will (Matt. 5:18). Everything that has been pre-written about Jesus in the Old Testament must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44 and Luke 18:31). Christ's life had been determined but he cursed he who betrayed him (Luke 22:22). Crucifixion was an integral part of the divine plan (John 4:34). Mercy and condemnation depend upon God's will (Romans 9:18). Even the number of hairs on a person's head is pre-numbered (Matt. 10:30).

Above all, Jesus knew that it was pre-written for him to be betrayed (Matt. 17:22-23) and he was aware of the identity of Judas who was to betray him (Matt. 26:21-25). He even told Peter how he (Peter) would deny him (Jesus) thrice before the cock crowed (John 13:38). c. We must remember that our planet which is a part of the universe, is not a Fools' Paradise; all its physical laws as well as our practical lives are governed by reason because we do not respect fantasy as the basis of reality. Unfortunately, however, we accept exaggeration as moderation, the profane as sacred, and the impossible as possible, in the field of religion to provide ourselves with the shield of faith as a protection against the fear of the unknown. It is just a make-believe. One ordinary event of history will not convince a reasonable person that it can form the foundation of the divine salvation plan. Again, we ought to remember that predestination is the focal point of Christianity. If everything has been precisely determined then both Grace and Crucifixion are a farce. God becomes solely responsible for everything that happens and man plays no part in it. Then, why should he crawl for Grace or seek indulgence? Secondly, the God who is projected as Love, is a false God if He is so cruel to His own innocent Son. Even Pilate did not want to crucify a guiltless person. It shows that Pilate was far ahead of the Christian God in the field of justice and mercy. Again, if God can be so ruthless with His own son who had done no wrong, how would he treat mankind which is not related to Him by blood, and what would He do to the wrong-doers? 3. The idea of resurrection, as stated in an earlier chapter, had existed in the Middle Eastern countries long before Christ's birth. Declaring himself as the fountain of resurrection through faith, was a masterly stratagem to win over converts. Of all things, death frightens man the most. Attaining eternal life just through faith in Jesus, was the greatest bargain that man could ever dream of. Is it just of God to punish Jesus for the sins of mankind? It is wrong to apprehend A for the wrongs of B. Justice demands that every one should be held responsible for his or her own deeds. Again retributive punishment is a sign of barbarity, and it is only reformative punishment which forms a part of civilisation or divinity; punishing A for the sins of B. does not reform the latter; it rather encourages him to persist in wrong doing, and, therefore, comes within the category of barbarity. Is God a barbarian? True meaning of Resurrection a. The belief that Christ was resurrected after crucifixion clearly proves that he was never really sacrificed in the true sense of the word. If his death had any connection with salvation at all, he would not have been resurrected; his crucifixion must result in his permanent extinction. The myth of resurrection shows clearly that God, neither loved the world enough to save it by sacrificing His "only begotten Son", nor such a sacrifice could have any relevance to salvation. Business of divinity A prettier myth than this was never invented. It is good for the divine business because the hope of salvation tempts believers to bow and bend at the priestly altar and place their hardearned wages at the feet of the ecclesiastical idols as oblation. No wonder that these holy men live in superb homes in a luxurious style without ever thanking the Lord for the manipulative power that He so naively bestowed upon them. On the contrary, the believers intoxicated with the miracle of resurrection indulge in beautiful dreams of the next world without ever complaining about the twists, trickeries and torments of this life. Is there really any relevance between crucifixion and salvation? How will it revive the dead body of Mark if I kill Anthony? How will it satisfy Arthur who is dying of thirst if I drink a gallon of milk? How will it give me the flying power if I rear a colony of eagles? An action to be effective, must have a rational link with the purpose it aims to achieve; I can, for example, fly by manufacturing an aeroplane and not by rearing a colony of eagles. 4. If God has a son, he must also have a father, a grandfather, and so on. Such a God cannot be omnipotent or the creator. The true God would not devise the salvation plan - so totally removed from the working of the cosmic phenomenon which is the sole index of the divine purpose.

5. You cannot crucify the ones that you love dearly, especially when they have done nothing wrong. The true love demands that one should give one's own life to save one's beloved and righteous son. Shouldn't God have adopted this path - the only right path? Didn't He use His son as a scapegoat for creating the world which has become so vicious, vain and vindictive? Can such a God be rational, respectable and redeeming? 6. A belief cannot be a substitute for a deed. I believe that food satisfies hunger. Can belief in the satisfying power of food save me from the destructive effects of starvation? I will have to work hard to earn money for buying food. Not only that, I will have to digest it as well, to preserve myself. It is not the belief but the deeds that can form the basis of hope and eternity. 7. Crucifixion of Jesus as a ransom, raises a tricky question because ransom is always paid to a blackmailer: a kidnapper, a slaver, a thief or an aggressor. Was this ransom paid to God? If He received it, then He is not divine or magnificent but a thief, a trickster and a tormentor. It also jeopardises the sanctity of Jesus himself. What did he do to give his own life in ransom? Finally, if the ransom was paid to the devil, then he is more powerful than God who recedes into second place, and thus ceases to be the Creator, the Omnipotent and the All-Wise. 8. If Jesus is grace, then mediation becomes irrelevant because the former implies mercy whereas the latter means justice. 9. Since God loved the world so much that He crucified His own son to save it, He could not have created the world for Jesus. The world must have extisted before Jesus because he was dispensable but the world was not. It is not the belief but the deeds that can form the basis of hope and eternity. 10. Jesus is the image of God and represents "All fullness". Does he? The truth is that Jesus, if he ever lived, was a human. To say that he was fathered by God, or he had no physical father, is totally against the natural law. Nobody has ever been born without a father because this is the law of nature. To cover it up, Christians claim that Jesus was God himself in human flesh, and he came into this world to quell evil. This is a Hindu doctrine called Avatara and so is the Trinity - the three in one, which is also the adaptation of the Hindu principle Trimurti, yet the Christians have never acknowledged their indebtedness to India. When the Christians are questioned on this issue to prove that Jesus had no physical father or he was God-incarnate, they say that it is not a philosophical doctrine but a principle of faith. This is not good enough because in all our serious dealings, plannings and deliberations, we are always guided by reason and evidence. It should be even more so in the matter of faith because the doctrine of life-after death is more serious than anything else. Of course, certain things cannot be proved or disproved conclusively, yet they cannot escape rational scrutiny and only a very tiny part of a problem can be accepted on trust, and that is only if it is not against the established rules of reasoning. Thus faith, unless it is treated as a make-believe or purely daydreaming, does not qualify as faith - without conspicuous authority of reason. Put it differently, faith is far more a fact and far less a fiction. When this test is applied, Jesus looks every bit a human. We certainly cannot accept the validity of the train of miracles ascribed to him. If such miracles were true, his vicars, such as pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. must be able to perform them in his name. But this is not the case. Therefore, they cannot form part of any serious discussion and I shall have to draw reader's attention to certain facts which prove he was a man, and not God. Consider the following: a. As a human, Jesus knew that to err is human. When an adulteress was about to be stoned to death, he expressed his displeasure by stating that let the sinless cast the first stone at her (John 8:7). b. Like most humans, he loved flattery and praise because he loved being called `'Master" (John 13:13). c. More than other humans who long for honour, Jesus wanted to be glorified even by God (John 17:5).

d. When Mary, whose brother Lazarus had died, wept with grief, Jesus was so moved by her tears that he also wept. (John 11:35). e. Jesus inflamed the wrath of the Jews. As they were about to stone him, he escaped. He hid himself and went out of the temple as Jews took up stones to cast at him. Jesus ". . . would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him". He was obviously afraid of pain and death like any other human. God is surely immune to such conditions. f. When he was hungry but found no fruit on the fig tree, he cursed it in a fit of temper (Matt. 21:19). Cursing trees is not a sign of divinity, it expresses human temperament. g. He rebuked and swore: angrily called Peter "Satan" and he named Herod a "Fox". Swearing is a part of humanity, and not of godhead. h. He possessed a partisan character because he prayed for the well-being of his followers only (John 17:19). i. When asked if he was the Son of God, he replied that this is what they said (Luke 22:70). ii. When Pilate questioned him if he was the King of the Jews. He answered "'You have said it" (Luke 23:3). History has recorded it quite clearly that neither the Jews accepted Jesus as the Son of God nor did Pilate, the Roman governor, acknowledge him as the King of the Jews. In each case, he refused to give straight answers by putting words into the enquirer's mouth. Is it not human to evade the issue and adopt a circuitous route when convenience demands it? j. When unclean habits of his disciples were questioned (Matt. 15:2), Jesus defended his disciples in a way which is more than astonishing. Cleanliness has been described as ``godliness" yet Jesus who claimed to be God, did not uphold this tradition. One wonders if he himself was an admirer of water. k. Jesus was impolite to his mother. One wonders what she had done to deserve this attitude. The man who claimed to be God and believed in the Mosaic laws which command children to respect and honour their parents, ignored this commandment completely. Even if we may have difficulty in agreeing his fatherhood, Mary, without doubt, was his mother in the true sense of the word yet he addresses her as "woman", rebuffs her and seems to disown her (John 19:26). It is amazing that he acknowledges to be her son, yet he shows her no respect by way of politeness such as calling her "Mother"! 1. He tells people repeatedly that the Mosaic law is binding on all his followers. Therefore, it is incumbent upon him to set a practical example of obeying the divine code, but he openly flouts it. The Old Testament preaches that Yahwe is the only God and has no son. This is the foundation of the Scriptures yet he declares himself to be God or God's Son, depending upon the situation. m. There is yet another episode in the New Testament which I find disturbing but shall refrain from interpreting it as a deference to the believers: John 13:21-23 states that when Jesus was about to be crucified, he was in a troubled state of mind: he declared to his disciples that one of them would betray him. As he uttered these words, the disciple whom Jesus loved, lay with his head resting on the bosom of Jesus.

His disciples wondered who it could be, but none of them had the nerve to ask Jesus about the would-be traitor. Simon Peter thinking that the one who lay on Jesus' breast had a special relationship with him, beckoned to him for solving the mystery (John 13: 24-26). This man who is repeatedly referred to as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", did have the courage to ask him, and he answered. "The disciple whom Jesus loved" is mentioned again in Chapter 20 when Mary Magdalene finds the stone taken away from the sepulchre. He outruns Simon Peter and reaches the sepulchre first but is the last to enter it. This hesitation shows his effeminate character. When Jesus had been resurrected, "that disciple whom Jesus loved" was the first to notice the Lord. During their last encounter, Peter asks Jesus about his beloved disciple as what he was good for. It is an obvious reference to the worthlessness of the beloved disciple. Jesus' leaning towards this particular disciple was so pronounced that John repeatedly calls him "the disciple whom Jesus loved". Considering that Jesus was not married and allowed this disciple to lie on his bosom and ask him such questions which other disciples were afraid to ask, leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. What was Christ's relationship with this "beloved disciple" as the other disciples called him? Let the reader interpret it for himself. I have been reluctant to mention this episode but it is wrong to ignore it in a serious book like this. Kingdom of God The concept of the Kingdom of God is probably better described as an extension of the principle of resurrection. Originally, the early Christianity inherited it from Judaism, and it expressed two expectations: firstly, an earthly messiah from the house of David was to establish a kingdom on earth with its capital at Jerusalem. The second expectation told of the heavenly messiah, Son of man, who was to inaugurate a heavenly Kingdom which was to be participated by the elected comrades of all times after resurrection. As time marched on, these two expectations got fused into the concept of the 1000 year or millenial Kingdom, which is founded on the belief that it is a Kingdom of the privileged elect, especially the martyrs and all those who defended Christianity with their blood and bones. It is they who will receive the administrative and judicial posts and thus hold the reins of power. This is the carrot that has kept the Christian mouths watering throughout the centuries. The concept of the Kingdom of God draws its charm from the age-old doctrine of heaven and hell which has been exploited by gods and gurus to activate human instincts of fear and favour for securing blind submission. What is Christian heaven? Heaven being a reward for faith, is a place of rejoicing and excessive pleasures.This is where God lives (Matt. 5: 12 and 16). From its foundation to the top, it is built with gold and costly stones such as jasper, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald, sardonyse, sardius, chrsyolite, beryl, topaz, jacinth, amethyst, and so on. The pleasure of heaven is equally balanced by the pain of hell in the New Testament. After all, people are driven both by expectations of fear and favour. What is the Christian hell? It is a lake of fire and brimstone where the devil, his angels, false prophets and non-Christians shall be tormented day and night (Matt. 5: 22).

After the last Judgement, all non-Christians will be thrown into hell. This is how, through the concept of hell and heaven, Jesus exploits human instincts of fear and favour for securing Godhead! The Christians I can indulge in a considerably longer discussion of Christianity but I think I have said enough to expose its basic dogma. A more important reason for not prolonging this argument is that Christians have become highly civilised all over the world and equate Christianity with humanity. They are prepared to argue all religious matters with patience and tolerance, and treat religion as a personal affair; neither they use it to usurp others people's rights nor do they use it as a weapon of persecution and murder. This is an achievement and I salute them openly. The right to be religious This is exactly what I believe: religion is a personal affair and must not be the cause of interference in other people's lives, especially by harsh persuasion and violence. Again, it must be a source of tolerence and mutual respect. Under such circumstances, a person is entitled to have any religion he chooses.

CHAPTER EIGHT ISLAM Hope value Nobody has ever exploited more successfully than the prophet Muhammad, the human mechanism of fear and favour. He knew that death is man's worst dread and eternity is his greatest desire. He presented these two opposite concepts with the mastery that has remained unsurpassed until our time. Further, as a patient in pain feels relieved to see a doctor irrespective of whether or not he can cure him, mankind is hypnotised by the person who claims to possess a supernatural remedy for all human ills. His promises of protection carry a hope value. The prophet provided that hope through his own agency as the divine messenger. For hope of everlasting life, man will frantically catch any straw to save himself from drowning but when the straw is presented as the oar of eternity under the dazzling hues of revelation, he holds it with the tenacity of faith which defies reason and rules of normal conduct. The stronger his faith the more exclusive his loyalty to the revelationist - at the expense of humanity. The revelationist who seeks personal glory through the imagination of his followers usually projects himself as a prophet or an incarnation of God. Significance of viceroyalty Every prophet encounters a good deal of opposition from the people whose liberties he tries to curb by imposing new rules of conduct on them. He protests his innocence by declaring that he is only a vicar and claims that the message he delivers is not his, but God's. Therefore, he has no axe to grind in it. People find it hard to believe on rational grounds because they know that the vicar or the messenger is not asking them just to believe in God but is stressing emphatically that unless they believe in him as well, their belief in God alone is of no avail to them because it will not save them from the leaping flames of hell. Cult of divinity However, every community has a certain number of individuals who possess high moral, intellectual and administrative abilities but are credulous. The credulity of such persons is not unlimited; it is usually confined to a particular bias or susceptibility and may be the foundation stone of one's personality. This bias or susceptibility may be the inclination towards a faith or fallibility to the particular charm of its presenter. When such people are converted to the new faith, they rank as Apostles or Companions of the revelationist and mobilise their intellectual, political and administrative forces to drum up the divinity of their leader with tales of supernatural performances and sparkling miracles for creating a divine legend to enhance the emotional appeal that forms the crux of every religion. As time marches on there emerge new followers who seek divinity for themselves but lack the courage and inspiring skill of their

founder to set up a new faith. However, they follow the same course of action: as he (the founder) projected himself the Vicar of God, they declare themselves to be his lieutenants. They are more easily accepted by the people who already believe in what they preach but with a greater fervour. Thus these new gurus invent more uncanny tales about the miraculous powers and nominous accomplishments of their founders to intensify the existing emotional appeal for the masses who become pawns in the chess game of their faith. Muhammad, the pivot of salvation The Prophet Muhammad of Arabia, declared at the age of forty that he was the Messenger of God; he was sent by the Almighty as a warner to frighten people so that they should believe in Him and do good works. However, belief in God alone and righteous deeds did not possess sufficient power to save them from hell because for the belief to be effective it must include Muhammad who had been appointed by God as His sole source of guidance which can be achieved through revelation only, and human deliberation and efforts play no part in it: Say: "Bring a Book from God that gives better guidance than these, and follow it, if you speak truly . . . Surely God guides not the people of the evildoers . . ." (The Story 50). Here the belief in Muhammad takes precedence over Allah (God) because those who do not follow Muhammad are evildoers and Allah does not guide them despite the fact that it is only the evildoers who need guidance! Reality of hell and heaven Having instituted his paramountcy as the foundation of the Moslem faith, it became easy for the Prophet to establish the credibilty of hell. One must remember clearly that both hell and heaven are an Islamic reality, and not metaphorical statements because their descriptions are graphic and entry into these places as a reward or punishment is a binding promise on Allah. Muhammad activate' human instincts of fear and favour with a masterly description of heaven and hell: ". . . Therein they shall have what they desire dwelling for ever; it is a promise binding upon Allah, and of Him to be required" (Salvation: 15).

Description of Hell What is Hell? a. The roaring fire of God lit over the hearts in stretching columns (The Backbiter). b. "Surely those who disbelieve in Our signs - We will roast them at a Fire; as soon as their skins are completely burned, we shall give them in exchange other skins, that they may taste the torture. Surely God is All-mighty, All-Wise" (Women: 55). c. The dweller of hell: "is given to drink of oozing pus, the which he swallows, and can hardly follow and death comes upon him from every side, yet he cannot die; and still awaits him a grim torture" (Abraham: 20). d. ". . . As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut

and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatsoever is in their abdomens and their skins shall be melted; for them await hooked iron rods; as often as they desire in their anguish to come forth from it, they shall be restored into it, and: "Taste the torture of the burning!" (The Pilgrimage: 20). e. The dwellers of hell shall eat of the Tree of Ez-Zakkoum What is the Tree of Ez-Zakkoum, "It is a tree that grows in the root of hell; its spathes are as the heads of Satans and they eat of it, and it fill their bellies, then on top of it they have a brew of bong water then their return is unto hell". (The Rangers. 60-65) The theme of the Ez-Zakkoum is further continued in "Smoke: 45" "Behold the Tree of Ez-Zakkoum is the food of the wicked, like molten copper, bubbling in the belly like the bubbling water. "Take him, and thrust him into the midst of Hell, then pour over his head the torture of boiling water!' f. "Faces on that day humbled, labouring, fatigued, scorching as a boiling fountain, no food for them but cactus thorn unfastening, unsatisfying hunger". (The Enveloper)

Retributive punishment This description of hell hardly needs any comment from me except that the civilised man has come to the conclusion that punishment cannot be retributive; it must be reformative. Allah is the least interested in reforming the unbelievers. He is obsessed with revenge yet He calls Himself the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, All-pardoning, All-forgiving, All-gentle, AllClement, and so on. These are His frequently repeated attributes though He also calls Himself "All-terrible". What will you call the person whose desire for vengeance surpasses the wildest flight of imagination? What will you call a person who enjoys torture and is delighted by extreme severity? What will you call a person who is glad when other people feel sad? Divine unstability It proves one thing beyond a shadow of doubt: Allah is subject to the spasms of happiness and unhappiness; when He is believed He is happy and when he is not believed He becomes extremely unhappy. He, obviously has a very unstable personality and thus cannot form the proper object of worship and adoration. What is Islam? Islam means "surrender", that is, Allah wants man to submit to Him under all circumstances. To secure man's total obedience, Allah is prepared to bribe when the threat of violence proves abortive. This is the reason that He offers man the choice between hell and heaven. Having studied the description of hell, we may now cast a glance at heaven: Description of Paradise

a. Paradise is offered to a Moslem in exchange for total surrender: "God has bought from the faithful theirselves and their belongings against the gift of paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed . . ." (Repentance: 110). b. Life in the paradise shall be as physical as it is on the earth, and carries a special fascination to the Arabs living in torrid and treeless surroundings: "See, the inhabitants of Paradise today are busy in their merriments along with their spouses, reclining upon couches in the shade; therein they have fruits, and whatever they desire." (Ya Sin: 55). c. What will the believers find in the Paradise? ". . for them is reserved a definite provision, fruits and a great honour in the Gardens of Bliss reclining upon couches arranged face to face, a cup from a fountain being passed round to them, white, a pleasure to the drinkers, wherein no sickness is, neither intoxication and with them wide-eyed maidens flexing their glances as if they were slightly concealed pearls" (The Rangers: 40-45).

Wide-eyed beautiful women This is a highly poetic description of the female beauty whose intrinsic appeal is intensified by its ability to coax and allure with delicate bodily gestures. In fact the wide-eyed, pearl-like and ever-young houris (paradise women) versed in the art of flexing their glances present a spectacle of charm which is often dreamt of, but seldom found on earth. Maidens with swelling breasts The fascination of the paradise is further augmented by the assurance given to the believers: "Surely for the God-fearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling bosoms . . ." (The Tiding: 30). A view of paradise Even more alluring details of the beautiful houris with wide-eyes and springing breasts are to be found in "The All-Merciful" (45-75). For the sake of brevity and better understanding, I may paraphrase its contents: The Paradise is the sign of Allah's mercy. It is a garden of delight which abounds in trees, shade and gushing fountains where Lord's bounties consist of "reclining upon couches lined with brocade", and where the fruits of the gardens are nigh to gather. The good and comely houris who are as lovely as rubies and as beautiful as coral, are virgins: they have not been touched by any man or jinn. They are cloistered in pavilions where they recline on green cushions and attractive carpets, and the pavilions themselves are surrounded by green, green pastures profusely studded with fruit-bearing trees such as palms and pomegranates. The splendour of the Paradise becomes even more dazzling when wine is made a part of the paradisiac habitation: "Surely the pious shall be in bliss, upon couches gazing; you find in their faces the shining bliss as they are offered to drink of a wine sealed whose seal is musk - so after that let the strivers strive and whose mixture is Tasnim a fountain at which to drink those brought nigh". (The Stinters: 20-25).

Vessels of silver and beautiful immortal boys Attractions of the Paradise keep multiplying themselves to assure the believers of the tremendous rewards which await them: ". . . God has . . . provided them radiancy and delight and recompensed them for their patience with a Garden, and silk; therein they shall see neither sun nor bitter cold; near them shall be its shades, and its clusters hung meekly down, and there shall be passed around them vessels of silver, and large drinking cups of crystal, crystal of silver measured very exactly, And therein they shall be given to drink a cup whose ingredient is a ginger; therein a spring whose name is Salsabil Immortal youths shall go about them; when thou seest them, thou supposes" them dispersed pearls when you see them then you see the divine happiness and a great kingdom. Upon them shall be green clothing of silk and brocade, they are embellished with bracelets of silver, and their Lord shall give them to drink a pure draught. Behold this is a reward for you, and your toiling is thanked" (Man: 10-25). Purpose of young boys The presence of the immortal young boys who are immune to the rigour of time, and the deliberate mention of their beauty which matches the radiance of scattered pearls, and the fact that they are dressed up like brides, makes one wonder about their real purpose. The boys are again mentioned in the "Mount" (20): "While they hand therein a cup one to another wherein is no idle talk, no cause of sin, and there go round them youths, their own, as if they were concealed pearls". Abundance of houris and boys The moselms believe that each of them shall be given seventy two houris. Here, the words "their own" show that in addition to the ever-young maidens, each faithful shall have his own boys. We must note that there will be "no cause of sin". Does this phrase convey the ordinary sense of the words or does it imply that nothing can create sin in paradise? It is a confusing issue and is made even more baffling by the fact that the boys have been repeatedly projected as a thing of physical beauty. However, it is better if its interpretation is left to the believers. Since the Koran is addressed not only to the Arabs and Moslems but to the entire mankind, one is inclined to raise a few points about hell and heaven: 1. God desperately wants to be believed and worshipped by man. If it were not so, He would not offer the alternative of hell and heaven: the former amounts to blackmail and the latter constitutes a bribe which is a sin itself. A desperate God lacks stable nature and is, therefore, not worthy of submission. 2. Paradise is a form of temptation based on sex appeal. Its enormity is enhanced by the fact that the faithful will have no duties whatever, and all their time shall be taken up by merriments. Is sexual gratification the goal of existence?

3. The description of hell is contrary to Allah's claim of being merciful and compassionate. Interpretation of hell and heaven The educated Moslems evade this issue by declaring that hell and heaven are metaphorical descriptions and refer to psychological experiences. This cannot be true because Moslems believe that every word of the Koran is literally true. Secondly, they believe in an individual's physical resurrection on the Day of Judgement. Obviously, as in this life we want food and sex, the resurrected bodies will have similar needs which will be provided by the Paradise. If this were not true, the paradise would have no purpose at all. Again, a metaphor is brief e.g. black as coal, white as milk, etc., whereas the Koranic description of the paradise is detailed and graphic. Provision of the paradise is a promise binding on Allah and therefore it has got to be real and not metaphorical. Otherwise, He is just fooling the faithful. Moreover, all Moslems believe in the physical existence of the paradise, and this is the main reason for their belief in the Koran. Without anticipation of houris and youths, the numbers of the Moslems shall dwindle dramatically. Why will people deserve hell or heaven in the life-after-death? The Moslem scholars argue that man has been given free will, that is, the power to choose the right or wrong, and therefore, he qualifies for a reward or punishment. To prove that Islam is based on reason, they further argue that nobody will go to hell or heaven without a fair trial which will be held on the Day of Judgement. Rational though this statement looks on paper, it loses its glow of reason when subjected to a logical examination, and also disturbs the fundamental claim of the Koran as the Divine Book: "What, do they not delve deeper into the Koran? If it had been from other than God certainly they would have found in it much inconsistency" (Women: 80).

Mutazilites and Asharies Before proceeding any further, let me state for better comprehension of the issue that the Moslem scholars started indulging in philosophic expression c.757. It became fashionable to discuss whether the Koran is eternal or created. The school known as the "Mutazilites" (the Seceders) denied the eternity of the Koran because it implied total predestination. The caliph AlMamun championed this interpretation. However, Abul-Hasan Al-Ashari (873-935) preached that Allah is the supreme sovereign and He does what He wills. He has predetermined every act and event and is the primary cause of everything that is or may happen. Inconsistencies of Koran The Mutazilites and the Asharies stood on the opposite sides of the fence. If the Koran is the basis of the argument, then the latter are right but their accuracy creates inconsistencies in the Koran. Let us review this situation with reference to: a. Determinism, and b. The Day of Judgement a. Determinism. "Say, O God, Master of the Kingdom You give the Kingdom whom you will, and seize the Kingdom from whom you will, you raise whom you will, and you abase whom you will . . . you

are all-powerful . . . you provide whomsoever you like limitlessly" (The House of Imran: 25). "Whomsoever God will, He leads astray, and whomsoever He will, He sets him on a right path" (Cattle: 35 and 125) ". . . If God had willed, He would have guided men all together" (Thunder: 30). "It is not given to any soul to die, except by the leave of God, at an appointed time" (The House of Imran: 135). Allah and vice It is quite clear that everything is predestined by God. Why then the Day of Judgement? Obviously Allah has made people what they are, and has deliberately withheld guidance from those who have sinned. Satan accuses Allah When we examine the doctrine of vice and virtue, Allah seems to be the sole and active cause of vice. In the myth of creation as described in El-Hijr (25-40), Iblis (Satan) accuses Allah openly for perverting him. He asks Allah for a respite until the Day of Judgement so that he can lead people astray as a revenge. Strange as it may seem, the most compassionate Allah grants this request to Satan so that he can help Allah to fill Gehenna (Hell) with people! Satan, the agent of Allah Not only the perversion of Iblis (Satan) is a deliberate act of Allah but Iblis also acts as His agent in misleading mankind: "Have you not seen how we sent the Satans against the unbelievers, to prick them?" (Mary: 85). Yet the All-Merciful declares in the same Chapter that He would "drive the evildoers into Gehenna, herding". b. Day of Judgement: Is there really any point in resurrecting people for trying them? A trial unless fair, is just a farce and the source of injustice. Is it right of me to blind someone and then accuse him for not being able to see? If it is Allah who is the cause of human perversion through Iblis or the creative design, then has He any reason to resurrect people for punishing and rewarding them? One must also remember that in Al Araf (178) Allah declares: "We have created most of the people and Jinn for Gehenna (Hell) only . . .". The Day of Judgement is an unjust principle and therefore below the dignity of God. The Prophet like the Christians, borrowed it fom Zarathustara. Dynamics of this doctrine become obvious when we realise that death is man's greatest fear, and the concept of resurrection gives him the hope of eternity. Having laid it down as one of the fundamental principles of the Islamic faith, the Prophet substituted himself for Jesus Christ and declared that he would share the Throne of Justice with Allah on the Day of Judgement; he would sit on the right hand side of God and exercise his intercessionary powers to damn or deliver people. Flocking to the prophet, who claimed to possess the divine stature, was quite natural for the ordinary mortals who had been frightened by the description of the most torturous hell. Is it not natural to shun the raging flames and run into the most luscious embraces of houris with musky bodies, swelling breasts and large restraining eyes? Scene of Resurrection At this juncture, it seems appropriate to describe the Islamic scene of the Day of Resurrection and Judgement:

Koran repeatedly assures people that they will be resurrected for the dispensation of justice according to the evidence that has been collected and recorded from birth to burial: The Recorders "He sends recorders over you till, any one of you is visited by death, our messengers take him and they neglect not. Then they are restored to God, their protector, the true. Surely His is the judgement; He is the fastest of censors". (Cattle: 60)

Register of deeds Surely it is We who bring the dead to life and write down what they have forwarded and what they have left behind, everything We have numbered in a clear register" (Ya Sin: 10). "We have been registering all that you were doing" (Hobbling: 519). Book of evidence "With us a book recording" (Qaf: 1). The Watchers In Qaf, The Splitting and the Night Star, the Koran repeatedly says that God has appointed Watchers, i.e. two angels over every human; they record everything he does. Significance of evidence in Islam On the Day of Judgement, everybody shall be presented with his book of record and told: "Read thy book" (The Night Journey: 10-15 and JO, also the Resurrection: 10). The relevance of testimony is so vital to the Day of Judgement that besides the presentation of individual records, a person's own limbs such as tongue, hands, feet will give evidence about him! (Light: 20 and Distinguished: 15). Doubting Arabs Arabs found the concept of Resurrection hard to believe: "What, when we are dust, shall we indeed then be raised up again in new creation" (Thunder: 5).

Resurrection as God's promise The Koran declared that disbelief in Resurrection shall be punished with hell, and positively asserted that Resurrection "is a promise binding on Him (Allah)" (The Bee: 40). Islamic view of justice The concept of justice as depicted by the Koran seems to be based on natural justice: No intercession "and warn them against the Day of Judgement when, stricken with extreme fear, the hearts are in the throats and the evildoers have not one loyal friend, no intercessor to be heeded" (The Believers: 15).

No befriending " . . before a day comes wherein shall be neither haggling nor befriending" (Abraham: 35).

Allah, the sole judge ". . judgement belongs not to any but God. In Him I have put my trust; and in Him let all put their trust who put their trust" (Joseph: 65). The strange turn So far the Koranic statements conform to the principles of natural justice, but for lack of favour, do not seem to carry an effective appeal to the audience for conversion to Islam. Then the tone changes: The Prophet assumes intercessionary role "Intercession will not avail Him except for him to whom He gives leave" (Sheba: 20 also The Star: 25). Gradually, the Prophet's intercessionary powers become the plenary powers: "No! I swear . . . truly this is the Word of a noble Messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne secure, obeyed, moreover trusty" (The Darkening: 15).

Perversion of justice According to the Moslem belief, the Prophet will sit on the right hand side of God on the Throne of Justice and his intercession will be final. The hymnal poetry of Islam zealously sung by the believers make no apology about their belief that Allah cannot pardon anyone whom He likes but Muhammad can. They hold that the first element that ensures salvation is the belief in the Prophet. Natural justice has always been based on deeds and not beliefs. What kind of justice is associated with the Day of Judgement? It makes fun of the concept of Justice because intercession is as alien to it as heat is to snow or as flying is to a reptile. Is physical resurrection possible? The idea of physical resurrection also looks puerile. The modern scientists claim that man as a species has evolved over a period of ten billion years but on the Day of Judgement when the trumpet is blown, the dust and ashes of the dead will instantly resume their original form and present themselves for an unusual brand of justice which condemns most of them to an eternal hell without any regard to the righteousness of their deeds. Man is so frightened of death that he will believe even in self-deception if it offers him a glimmer of hope to evade death. Muhammad and Resurrection However, it may not be a bad idea if the faithful remember that the Prophet himself was afraid of the Day of Judgement (Cattle: 15) and being a mortal was equally subject to Resurrection: "You are mortal; and they are mortal; then on the Day of Resurrection before your Lord you shall dispute" (The Companies: 30). This verse throws an entirely different light on the role of Muhammad in relation to Resurrection! The Koran contains a multitude of contradictions. Let me give a few examples. Koranic contradictions

The Prophet claimed: "This Koran could not have been produced apart from God . . ." (Jonah: 35) and stressed that "if it had been from other than God, surely they would have found in it much inconsistency" (Women: 80). We have just seen that Allah had predestined everything yet he holds people responsible for their actions. He wants to punish them with hell and reward them with heaven but both these concepts are below the dignity of the Universal God. Again, to enforce his judgement, He will resurrect the dead but His method and standard of judgement are quite contrary to the principles of natural justice. Finally, the doctrine of physical resurrection is far-fetched and irrational. The Koran In view of the above facts, one feels inclined to look into: a.

the purpose and b. composition of the Koran. The purpose of the Koran

a. The Koran has been revealed to guide mankind but it does not guide the wicked: " . . Who is further astray than he who follows his whim without guidance from God? Surely God guides not the people of the evildoers" (The Story: 50). "God does not guide the evildoers" (The Table: 55). Since the righteous require no correction, and it is only the evildoers who need guidance, the Koran, obviously, has no purpose. Composition of the Koran Regarding the composition of the Koran, we should remember: ". . . a Koran we have divided for you to recite it to mankind at intervals, and we have sent it down piecemeal" (The Night Journey: 105).

Arab objection

It means that the Koran was not revealed all at once but successively. The contemporaries of the Prophet argued that as his revelations were connected with certain occasions, they could not form God's Book. If the Koran were a Divine Book, it must have descended upon him as a whole. Its relationship with particular events, they held, proved that the Koran was Muhammad's own authorship which he pretended to be from Allah: "The unbelievers say, 'Why has the Koran not been sent down upon him all at once?" (Salvation: 30). To stress the point Allah claims: "Of course, We have sent the Koran and of course, we are its guardian" (El-Hijr: 8). ". . . it is a glorious Koran, in a guarded tablet" (The Constellation: 20). "No man can change the words of God; and there has already come to you some news of the envoys" (Cattle: 124).

Muhammad declared that Allah had sent a prophet to every locality along with His Word. Especially, the Books of the Jews and Christians were divine revelations but had been interpolated and tampered with! Word of God is uncorruptible One wonders if God's previous Books were corruptible, why did God have to protect the words of the Koran? One cannot say that God guards the Koran because it is His last Word: Jesus had a similar claim about His Word, yet Muhammad emphasised that it had been falsified. Again, if God must guard the Koran because it is His Word, He must have guarded the Old and New Testaments as well because they also were the Word of God. Composition of Koran Man is man only when he is a rational being and, thus, cannot be deprived of the rights that reason bestows upon him. Therefore, one is entitled to review critically even the Word of God for satisfying one's curiosity. The following points must be borne in mind when considering the composition of the Koran: 1. Muhammad claimed to be the Messenger of God; he declared that the Koran was the message of God who revealed it piecemeal at certain occasions. 2. Koran is not created and has always existed; it is only its revelation which was made in terms of time. 3. Koran is the final expression of God's will and He will not send any further guidance or messengers. 4. The Koran promulgates the Law of God; it is complete, immortal, immutable and capable of guiding through all the situations, eternally. 5. There is no certainty that the whole text of the Koran was ever committed to writing during the lifetime of the Prophet. Nobody can make such a claim either. The Prophet was said to be illiterate. The fact that in the beginning, there were many hypocrites among his followers, it is likely that his messages had not been recorded exactly the way he might have dictated them. Being illiterate, he could not have known it. There is no proof that his famous amanuensis Zaid Ibn Thabit had acted for him right from the start of his apostolic ministry. 6. It is generally agreed that the first revelation (Sure XCVI) dates back to A.D. 610 and the last one was received shortly before the death of the Prophet on 8th June 632. Thus it took twenty two years to complete the revelation of the Koran. Again, the Koran was not compiled during the lifetime of the Prophet. As revelations gathered momentum they were written upon scraps of parchment and leather, flat pieces of stone, camel's ribs and shoulder-blades, and palm leaves. The fragments were never numbered and dated and were deposited in various receptacles without regard to any particular system. These scattered fragments were compiled long after the death of the Prophet and the first authorised text appeared during the caliphate of Uthman C.660. It means that from the commencement of revelations in 610 to 660, it took fifty years to collect various bits and pieces of the Koran from different people and containers. One ought to remember that revelations were recorded not only by the appointed recorders but also by the members of the Prophet's company, i.e. the followers who assembled around him most of the time. Again, there were some followers who memorised the Koranic verses, and their memories also served as the record for the compilation of the Koran. 7. The 114 Suras or Chapters which constitute the Koran, lack chronological and rational sequence and thus most verses do not form a cohesive narrative to facilitate an easy understanding, especially to the layman to whom the Koran is addressed. 8. If Allah has accepted the responsibilty of guarding the Koran, then it extends not only to words but its meanings as well.

9. Comprehensiveness is claimed to be the integral part of the composition of the Koran: the Moslems believe that there is nothing which has not been mentioned in the Koran, and this claim extends to astronomy, the physical laws of nature, scientific formulas and discoveries, medical and biological innovations, history and knowledge of the future events and anything else one can think of. 10. The Koran confirms the divine origin of the Old and New Testaments and exalts Moses and Jesus to the rank of a prophet. In view of what I have said above, one comes to the following conclusions: 1a. Since the Koran was the message from Allah, and this is what made Muhammad the Messenger, his foremost duty was to compile it himself in the most orderly fashion. He, obviously, neglected this task which deserved the highest priority. 2a. If the Koran is not created and has always existed as it is, then all the events that it refers to, had been predestined. Therefore, it is futile to send a Messenger to argue for or against them. Thus, the Koran has no purpose and is quite unnecessary. 3a. If the purpose of revelation is to guide people, then it has to be a continuous and everlasting process because they need leadership all the time. Again, time is progressive and human culture keeps changing constantly. If revelation ceased after Muhammad, then it implies that the generations that follow him after 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 years must live at the same level as did Muhammad. This makes the Koran an unnatural book. Christ and Mani also claimed that the revelation had ended with them, and did not want anyone else to be believed in as a Messiah or Messenger. It is like the power-hungry mundane rulers who want to rule every territory to the total exclusion of other monarchs. This is what makes revelation, the device of dominance. 4a. The Koran contains some eighty verses which can be construed to contain the Islamic Law. They are confined to a very limited area and cannot extend to the vast reaches of life. This is the reason that the Shariah or the Islamic Law could not be introduced in its pure form in any part of the Moslem empire and they had to borrow from the Roman, Byzantinian and Persian legal systems. The very nature of law makes it (the law) mortal, that is, laws become obsolete and irrelevant over a period of time and have to be replaced by new laws. Therefore, the Koranic Law which was revealed nearly 1,400 years ago cannot be immortal, comprehensive and everlasting. Its proof is found in the Koran itself: "And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it . . ." (The Law: 100). Further evidence of this is to be found in The Spoils: 65, The Bee: 100 and The Most High: 6. If several verses had to be rescinded and replaced by others within the twenty years of the Prophet's ministry, then how come, the rest of the Koran can stay intact over a period of centuries and millenia? 5a. The Prophet's illiteracy and the fact that the whole of the Koran was never written down in his lifetime, are likely causes of ommisions from, and additions to, the Koran. 6a. The facts that had been preserved haphazardly, when compiled after half a century must be liable to error by way of omission, addition, exaggeration or understatement. This state of affairs is confirmed by the fact that the abrogated verses, which should not form part of the Koran, are still there. Again, this is especially true because many of the Prophet's followers were hypocrites who intentionally wanted to harm Islam. 7a. The Koran lacks chronological order completely. The Prophet received his first revelations when he was in Mecca and the last ones came down to him during his residence in Medina. The compilers omitted the chronological sequence completely and arranged Suras in their order of

length. The Koran is arranged back to front and the Western Scholars have called it "history in reverse order". This is the reason that an ordinary believer cannot comprehend it readily despite the Koranic claim that Allah has made it "of easy understanding". If Allah has not thought it fit to guard the sequence of the Koran, which is vital to its true preservation and understanding, He cannot be expected to guard its words. I am referring to the pre-Uthman era which covers a period of fifty years. There is no doubt that since Uthman's authorization, the words of the Koran have suffered no change, whatever. 8a. Of course, words have their significance but of much greater importance are their meanings. If word "orange" comes to mean apple or banana, then the preservation of its letters, spellings and pronunciation ceases to have any significance at all. This is exactly what has happened to the Koran. The words are the same but different scholars stand miles apart in interpreting them. If it were not so, Moslems would not be divided into so numerous irreconcilable sects. Has Allah really guarded the Koran? 9a. If everything, as the Moslems claim, has been described in the Koran, they would have been the most advanced nation of the world because all they would have to do would be to look into the Koran to find out the remedy for cancer and the formulas for the atom bomb and space control. This has obviously not happened. It is a pity that they declare the existence of such knowledge in the Koran only when non-Moslem scientists have made them public! It is a tragedy of Islam that the Moslems look for things in the Koran which are not supposed to be there. 10a. If Prophets like Moses and Jesus were needed before Muhammad, they should be needed after him as well because life goes on varying all the time. If the earlier divine books could be tampered with, the Koran being a similar book cannot escape falsification. And falsification does not have to be wilful it can happen quite naturally by way of inadvertent addition or deletion. As mentioned under 4a and supported by the quotations from The Cow, The Spoils, The Bee and the Most High, the Prophet was liable to forget certain verses which could not have been recorded. This amounts to omission; replacing them with new and better verses constitutes revision which is against the Koranic claim that it is immortal and immutable. Finally, as a footnote to the above observations, I may add that there are several narratives in the Koran which are not attested by the facts of history. Let me give you two examples: 1. In the cave (80-95) the Koran has portrayed Alexander, The Great (Dhool Karnain) as a prophet and a monotheist. He was nothing of the kind. Knowing full well that Philip of Macedonia was his father, he claimed to be the son of the chief Egyptian god Amon. After conquering the Persian Empire, he demanded deification and was acknowledged and worshipped as a god in many countries. Again, the Koran is not aware of the story of Alexander's retreat from India. Nor has history recorded that he built any wall of iron and brass to keep the imaginary Gog and Magog at bay. These facts are more relevant to the Chinese Wall but Alexander had not put his foot on the Chinese soil. 2. In Chapter XXXI, headed as Lokman, the Koran depicts Lokman as if he were a true Moslem who practiced Monotheism and condemned shirk, that is worshipping someone else in association with God. Alcmaeon was a student of Pythagoras who established a school of natural philosophy at Crotone in southern Italy. Known to the east as Lokman Hakeem or Lokman the Wise or Lokman the Physician, he earned this reputation for investigating the animal structure; he distinguished arteries from veins, established brain as the centre of intellect, discovered optic nerve, and because of his insight into the development of embryo, came to be acknowledged as the founder of embryology. But Lokman the Wise was not a monotheist; he was a polytheist and an idolater! Nature of Koranic Law Having briefly considered the purpose and composition of the Koran, one is inclined to look into the nature of the Koranic Law.

The Koran clearly lays down its fundamental principle of law: "(O Prophet) you shall find no change in the law of God" (The Confederates: 61). I must point out that the "Law of God" has also been interpreted as the "Way of God" and the "Custom of God". As Moslems believe that the Koran is the Law and it is unchangeable, it makes no difference whatever, whether we translate the~original verse as the Law of God, the Way of God or the Custom of God. Equality at Law The second priciple of the Koranic Law declares that nobody is above the law and it equally applies to the Prophet himself: "Follow you what has been revealed to you from your lord;" (Cattle: 105). Allah commands the Prophet: "and this (Koran) is My Path, straight; so do you follow it, and follow not other paths lest they mislead you from His path" (Cattle: 150). One cannot underestimate the warning given in this verse yet we find it difficult to reconcile some of the prophet's deeds with the Koranic Law. Let me give you just two examples: ". . . marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hand owns; so it is likelier you will not be one-sided" (Woman: 2). This verse allows polygamy on two conditions: a. A Moslem can have up to four wives provided; b. He is equitable, and does not show partiality to any of them. Essence of law It is the essence of jurisprudence that unity of the law is preserved under all circumstances i.e. there cannot be two laws, one for the mighty and one for the meek, and secondly, a law-giver is required to observe his own laws while he allows them to stand. This is especially true in the case of the Prophet because every word of the Koran is addressed to him for direct compliance. History has recorded that the Prophet did not pay any attention to either of these rules because: When he died he left eight widows and one Christian concubine, and He was partial to Aisha. His deep inclination towards Aisha, the youngest wife, caused a good deal of discord amongst his other wives. The following verses testify to this fact: "It is possible that, if he divorces you Allah will give him in exchange wives better than you, women who have surrendered, believing, obedient, penitent, devout, giving to fasting, who have been married and virgins too" (The Forbidding: 5). The furore that the Prophet's partiality caused, is well portrayed by this verse: the attitude of his wives bordered on rebellion and he threatened to divorce them and replace them with better wives. When this threat did not prove effective, Allah sent down a special law which applied to the Prophet's wives exclusively: "Wives of the Prophet, whoever among you commits a gross indecency, for her the punishment shall be doubled; that is easy for God. But whomsoever of you surrenders to God and His Messenger, and does righteousness, We shall pay her wage twice over; We have prepared for her a generous reward. Wives of the Prophet, you are not as other

women. If you are God-fearing, be not vile in your speech, so that he in whose heart is sickness may be lustful; but speak honourable words" (The Confederates: 30) This law reveals not only the matrimonial background including "vile speech" of Prophet's wives but also lays down that if the Prophet's wives obey him, they will be entitled to twice the reward of an ordinary wife and if they disobey him they will attract double the punishment! Why? Draw your own conclusions. There cannot be duality in a true law because equal application is its essence. Without this virtue, it cannot guarantee justice, its main purpose. Yet the Koranic law provides duality to justify the Prophet's deeds: "You can suspend any of your wives as you will and receive any one of them as you will; and whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside, it is no sin for you; now it is likelier they will be comforted and not grieve, and everyone of them will be well pleased with what you give her" (The Confederates: 50). As already stated, the basic condition of polygamy is that the husband is equitable to all his wives and does not practice partiality. But here Allah has given special dispensation to the Prophet who can suspend any of his wives as he pleases but his followers can't! One must remember that the Koran projects Muhammad as the model for all the faithful. If the Prophet can't practice his own laws, how can they be binding on the believers? Allah obeys the Prophet The Prophet declared that he is a servant to God but it is evident that it is God who follows the Prophet's inclinations: Here are some examples: "O believers, enter not the houses of the Prophet, except permission is given you for a meal, without watching for its time. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have had the meal, leave, neither lingering for idle talk; That is annoying to the Prophet, and he is ashamed before you; but God is not ashamed before the truth. And when you ask his wives for any thing, ask them from behind a curtain; this is cleaner for your hearts and theirs. It is not for you to hurt God's Messenger, neither to marry his wives after him, ever; surely that would be, in God's sight a monstrous thing" (The Confederates: 50). These verses clearly pertain to Muhammad's personal life. He was quite capable of saying all these things to his followers directly, yet he chose to put these words in God's mouth! Change of Kibla "We have seen you turning your face about towards the heaven; now We will surely turn you. Turn your face towards the Holy Mosque; and wherever you are, turn faces towards it" (The Cow: 135).

What this verse records is known as the change of Kibla i.e. the direction which Moslems face to say prayers. It is quite clear that when the Prophet started looking towards the sky, God took the hint and with a view to satisfying His Messenger He changed the Kibla i.e. the direction of

prayers from Jerusalem (Bait Ul Maqaddas) to Kaaba (The Holy Mosque). Obviously, Allah has no will of His own! Jerusalem, the original Kibla Originally, the Prophet had appointed Jerusalem as the Kibla to convince the Jews that Islam was a continuation of what had been revealed to Moses, Abraham and Noah. To win them over, the Koran repeatedly stated that the Children of Israel were an exalted race and God had raised them above the rest of mankind. When praise failed to secure conversion of the Jews, the Prophet decided to deprive them of this honour. Moslem interpretation of Kibla However, the Moslems insist that Jerusalem as the Kibla was meant to be a temporary affair; they faced it simply because the Kaaba was full of idols and the Moslems being the followers of Allah, could not adopt it as the Kibla until such time that all the idols had been removed from there. History does not support this claim: this change of Kibla took place in 624 A.D. when the Kaaba was still the holy shrine of the Quresh where they worshipped their idols, and it was not until 630 when the Prophet entered Mecca as a victor and removed statues from the Kaaba. Another reason for the change of Kibla In fact the change of Kibla from Jerusalem to Mecca was adopted by Muhammad to increase his influence amongst the Arabs. The Kaaba had been the holiest shrine of the Arabs for centuries. In 622, Muhammad migrated to Medina, the home of the Jewish tribes such as the Banu-Nadhir, the Banu-Kuraiza, the Banu-Kainuka. This occasion of flight (July 16, 622, the Hijra) was designated by the Caliph Omar as the official beginning of the Moslem era. The Prophet planned to visit the Kaaba as a pilgrimage. His Meccan followers who had left Mecca ten years earlier to be with the Prophet, and felt homesick, were delighted by this suggestion. This pilgrimage to the Holy Place also wrought a considerable change on the minds of the Meccans who were jolly pleased to realise that their shrine was to be designated as the most sacred centre of Islam. Jerusalem as the Kibla, did not gratify the Jews, the stiffnecks, who would rather break than surrender, but it had a great effect on the Arabs who despite being tough, proved to be tender. Owing to its stupendous influence on the progress and history of Islam, it was surely the master stroke that proves the wisdom and farsightedness of Muhammad as a man. Allah, the factotum of Muhammad In fact, Allah does everything not only to please Muhammad but He also acts as his factotum: "O believer, advance not before God and His Messenger; and fear God. God is All-hearing, All-knowing". "O believers, raise not your voice above the Prophet's voice, and be not loud in your speech to him, as you are loud one to another, in case your works fail while you are not aware. Surely those who lower their voices in the presence of God's Messenger, those are they whose hearts God has tested for godfearing; they shall have forgiveness and a stupendous wage" (Apartments: 1).

The Prophet was human Of course, it is only fair that the led should respect their leaders by controlling their manners and tone of voice. But is it for God to tell such ordinary and commonsense things to intelligent people? It is a myth that the pre-Islam Arabs were barbarians: their literature and traditions of honour openly defy this view. No, it is Muhammad who speaks as God in the disguise of revelation.

Slavery Muhammad was human and was influenced by the culture, and social traditions of his time exactly the same way as all greater and lesser mortals have been throughout history. Take slavery, for instance. He took it for a natural institution. Despite all the torture, disgrace and humiliation associated with it, he did nothing to abolish it. Of course, it is true that he was kind to slaves, and thought of freeing slaves as a virtue, but Christianity had expressed a similar attitude towards slavery long before him. The Code of Justinian (528) had abolished the old class distinction and the freed men were given all the privileges of free men. It went even so far as to put the chastity of a slave woman on par with that of a free woman by treating the rape of the former punishable by death whereas Islam authorised the master to have sexual intercourse with his slave girls. Slavery and God If revelation carries a grain of truth, then the foremost duty of any divine Messenger is to condemn and abolish slavery. Why? Because liberty is the greatest Virtue for being the stepping stone to humanity from the lower form of existence. If you don't believe me, think of yourself as a slave and imagine yourself being chained, starved and whipped; visualise your wives and daughters being raped and your children being sold away to strangers. Is there anything more atrocious and horrible than this state of affairs, called ``slavery"? The value of liberty emerges when we realise that this is the only cure for the venom of servitude. I am not prepared to adore the God who is all out to humiliate mankind Relationship between God and man is moral and not that of a master and slave How would God feel if He were subjected to similar pain and humiliation as man is? A true God cannot be callous, unjust and uncaring. Therefore, the major purpose of His prophets will be to eliminate slavery outrightly. Islam and Womanhood Another example is the plight of women. They have always been held as an object of sexual pleasure, a toy for man, the source of mischief, impurity and hypocrisy. Treating them with inferiority has become the mark of male superiority. Of course, the Prophet did say that paradise lay at the feet of one's mother but it proved to be only of theoretical reverence because in addition to being mother, a woman is also a person, a daughter, a sister and a wife. Apart from motherhood, women suffered more under Islam than any other major faith or doctrine. The Prophet imported the Persian custom of veiling or purdah into the Moslem society (Light: 30), and by confining their role to the household behind curtains under the watchful eyes of the male members, turned them into virtual house-prisoners. To gauge the condition of women one has only to look at the Koranic laws: 1. "Your women are a tillage for you; so come unto your tillage as you wish" (The Cow: 220). 2. Men are superior to women (The Cow: 225). 3. Man can divorce woman at will but she can't (The Cow: 225, The Confederates: 45, Divorce: 1). 4. A man can have four wives and an unlimited number of concubines but a woman must have only one husband. 5. One man is equal to two women as a witness (The Cow: 280). 6. Likewise, a brother is entitled to twice the inheritance of his sister (Woman:l0). 7. Man is free to administer a dose of violence to his wives when he thinks they are not obedient: ". . . chastise; banish them to their couches and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them" (Women: 35). Islam, and sex outside marriage There is evidence in the Koran winch forbids sex outside marriage:

"Marry the spouseless among you, and your slaves and handmaidens that are righteous; . . . and let those who find not the means to marry be abstinent till God enriches them of His bounty. Those your right hand owns but seek emancipation, contract with them accordingly . . . And force not your slavegirls to prostitution, if they desire to live in chastity" (Light: 30). However, this law has been contradicted by other verses: " . . Marry such women as seem to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hand owns" (Women: 1). "O Prophet, we have made lawful for you your wives whom you have given their wages and what your right hand owns . . ." (The Confederates: 45). "What right hand owns" has been understood as a slave. In the context of sex, it has been invariably interpreted and practiced as a slave woman. Extending sexual relationship to women who are not one's wives, flaunts the sanctity of marriage. Yet Allah prescribes the sentence of death for adultery but not for those who can afford to own slave girls. The Moslem Caliphs, Sultans and Kings set up vast harems containing not scores but hundreds of pretty and delicate women. The Emperor Jehangir of India is reported to have had six thousand women in his seraglio. The royal bedchambers were administered by specially castrated men known as "eunuchs" who mastered the arts of lechery, grooming and stimulating and accelerating the appetites and pleasures of their masters, immune to the grip of Allah for having the riches and power to keep concubines. No matter what they did to these helpless girls, could not count as a sin. These harems were obviously a reflection of the Paradise on earth. Concubinage However, it was not the Prophet who invented the institution of concubinage. Abraham had a concubine, and so did Jacob. May be it had originated in Persia where the stern monarchs needed soft and saccharine sexual dolls to reduce the rigours of the ruling rituals which they usually performed well. Duality of Muhammad and Allah Nobody can blame the Prophet for the institution of concubinage which he accepted as a going tradition. It demonstrates that he was a mortal and thus subject to the cultural influences of his time. Though it clearly shows that he was human, the matter is not quite as straightforward as it looks because the Koran depicts him both as a man and God. The Moslems claim that they believe in one God; in fact, they believe in the Duality of Muhammad and Allah as the Christians believe in the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. However, this duality is totally different from what Zoroasterism, Manicheism and Neoplatonism preached. It holds that Muhammad as Messenger, and God are one, and Muhammad being the dominant component of duality, is the ultimate object of worship. This belief is less an article of theory and more of practice. The Prophet as a man I am sure that Moslems all over the world will accuse me of misrepresenting slam Honesty demands that before getting excited, they must deliberate on the following quotations sincerely. Let me quote the Prophet's human side first: The Prophet is God's Servant: "And if you are in doubt regarding that we have sent down on Our servant . . ." (The Cow: 20).

The Prophet neither knows the Unseen nor is he an angel: "I do not say to you, 'I possess the treasures of God' I know not the Unseen. I say not to you, 'I am an angel', I only follow what is revealed to me" (Cattle: 50). 3. The Prophet's function is only to warn people; he is not even given the responsibility to guide them: "You are only a warner; and God is a Guardian over everything" (Hood: 15). "You are not responsible for guiding them; but God guides whomsoever He will" (The Cow: 270). 4. The Prophet has no power to perform miracles; he is just a man: "The unbelievers say, 'Why has a sign not been sent down upon him from his Lord? You are only a warner . . ." (Thunder: 5). Despite people's fervent demand, the Prophet failed to show a miracle and declared: ". . . say 'Glory be to my Lord! Am I aught but a mortal, a messenger?"' (The Night Journey: 95). 5. The Prophet obeys God's commandments and nobody has a share in the Divinity: "Say, I have only been commanded to serve God, and not to associate aught with Him. To Him I call, and to Him I turn" (Thunder: 35). "Therefore call you, and go straight as you have been commanded . . ." (Counsel: 10). 6. God's commandments to obey, and pray to Him are equally binding on the Prophet as on any other believer: "Proclaim your Lord's praise, and be of those that bow, and serve your Lord, until the certain comes to you" (El-Hijr: 95). 7. The Prophet is equally subject to Allah's reward and punishment: a. "If He will, He will have mercy on you or, if He will, He will chastise you" (The Night Journey: 55). b. "Set not up with God another God, or you wilt be cast into Gehenna (Hell), reproached and condemned" (The Night Journey: 40) 8. The Prophet is a mortal and subject to Resurrection: "You art mortal; and they are mortal; then on the Day of Resurrection before your Lord you shall dispute" (The Companies: 475). 9. The Prophet is neither aware of the Unseen nor does he know what will become of him: ". . . and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner" (The Sand-Dunes: 5). 10. God confirms Muhammad's humanity loud and clear: "Know you therefore that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for your sins, and for the believers, men and women" (Muhammad: 20). Purpose of Revelation After this description of Muhammad's humanity, it seems impossible that a man can claim to be God, and even surpass Him in the exercise of Divinity. This is the magic, and purpose of revelation which enables an ordinary mortal to declare himself as God's Messenger or Messiah and issue all the commands in His name. Since nobody can see God or approach Him without the agency of the Messenger (or Messiah), it is the Messenger himself who begins to rank as

God and is treated as such by his followers. Look at the following quotations from the Koran and see the truth for yourself: Basic Islamic belief 1. The basic Islamic belief is Shahadah: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger". It is surely the quality of the message, and not the messenger that counts. Therefore' it makes no difference whether one believes in the messenger or not if the message itself is sound, sincere and salubrious. But this does not apply to Muhammed as a Messenger: "Upon the day the unbelivers, those who disobeyed the Messenger, will wish that the earth might be levelled with them" (Women: 45). Muhammad and Godhead Obedience to Muhammad is a must if you do not want to suffer the perils of the Day of Judgement. Just belief in God alone will not save you. Muhammad obviously has a share in Divinity. Otherwise disbelief in Muhammad could not be fatal. 2. Obedience to Muhammad is as compulsory as it is to God. a. "Say, Obey God, and the Messenger" (The House of Imran: 25). b. "Obey God and the Messenger; haply so you will find mercy" (The House of Imran: 125). ". . . Whoso obeys God and His Messenger, He will admit him to gardens . . ." (Women: 15). "O believers, betray not God and the Messenger . . ." (The Spoils: 25). Muhammad and God are coextensive 3. Having asserted that Allah is nearer to man than his jugular vein, the Koran declares: "The Prophet is nearer to the believers than their selves . . ." (The Confederates: 5). Now, God and Muhammed have become coextensive! Muhammad as mercy for mankind c. As the Bible called Jesus the Grace for Mankind to give him divine status the Koran pronounced Muhammed as the Mercy or Blessing for all beings: "We have not sent you, except as a mercy unto all beings" (The Prophets: 100). Muhammad and God as co-sovereigns 5. Now Allah and Muhammad become co-sovereigns and command together: "It is not for any believer, man or woman, when God and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys

God and His Messenger has gone astray into clear error" (The Confederates: 35).

Muhammad as model 6. God tells believers that Muhammad is the model of action for them and they must follow him in all details: "You have a good example in God's Messenger for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day . . ." (The Confederates: 20).

Muhammad and the unseen 7. Now we find God sharing the knowledge of the Unseen with Muhammad though previously it was exclusive to Himself: "Knower He of the Unseen, and He discloses not His Unseen to anyone, except only to such a messenger as He is well-pleased with" (The Jinn: 25).

Muhammad and Divine Authority 8. After elevating himself as the model of conduct and having gained parity with God in the right to command, and to be obeyed, now he exercises the divine authority in conjunction with Allah: "A release, from God and His Messenger, unto the idolaters with whom you made covenant. A declaration from God and His Messenger, Unto mankind on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage: God is quit, and His Messenger, of the idolaters" (Repentance: 1).

Muhammad and intercession 9. To begin with, the Prophet had no intercessory powers whatever: "Ask pardon for them, or ask not pardon for them; if you ask pardon for them seventy times, God will not pardon them" (Repentance: 80). "Do you know what is the Day of Judgement? That is the day when no one shall be able to benefit anyone else; the command shall belong unto God" (The Splitting: 15). Now the situation changes; the Prophet's claim to divinity rises as his political power grows: "truly this is the word of a noble Messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne secure, obeyed, moreover trusty" (The Darkening: 15-20). The basic Moslem belief in the intercessory powers of the Prophet is founded on these verses. They believe that, on the Day of Judgement, Muhammad will share the Throne of Justice with God. He will sit on the right hand side of Allah and the Prophet's recommendations will be binding on Him! God and Angels worship Muhammad 10. The gradually changing situation is now reversed:

"God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace" (The Confederates: 55).

Moslems worship Muhammad Praying peace (salaam) and reciting darood (repetitive recitation of Muhammad's name) are forms of salutation and devotion reserved for Muhammad. They are an integral part of the Islamic form of worship known as Namaz or Salaat. Thus not only Allah and angels but also Muslims directly or indirectly worship the Prophet. The Moslems of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh hold special sessions to praise Muhammad and recite hymnal songs to adore him. If this is not Prophet-worship, then what is it? This is the Duality that I have referred to. How can Moslems call themselves monotheists? In fact, Muhammad encouraged Prophet-worship during his life-time. He declared that Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Jesus, all had the powers to work miracles but when his contemporaries asked him to show them a miracle so that they could believe him without hesitation, he could not do so. The Koran testifies to this fact repeatedly. Yet he claimed to be the last and the most superior prophet and encouraged his followers to believe in his supernatural powers. History has recorded that whenever he had a haircut, his disciples swarmed over one another, to gather his cut hair and nails as divine souvenirs; they even collected his spittle and the water in which he had washed his hands. It is because they believed in their miraculous virtues of healing and salvation! Again, to imprint his divinity on the subconscious mind of every new-born baby, he prescribed recitation of his name as God's prophet in its ears almost immediately at birth. The process of learning known as imprinting is said to have been discovered in 1935 by Lorenz but the Prophet knew it fourteen centuries ago! Imprinting, in a way, is a form of brainwashing. If at birth duckling and goslings are led to believe that man is their father, they follow him as his offsprings! Since faith is like a castle that one builds around one's self for severing connection with the inclemencies of the real world, the stronger its foundation, the securer one feels. The fortress of faith draws its strength from the tales of miracles that a Messiah or Messenger is reputed to have performed; the more incredible miracles a prophet is said to have shown, the greater his divinity and the higher the chances of salvation for believers! The Hadith, the Jews and the political opportunists Originally, Islam was a simple, practical faith, free from theoretical complexities. Its purity was adulterated by the Jewish hypocrites who fabricated countless sayings and ascribed them to the Prophet. They did it to avenge the humiliation of defeat. Their "contributions" helped to build up the body of the Hadith or traditions associated with the Prophet. This began to count as the Oral Law of Islam, and has the same relationship with the Koran as the Mishna and Gemara have with the Old Testament. The political opportunists of the Umayyad and Abbasid parties concocted further additions to attain their secular goals. History has recorded that Ibn Abi AlAwja, who confessed to fabricating 4,000 traditions was executed at Kufa in 772 for this blasphemy. Of course, it is hard to challenge the piety of Al-Bukhari who first compiled the Muhammadan traditions in 870 but he did so 238 years after the death of the Prophet. Hadith means the spoken words of the Prophet. Despite the greatest care in the world, the spoken words are likely to lose their originality, purpose and meanings over such a long time. Revelation is the most effective tool of dominance-urge because it raises an ordinary mortal to the status of God and secures for him the rights of total Obedience and worship. Since God cannot be seen or contacted, the revelationist becomes the Divine Manifestation and God Himself recedes into oblivion. It is not surprising that the Moslems believe that Muhammad like Allah has ninety nine sacred names and ninety nine numinous attributes; Allah and angels pray peace to Muhammad whose intercessionary powers control Allah's sense of justice. This is the reason that Islam has come to be founded on the love of Muhammad, and not surrender to Allah who ranks as a euphemism for the Prophet. Was Muhammad God? The Moslems who know something about the Koran do not think so. In fact, to them, it is Shirk, the greatest sin. But they are a small minority. The misunderstanding lies at the folk-level which constitutes 95°10 of the Moslems. Muhammad was human, and there is a lot of evidence for it:

1. First of all, the Koran portrays him as human. He was born like any other human; he lived and died like other humans: a. He ate and drank, he walked, talked and slept; he fell ill and needed medication, and answered the call of nature like other humans. b. He possessed sexual urge which is the characteristic of all humans. The fact that he had over twelve wives, shows his natural passion for women. Again, his wives did not think of him as God. In fact, some of them treated him harshly, the Koran itself mentions the "vile speech" of his wives towards him, and history has particularly noted the impolite attitude of Hafsa, the daughter of Omar the Great. 3. Using marriage as a weapon of political power, is an old way of the secular princes. The Prophet was no exception to it. Abu Bakr and Omar were his fathersin-law and Uthman and Ali were his sons-in-law. It is these four men who firmly established Islam which had lost ground after the death of the Prophet. Among his wives, we even find a daughter of Abu Sufyan, the arch enemy of Islam. 4. The Prophet made taxation, which is a form of plunder, as the tool of dominance. Its ultimate purpose was to reduce all non-Moslems to the status of tributaries. To achieve this end he propounded the doctrine of Jehad or Holy War and declared Booty i.e. the loot, as God's Blessing for motivating his followers to kill. Robbing the peaceful commercial caravans of the Quresh of Mecca, which led to battles establishing Muhammad's political hegemony, is the natural sequence of this doctrine. Is it really Godly to kill for the joy of robbing and turning people into widows, orphans and cripples? Is it divine to call loot and murder "holy"? What kind of God can sanction carnage just because people don't believe in Him? If belief in God was so vital, He would have created mankind differently. Does God really need wars to establish His suzerainty? It cannot be the act of God who is Almighty in His own right. (For further details see the chapter: Taxation). 5. The prophet was not only born as human but he also lived and died as human During his lifetime, he was subject to the human mechanism of fear and favour: a. His uncle Abu Talib had acted as his protector until he died in 619. Sense of insecurity persuaded him in 620 to leave Mecca for Taif, a small town some sixty miles to the east. As people of Taif turned hostile, he returned to Mecca out of fear. For about a year, he was afraid for his life when in 622 some seventy three citizens of Medina came to see Muhammad and invited him to make Medina his home. He felt relieved, and asked them if they would protect him against his enemies with the same zeal as they would defend their own families. They vowed to do so and asked what reward they would receive if they got killed in shielding the Prophet. "Paradise", he answered. Fear of death, obviously, haunted him as painfully as it enervates other human beings. It is strange that even the reward of paradise, which he offered to his followers, did not tempt him to part with life happily. Nor did Allah care to protect him against the infidels of Mecca. As hostility increased, he fled to Medina in September, 622. b. His death also points to his humanity. A few years prior to his death, he thought that the people of Khaiber had served him poisonous meat. He started having unusual fevers and spells. Aisha, his youngest wife is reported to have said that the Prophet would get out of home quietly at midnight to visit a graveyard; there he would "ask forgiveness of the dead, pray aloud for them, and congratulate them on being dead". His long agony came to an end on June 7, 632 when he passed away at the age of sixty-three. Since the Prophet could not tell that the meat he was being served contained poison, he obviously, had no knowledge of the Unseen, contrary to the popular Moslem belief. He suffered the normal course of misery as a victim of poison and Allah did nothing to alleviate his pain. This negates the tall tales of the special love bond which is supposed to exist between Allah and Muhammad. Nobody can ever willingly see his truly loved ones in a prolonged agony. How could Allah?

The truth is that Muhammad was a human. But what kind of man was he? This is the real issue. So far, I have discussed him in relation to revelation, now I may assess him as a man, and the reader ought to be prepared to accept some contradictions which stem from the difference between divinity and humanity: Assessment of Muhammad Unfortunately, in the West, as a result of the prolonged crusades and ecclesiastical propaganda, Muhammad's name has been corrupted to Mahound, meaning devil, and the Koran has been described as the word of Satan. Muhammad's virtues This is a shameful and odious attitude towards the Prophet. He was sincere, upright and honest. In terms of humanity, he was an aggregate of virtues to be found rarely in one person: he was at once a thinker and trader, a general and jurist, a preacher and philanthropist, a sage and soldier, an administrator and advisor, a loving friend and father. Having been born posthumously, he had boundless compassion for orphans and widows and his laws demonstrate this fact beyond a shadow of doubt. His socialist tendencies of common care were fairly balanced with people's unlimited right to legitimate ownership. Though merciful, his judgement reflected natural justice and made no discrimination between friends and foes. The radiant smile that he possessed, never failed to win him friends. Despite being practically the ruler of Arabia, he lived at subsistence level; his food was simple, his dress was modest and though all his wives had separate huts, he didn't even have a hut of his own. He was a truly great friend in peace and a forgiving foe in war. During all those battles, he fought with courage, tenacity and determination; even his enemies cannot trace any atrocities towards him. The Prophet set a model of forgiveness which was observed by his followers: the Meccans, who had persecuted him, were forgiven almost to the last man when he returned as a victor, and Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, bade his soldiers not to molest women, children, the old and the sick belonging to the enemy. Universality of message His humanitarian spirit lay in the fact that his message was directed at the whole of mankind and not just the Arabs. Whereas Yahwe is the God of Israel, Allah is the God of the world and has no preference for the Arabs. Not only all those who believed in the Prophet formed Umma or one nation, each having equal rights and obligations, but he also advocated a subtle commonwealth with "the people of the book", that is, Jews and Christians. A proof of this fact is to be found in the society that Muhammad created in Medina. He offered to the Jews, who still practiced their own faith and traded with the Quresh of Mecca, a concordat which guaranteed them equal rights with his followers if they were willing to attach themselves with the Islamic commonwealth. There was no threat of conversion or second rate citizenship lurking behind this offer. Prophet's real strength Though the Moslems keep harping on the divine powers of the Prophet, his real strength lay in his practical abilities: his velour and tenacity won him all the important battles; his resolve was immortal, his courage defied all perils, his will to honour agreements was well-respected and his word was considered his bond even by his enemies. The Prophet's true and most significant achievement however, lay in tansferring his values of honour and integrity not only to his descendants but also his followers. Take his grandson Hussain, for instance. Hussain Ibn All He stood up for what he thought to be his legitimate rights. Having lost almost his entire family to the enemy at Karbala, he still did not beg for mercy or sought to escape He acted in the true tradition of his grandfather; he raised his javelin, galloped his white stallion (Duldul) and charged into the enemy line reciting the Koran with the dignity and honour of a true Mujahid (Crusader). Fancy one man standing up to a host of several thousand. Yet his courage and determination did not fail him. Neither he cursed his foes nor he shrieked with pain. He kept

praising Allah as he received stab-wounds from back and front and left and right. This man, Hussain Ibn All, showed no sign of helplessness until the last drop of blood gushed out of his perforated body. No wonder, the Iranian used to admiring velour, became Shi'ite to acknowledge the vitrue of Hussain. In fact, one does not have to be a Shi'ite to adore Hussain; there are plenty who admire him as a great human specimen. These virtues of action that the Prophet inspired, were not restricted to the members of his own family; they touched the hearts of his followers with an equal zeal; veracity of Abu Bakr, greatness of Omar, generosity of Uthman and piety of All, need no introduction. Greatness of character was the real legacy of the Prophet which enabled his followers to defeat the Byzantine and Persian empires within twenty years of his death and dominate the earth for about 1,000 years. Thus, the Prophet laid the foundation of a new culture, which in many ways, was more advanced than the existing civilisation, for being founded on piety, honour and fairness. Yet it was the personal triumph of Muhammad, and Allah had no part in it. The Prophet was a reformer. I have no doubt that he used the device of revelation to achieve a righteous goal, but this device is more suitable for promoting a human as God rather than serving as the fountain of righteousness. This is the reason that Moslems all over the world adore the Prophet but pay lip-reverence to his teachings despite the fact that he laid a great emphasis on the piety of deeds and presented his followers with a code of practice. CHAPTER NINE HORRORS OF FUNDAMENTALISM Fundamentalism is the ultimate aim of revelation which seeks to brainwash people by excessively exploiting their instincts of fear and favour. A messenger or messiah is the person who loves to be worshipped, but worship is the lowest form of self-humiliation, and therefore, repugnant to the freedom-loving nature of mankind. A messenger (prophet) or messiah can achieve this goal only by making his follower a fundamentalist. This is the reason that one can confidently say that revelation is not the source of guidance but misguidance, and man is walking on the path which leads him to the opposite direction instead of the true destination. Definition of Fundamentalism What is Fundamentalism? It is the state of mind when man's moral splendour and rational excellence are completely eclipsed by the vehemence of faith and he begins to hate everything which challenges his religious values, no matter how absurd. Why? Because the elements of his personality which are likely to become unstable owing to stress of fear, are held together by the super glue of belief. Therefore, opposition to faith constitutes a threat to personality, which one is inclined to defend at all costs for survival. It is like going through a voluntary process of blindness and deafness with a view to avoiding reality. The purpose of faith is to provide protection against the inclemencies of reality, and not the reality itself: the dark glasses which shield eyes against the glare of the sun to facilitate its observation have a positive role to play in the life of the observer but the dark glasses which lead to permanent darkening of the observer's vision deprive him of discovering the truth. When faith assumes such a facinorous stature, it becomes the fetter which through its faltering effect, turns life into a regular series of futility. Fascinating though life may look through the bliss of ignorance, one must seek freedom from such a false faith because it is debilitating, degrading and destructive. Raising false hopes is not an act of mirth and mercy but the fountain of mischief and misery. Revelation is the biggest hoax because its power of deliverance is based on the extremely stilted personality of a Messenger or Messiah who lives and dies like any other man, and is himself subject to the human mechanism of fear and factor Yet he claims to be divine against all criteria of rationality! Brainwashing is an act of reducing man's rational faculty for inducing him to adopt a pattern of conduct which he will not display under normal circumstances. A fundamentalist or brainwashed person loses his will and becomes a puppet on a string. His entire intellectual and physical life is manipulated by the puppeteer who is usually a messiah or his lieutenant. He becomes a robot, quite happy to obey the most heinous commands of his operator with utmost pleasure. Let me give a few examples from the Crusades and modern history to show you that fundamentalism is

a volcano of hatred; it is nothing but utter negation of moral conscience; in fact, it is the reversal of humanity: Jerusalem forms a good point of reference in this respect: David and Ark David, having conquered Jerusalem, proceeded to enhance its glamour which should tempt Yahwe, the warrior God of the Jews, to adore it as His bride. Yahwe's stern heart, used to toughness, felt immersed in a wave of tenderness when David moved the ark to this city. To make sure that the ark did not have to migrate from one sanctuary to another, he chose Mount Moriah or the Temple Mount for its permanent residence. Though there is no proof, Jews, under the dictates of their compelling faith, have always believed that this was the spot where Abraham had built the alter to murder his own son Isaac to gain the pleasure of Yahwe! The Temple of Solomon This is where Solomon, the son of David, built the (first) Temple in 957 B.C. The building faced eastward; it was oblong and comprised three rooms of equal width; one of them being the Holy of Holies which housed the ark and ranked as the most sacred spot on earth for being the point of the Divine Presence (Shekhina). Nobody could enter it except the highest priest and his privilege was confined to Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement. It became the centre of Judaism and led the Jewish life with much greater power than a steering controls the movements of a motor car or heart regulates the blood supply. Despite its spiritual beauty and religious splendour, Yahwe, the Bridegroom, never defended it against the horrors of sacrilege and destruction which it suffered several times. Each time the flames of desolation enveloped Jerusalem, rabbis the Jewish priests, whose living, prestige and authority depended upon the grip of faith, found a justification for Yahwe's desertion and blamed people's sins for the pillage, rape and murder of their loved ones. The Roman pagans had interpreted the destruction of Rome in similar terms. They declared that the City fell because the Romans had betrayed their gods to embrace Christianity! There is no end to the caprices of faith. People will do and say anything to hide themselves behind the shield of faith to escape the forceful arrow of reason. Solomon and his beauties The Temple was an extension of Solomon's palace which happened to be the abode of his seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines along with the statues of their foreign gods which Solomon is known to have worshipped for winning the tender favours of his exotic female beauties. Yet the Temple rose to the apex of reverence beyond the flight of fancy! Jesus and the Temple Jesus Christ is also said to have preached in the Temple. I find it difficult to believe that the Jews would have allowed him to use their holiest shrine for teaching the blasphemy which provoked them to secure his crucifixion. To the Christians Jerusalem had an equally fascinating appeal because Jesus was born in its suburbs (Bethlehem/Bethleheim); this is where he played as a boy and this is where he was nailed to the Cross "to wipe off human sins through Divine mercy and to give believers a chance of resurrection". Islam and the Temple The Moslems were equally imbued with the sanctity of Jerusalem. To woo the Jews, the Prophet Muhammad had appointed it as Kibla, the direction of worship, for his followers. The prophet's journey to heaven when he went to see Allah in person, had also taken him "to the Further ' Mosque, the precincts of which had been blessed by God". This "Further Mosque" on whose precincts the Al-Aqsa Mosque of Islam was founded later did not exist at the time of the Prophet's journey and referred to the ruins of the Second Temple. It rose from the ashes of the original (first) Temple of Solomon which had suffered total devastation at least twice between 586 B.C. and 70 A.D. However, a portion of the Western Wall of the Second Temple had remained intact to display the miraculous powers of Yahwe - always eager to remind the Jews of their infidelity, idolatory and insincerity. When Yahwe subjected the Jews to a terrible opprobrium for breaking the Covenant, Allah approved of this attitude by

encouraging his followers to heap further humiliation on the Jews by building the al-Aqsa Mosque in A.D. 691 on the site of the Jewish Temple. The glitter of the Dome of the Rock was to serve as an eternal sign of the Jewish depravity. Start of Crusades Though Jerusalem, the City of the Jews, rose to become the highest symbol of esteem in human history, the Jews themselves fell to the lowest point of contempt It is because the Christians thought of them as the murderers of their Lord and the Moslems believed that they had been condemned by Allah for not believing in the Prophet. This created a strange situation, that is, the love of the Christians and Moslems for Jerusalem grew inversely proportionate to their hatred for the Jews. Yet it is not the hatred for the Jews but the devotion to Jerusalem that erupted as the volcano of terror in 1095. The Christains wanted to dispossess the Moslems of Jerusalem by any means - might, misery or mischief. This was the beginning of the most unholy war which demonstrated the true nature of fundamentalism and lasted for two centuries until 1291. Pope Urban II The Council of Clermont was convoked by Pope Urban II on November 18 1095. The Holy Father, as a mark of his dedication to Christian ideal of love renewed the Truce of God which meant peace for mankind and love for neighbours but excluded the non-Christians from the Divine mercy. They might look human but did not qualify as such, and therefore, deserved extermination. In a speech brimming with the fire and thunder of explosive oratory, he moved members of the Council to tears with the profane stories of the Moslems who were habitually persecuting the Christian pilgrims to the Holy land. To raise an army of crusaders devoted to pious carnage, he used his heavenly authority and granted a plenary indulgence to all those who were prepared to travel to the East and undertake murder as mercy and dispense bane as beneficence. Plenary indulgence What was plenary indulgence? It was the papal licence to heaven. Officially, it meant remission of all penance for sins but the crusaders believed that a Christian bearing his Lord's Cross could do no wrong. The murder of the old and sick, decapitation of women and children, pillage of the innocent and rape of bellibones (including that of the Christian nuns), was a holy fun. With the privilege of entry into heaven, went the release from feudal bondage, usurious debts and taxman's excruciating demands. If they survived the horrors of long journey and perils of the battlefield, their lives which hitherto had been a series of misfortune and molestation were to be crowned with the rights and reverence reserved for a crusader and if they perished, their martyrdom guaranteed them a place in the Kingdom of Heaven whose streets were paved with gold and where beautiful virgins impatiently sighed to embrace them. Urban's sermon Tickling the racial pride of the French with the spiritual sceptre, Pope Urban II, himself a Frenchman, raised his deep voice choked with ecclesiastical grief and said "O race of Franks, the beloved and chosen people of God, hearken that an accursed race has polluted, plundered and possessed the Holy Sepulchre of our Lord . . . The Holy City of Jerusalem, the Centre of the earth, begs you to come and free her from the clutches of the unclean infidels". As the oratorial tempest of Urban's address subsided, tempers of the believers rose with an unimaginable heat and their hearts fulminated with the cries of "Deusvolt" - God wills it. What a chance it was for the Christians to sail into paradise through the streams of Moslem blood. They all vowed to wear a cross to display the sanctity of their mission, and affection for the Saviour. Love for the Saviour was equally matched with hatred for the Prophet Muhammad through a series of highly profane and perverse tales. One gossip said that when Muhammad suffered a fit of epilepsy and pretended to be in a trance, a hog devoured him alive as a divine punishment. Moslem hatred of Non-Moslems

The Moslems, on the other hand, were equally impatient to cut the throats of the Christian infidels. Their ears rang with the Koranic message: a. "O believers, do not treat your fathers and brothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief, whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are the evildoers" (Repentance: 20). b. "Certainly God is an enemy to the unbelievers" (The Cow: 90). c. "God has cursed the unbelievers, and prepared for them a blazing hell" (The Confederates: 60). d. "Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends . . . for whoso does that belongs not to God ...." (The House of Imran: 25). e. "O believers, do not make friends with Jews and Christians; . . whoso of you makes them his friend is one of them" (The Table: 55). Every revealed religion is a fountain of hatred; here the divine advocacy for loathing unbelievers is equalled by persuasion of friendship for the fellowbelievers: "The believers indeed are brothers; so set things right between two brothers . . ." (Apartment: 10). "Moslems are hard against the unbelievers, merciful to one another" (Victory: 25). Islamic Jehad With these exhortations went the commands of Jehad, that is, a Moslem's duty to wage holy war and embrace death honourably in the battlefield. Islam guarantees that a martyr never dies; he enjoys immortality in the paradise where he is allotted seventy-two houris of musky bodies and several beautiful youths. Religion and hatred Both the Christians and Moslems though in theory praised the doctrine of love, in practice, were ready to demonstrate their universal hatred for humanity which the device of revelation promotes to adore God and deplore mankind. No butcher has ever been able to express half as great a skill in throat-cutting as did the admirers of revelation. For two whole centuries, these divine murderers tirelessly soaked the torrid sands of the Arabian desert with human blood which is more sacred than anything that exists in this world. Despite being the cause and centre of this iniquity, Jerusalem remained the Holy Land! Still more shameful is the fact that while the City of the Jews rose to become the object of reverence for the Christians and Moslems alike, the Jews themselves became the target of contempt for the believers of all shades. It shows how natural pride of the Christians and Moslems, which had been humbled by the innovative skill of the Jews through their mastery of revelation, had turned into an inferiority complex: they naturally sought the rejuvination of their repressed instincts through suppression of the Jews. The Impatient Crusader Urban had appointed the month of August 1096 as the time of departure. Like the lover who finds waiting the most tormenting moments which assume the longevity of months and years, the believers could not sit still until August and found it too long a suspense to bear. About 12,000 persons left France in March under the leadership of Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless. They were Soon joined by another 5,000 from Germany, and a crowd of similar strength from Rhineland under Count Emico of Leiningen, swelled their ranks still further. These bands, aflame with the love of Jerusalem, decided to practice the art of cruelty on the Jews of Germany and Bohemia and showed no respect to the appeals of the local clergy and Christians. Having run out of their meagre supplies, they laid claim not only on the wealth of the Jews but also their honour. Of course, they believed in Jesus but not in his celebacy. Was it wise not to

indulge in the appetites of the flesh, having secured plenary indulgence from the Holy Father? However, they did not enjoy their divine rights of orgy for very long because they were cut down near Nicaea by a force of the Seljuq Turks, highly trained in archery This was the first division of the First Crusade. By an irony of history, these crusaders were not being led by their kings because several monarchs such as Philip I of France, William II of England and Henry IV of Germany had been excommunicated by the Pope. The First Crusade was mainly a French adventure and its meritorious division was commanded by the nobility such as Duke Godfrey, Count Bohemund of Tarantu, Tancred of Hauteville and Raymond, Count of Toulouse. Personal interests of Crusaders When one looks at the events more closely, it transpires that the crusades had been engineered to satisfy the human greed for prestige, and not to enhance the glory of God. For example, some of these noble lords, as they crossed the Taurus, separated themselves from the main army to pursue their personal political interests: Raymond, Godfrey and Bohemund wandered into Armenia to make their private conquests and Baldwin (Godfrey's brother) founded the first Latin kingdom in the East during 1098. Emperor Alexius Comnenus It was originally Alexius Comnenus, the Byzantine emperor, who repeatedly asked the West for help against the Suljuq Turks who had extended the boundaries of their empire uncomfortably close to Constantinople. When eventually, his appeal was granted by Pope Urban 11, and he found the presence of a massive force of 4,000 mounted knights and 25,000 infantry near Constantinople, he employed his imperial skills gathered through the political blat and blare of seven centuries, and demanded of each crusade-leader to swear on the Bible that he would restore to the Empire any conquered territory which formerly belonged to it. Further, he required each of them to take the feudal oath of allegiance to him for holding any new land as an imperial fief. The glitter of gold and brilliance of diamonds, which Alexius generously distributed among these holy combatants, soon softened their tongues which uttered words of musical appeal to the imperial ears. For the Pope, it was yet another link in the long chain of his efforts to augment the Holy Power without regard to the holiness of means which sought to secure it: Donation to Constantine History has recorded that the Holy See forged the document known as Donation of Constantine, a supposed grant by the Emperor Constantine, the Great, to pope Sylvester 1(314-335). This document reined to give pope and his spiritual Successors supremacy over all other patriarchs in religious matters as well as dominion over Rome including the whole of the West. It was during the 12th Century that Popes started using it as an effective tool against the secular rulers to humble them. The scholars have established that this paper was forged between 750 and 800 A.D. Shroud of fibrin The Shroud of Turin which was supposed to contain the imprint of Christ, is a further illustration of this tendency to seek power deceitfully. It was believed to be true until 1989 when its falsity was established by forensic evidence. No believer of any persuasion will put up with such forgeries as an ordinary human. It is amazing how these tricksters had degraded the intellectual capacity of their followers by the application of the revelatory magic. I do not know whether to commend or condemn them for this adroitness; after all a skill is a skill irrespective of its nature! Al-Hakim

The Pope was not just a spiritual leader but also an earthly prince. The Donation of Pepin (745) actually gave him and his successors the princedom of central Italy which lasted until the 19th Century. It shows the imperial inclinations of the Holy Father. The preaching and sanctioning of the Crusades was a practical step to unite the East and West under the papal command for ruling the lives of all Christians from top to bottom. Destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was a lame excuse because it had been restored to its formal state by the Moslems at their own expense. It had been damaged by Al-Hakim, the Fatmid Caliph of Egypt (996-1021) who was known to be mad and deluded with his own divinity. It is against the Islamic traditions to hurt Christian shrines, and no true Moslem would have ever done it. The fate of the first division of the Crusaders had struck a big blow to the Christian morale. In May, 1098 the news that Karbogha, the Prince of Mosul, was approaching with a great army, frightened the Christians to such an extent that many of them boarded ships on the Orontes, preferring the modest living in the West to the magnificent life in the Kingdom of Heaven, saturated with splendour and gaiety. Even Alexius thought it fit to believe these deserters, and instead of joining the Crusaders, he turned back to the safety of Asia Minor. Peter Bartholomew At this juncture, a priest known as Peter Bartholomew produced an ingenious trick to buttress the sagging courage of his people. Stroking his beard in the most ecstatic manner, he thundered to assure his fellow-combatants that by a divine chance he had found the lance that pierced the side of the Lord Jesus. The psychological state of the crusaders underwent a similar change as the parched grass experiences after a heavy rain. Thinking of the Lance as a gift from the Lord, for doing to his tormentors what they had done to him, they became sure of victory. They praised the Lord, burst into singing sacred hymns, and danced frantically. This over-confident army of crusaders, intoxicated with the promise of success, was led to the battlefield under the Lance, carried aloft as the sacred standard. The Moslem warriors were put to flight by the Crusaders whose fighting zeal had touched its peak. They roared for vengeance, and the most loving God provided them with an opportunity on June 7, 1099 when they stood before the walls of Jerusa'em whose purity was about to display the putrid aspect of mankind. Butchery at Jerusalem As the sun dawned on 15th July, each of its golden rays became incandescent with the heat of hatred to expose the shameful reality of the Revelatory Message which the followers of different prophets had received from the Most Merciful Creator. Under the leadership of Godfrey and Tancred, their soldiers scaled walls of the Holy City successfully and then let hell loose to depict its horrors with the utmost sincerity of a believer. A lay priest known as Raymond of Agiles proudly recorded "the wonderful things that he had seen": he saw the heads of the saracens (Moslem Arabs) mown down like a lush crop; some were shot with arrows, others were forced to jump down from the lofty towers; many were tortured mercilessly for days and then heaped together and burnt alive. The streets were scattered with limbs such as heads, feet and hands and no matter how far one's horse galloped, the dead bodies appeared everywhere. These ecstatic conditions as experienced by the Christian zealots were also described by their contemporaries: it turned out to be the favourite hobby to kill the subdued people by piercing their sides with lances to avenge the Lord; the frightened women were stabbed repeatedly as an expression of delight; the suckling babies were snatched from the breasts of their mothers and thrown over the walls as a mark of respect to the Babe in the Manger. As the murderous frenzy became more tense, the holy warriors developed the mania of carrying the infants by their legs and dashing their heads against large stones, pillars and walls. The number of Moslems who perished in this divine orgy of blood-spilling rose to 70,000 and this was in addition to those who died fighting. Church of the Holy Sepulchre The Jews who had developed the Holy City, and thus provided a fountain of piety to the believers, were not thanked for it. Instead, they were hunted throughout Jerusalem; their damsels were raped and tortured; their babies were torn apart alive; their wealth was plundered; and as a final gesture of thanksgiving to the Lord who, in His immense wisdom, had facilitated this miracle of mercy, the crusaders drove the surviving Jewish population into a synagogue which was too small to hold them. The worshippers of the Most Clement Lord heaped men, women and children on top of one another and set the building alight. To celebrate the

jocund mystique of the occasion, they quite reverently marched into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre whose grotto had once housed the crucified Jesus. There they hugged and kissed one another; the sense of fulfillment brought tears to their eyes, and the gratitude to the Lord for this mighty accomplishment choked their voices with passion and puerility. Yet they sang Hallelujah in an ear-rending pitch which drowned the Jewish supplications for mercy, and thus provided the Lord with an excuse that He could not hear the laments of the burning Children of Israel! Yahwe's attitude towards Jerusalem What happened to Yahwe, the Bridegroom of Jerusalem? He proved to be the vain lover who enjoys the burgeoning beauty of his bride but does not bother to defend her honour. His attitude towards the Chosen Race was based on the English maxim: "I told you so". That is, He had warned them that unless they stopped worshipping other gods, He would sanction their persecution. It is strange to see that the Jews, known for their toughness, have never been able to look up into the eyes of Yahwe, the living cause of their perpetual humiliation. One wonders why Yahwe, who pretends to be the Universal God, does not punish other nations for idolatory? Are Jews His only Children? Who "Created" the rest of mankind? If there is another God, then Yahwe cannot be the sole object of worship. If He is the only God, then He must treat all His Children equally. As He, obviously, does not, He is not great enough to be Divine. The success of the first Crusade enabled the Christians to carve out the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem which under King Fulk, Count of Anjou (1131-43) extended to include most of Palestine and Syria though the Moslems still held Emesa, Aleppo and Damascus. The Christian zeal soon gave in to the urge of dominance which has always determined the attitudes of rulers; as the barons took over ownership of the conquered lands, they reduced the former owners, both Christian and Moslems, to the status of serfs and laid upon them far severer terms of feudal servitude than they had ever imagined. Man is the victim of faith. How easily he is manipulated by the forces of divinity to their own end, leaving him hoping for ever. Islamic share of carnage The tragedy of the Crusaders spans over two centuries and demonstrates the savagery of fundamentalism. I have said enough to expose the Christian aspect of this bloodiest saga of mankind. What about the Moslem side of it? The Moslems were at war with the Christians, and thus equally share the ignominy of shedding human blood arising from the bigotry of faith. I shall describe only one episode to illustrate this truth. After all this book does not solely concern the history of crusades. The Second Crusade (114648) proved disastrous to the Christians. The Emperor Conrad 111 of Germany suffered such a big disaster at Dorylaeum that ninety per cent of his army was wiped out. The French fared even worse. King Louis VII proceeded to Antioch along with several nobles and ladies but he left his remaining army in Attalia. Now came the turn of the Moslems to please Allah: in 1148, they swooped down on the City like starving hawks, and the French soldiers who had left the shores of France in a prodigious spirit of victory behaved like doves struck by despair, dismay and despondence. The Moslem Qaris, i.e. Professional reciters of the Koran, chanted the scripture with eloquence, and in a tone of authority to assure their warriors that Allah had forbidden death to those who gave their lives for the cause of Islam; what is termed as death is just a transition from mortality to immortality; it is a transportation from the painful life of this earth to the eternity of Paradise where wide-eyed houris with swelling bosoms and fragrant bodies serve believers in the most exhilarating environment. As the recitation became louder and the mention of Allah's mercies increased in frequency, the Moslem swords flashed faster and felt more blood-thirsty. Nearly all the Frenchmen perished. Their women ended up in the harems and their children formed part of the Conquerors' possessions. Some 60,000 followers of Jesus met their Maker before their time, and the same fate befell the Christians of Tyre, Sidon, Haifa and Beirut. Divine cover-up Of all the addictions, fundamentalism i.e. the addiction to faith is the worst. The doleful news of the holy fiasco opened up tongues of the European sceptics They argued that wisdom and mercy of God who treated His most loving devotees with such utter contempt, was doubtful. St. Bernard, the real instigator of the Second Crusade, replied that man had no right to question

the ways of the Almighty which are beyond human understanding. God cannot be blamed for the failure of the Crusade because it is a punishment for Christians' sins! Similarly, each time the Jews have faced a disaster, the rabbis have come up with similar logic based on evasion of the truth. They have never admitted that Yahwe is a myth. If they do, they will soon be out of priestly business which is so rewarding and prestigious. Therefore, they depict each calamity as a fulfilment of prophecies which they forged themselves to fool the believers.The fundamentalists, whether they be Christians, Jews or Moslems, submit to the authority of faith which is so totalitarian, tantalizing and tortuous. Fundamentalism has simply come to mean selling one's self into slavery along with one's conscience, self-respect and power of judgement. Jewish attitude towards Germany Fundamentalism is a greater source of mischief today than ever before. Take the modern Jewish attitude towards Germany. Despite their high-sounding philanthropic claims, Jewish people hardly know anything about forgiveness. It is not surprising that there is no mention of compassion in the Pentateuch. Instead, the emphasis is on revenge, the relic of the law of talion practiced by Hammurabi and his predecessors over three thousand years ago. Law of Talion In Jewish terms, the law of ration forbids forgiveness and lays down that if someone hurts your eye you must hurt his eye and if someone breaks your tooth, you must break his tooth (Ex. 21: 24-26). It is difficult for a practicing Jew to be kind-hearted owing to his preference for inflicting injury as a means of seeking personal satisfaction. This tendency, which is carefully nursed by the divine law, is made more acute by the consciousness of racial superiority as a member of the "chosen" or ``exalted,, race. The Jewish law is a colossus of command and perplexity. Nobody can prove or disprove anything from it. As a result, the word of the rabbi reigns supreme, and acts as the source of his authority and prestige. Jewish Law The written Law of Moses as found in the Pentateuch is inflated tremendously by the inclusion of the oral Law which has been handed down over centuries and expanded by each successive generation. The Pentateuch plus oral traditions came to be known as the Torah or Law. The written form of the oral Law is called Mishna. Then, there is Talmud which refers to commentaries and interpretative writings accumulated over a long period, ranking next to the Bible (The Old Testament) only. The sheer vastness of the Law, on the one hand, makes it the determining religious and social force, and on the other, its tendency to yield to a wilful interpretation renders it the vehicle of convenience. When enormity of law commands every movement of life, it begins to impinge upon free will. Being over-conscious of law, people pay it lip-reverence, and to restore their liberties, circumvent it to make their deeds look legal. Concept of timeless justice Since forgiveness is not encouraged by the Jewish law, seeking revenge has become an integral part of the Jewish culture. Let me explain this point with reference to the attitude of the British Jews towards the Germans, euphemistically, known as the "Nazi war criminals" but without looking as avengers. They demand retribution in the name of justice and claim that it has no relevance to passage of time: "Justice is timeless; if you have offended, it does have the right to call upon you". Since Yahwe punishes the sins of fathers on their children generation after generation the concept of timeless justice is compatible with the Jewish attitude of retribution but is repulsive to lovers of justice. It is strictly time-bound because: a. the length of time is a deciding factor in assessing the value of evidence which determines the quality of justice.

b. cultural spirit, that is, ways of thinking, feeling and acting are directly linked with time. What was fashionable a century ago, may be outmoded now. For example, women's psychology was different when they had no votes some six decades ago. Therefore, they were motivated by different considerations in the past compared to the present, and it goes without saying that the nature of motive affects the quality of behaviour and standard of justice. Jewish wealth and influence Using the immense power of their wealth and political influence, the Jews have mesmerised the governments of the West with their illogical concept of the 'timeless justice" and persuaded them to change and reshape their laws for trying the Nazi war criminals. It is insane to think that the rules of war-time emergency can be applied to the peace time normality because the difference between the two is the same as between an erupting volcano and striking a match for lighting a cigarette. If the purpose of such trials is really justice, then securing absolutely exact evidence is a must, but this is an impossibility after such a long time especially when most of the mitigating records are likely to have perished, and the witnesses become hysterical just by the mention of the word "Nazi or German". Jewish persecution complex Frankly, this is an exercise in mollifying the Jewish inferiority which has become an integral part of their persecution complex, starting with the Babylonian captivity. The Babylonian Talmud seeks to lighten the burden of Jewish humiliation with the promises of divine glory. In fact, the entire Jewish conduct of sorrow and servility over the last 2,500 years has been suffused with a dream of self-deception which emerges from their philosophy of racial superiority, and disdain of the Gentile. Thus they have flouted the reality, and lived in a world of make-believe where a sparrow assumes the manner of an eagle. As a result, there came into being a small section of the "Court Jews" who influenced the state policies through a mixture of bribe and flattery. The Christian monarchs, who loved the Lord Jesus dearly, were equally infatuated with the Jewish wealth. They protected the Jewish usurers against their own Christian subjects who usually had genuine complaints against them. The sighs and cries and moans and groans of the Christians were subdued by the jingling of gold pieces which the Jews poured into the bottomless pockets of the Christian rulers where their conscience lay. The Jewish ability to suppress the genuine grievances of the Gentile gave their inferiority-ridden ego a tremendous fillip of superiority. This psychological fact has now asserted itself in demanding prosecution of the German war criminals. The message is loud and clear: nobody can molest the Jews and go scotfree. But what about the Jewish molester? This is different because a Jewish molester ranks as divine, it is only the non-Jewish tormentor who qualifies as the devil. Am I perverting the course of justice? Not at all. It is the facts of history which lead me to this conclusion. See them for yourself: Nazi and Judaism Hitler was inspired by the Jewish principle of racial superiority as well as their practice of looking down upon other nations. This Austrian born leader of the National Socialist German Working Party (the Nazi) adopted the same mode of assertion as used by the Jewish prophets who claimed that they had been instructed by the Lord to say this and that. He declared that he was called upon by the Providence to lead his country against the Jews! Even his conduct was modelled on the Biblical account of the Jewish behaviour in relation to the Philistines. What I am about to say is an example of the Jewish historical conduct referred to at the end of the sixth chapter (Judaism): God promised the Jews that He would give them a land flowing with milk and honey. This land turned out to be Canaan i.e. Palestine. How did God enable them to Possess it? Simply through a determined policy of genocide and pillage. Let me paraphrase the relevant perts of the Old Testament which you can check yourself: a. When you come near a Canaanite city for the purpose of possessing it, declare peace. If they surrender, they become Jewish tributaries and slaves (Deut. 20: 10-11). b. However, if they exercise their right to defend honour and liberty and refuse to be plundered, and do not submit themselves to servitude, then the Jews must strike them with the edge of their swords to murder every man, woman and child and shall not leave any live thing to

breathe; this extermination had got to be total and complete because this was the command of the Jewish God (Deut. 20: 12-16). c. This is exactly what the Jews did. They destroyed city after city, murdered every man, woman. child and baby; took over houses, cattle and lands of the vanquished (Deut. Ch. 3). This policy of deliberate extermination of all nationalities that dwelt in the Promised Land was carried out by Joshua even after the death of Moses. Jos. 10:28 gives a systematic account of this planned destruction city by city. Was Jewish extermination by the Nazi any different from the well considered plan of extermination that the Jews carried out in Canaan? Didn't Nazi like the Jews, try to conceal their crimes against humanity under the veneer of Providence and Divine Command? Was Jewish plunder of the Canaanites any different in purpose and methods from those of the Nazi? Both Joshua and Hitler committed similar acts but Joshua is considered a prophet of God, and Hitler is thought of as the Devil incarnate! Why? It is because Joshua was a Jew and Hitler was not. Cycle of history The Jewish inferiority pining to assert itself as superiority has been the bane of this fraternity; the suppression of Gentiles' liberties has always rebounded on them in the form of rape, murder, pillage and expulsion in every century, yet these chosen people have not shed one sincere tear of remorse for the dishonour of their virgins and decapitation of their babes. What a price to pay for racial ostentation! In fact, it has become a cycle of history: the Jews of the present generation by displaying their glory at the expense of the Gentile, sow the seeds of destruction for their next generation. Now, this phenomenon is taking its course in Britain. Revenge, Revenge, Revenge For the purpose of seeking revenge, the Jews have set up headquarters in Los Angeles charged with the duty of hunting Nazi war criminals. It means not only hounding the suspects but also persuading different countries to change their laws to facilitate trials. Common law countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia have already done so. Now, it is the turn of Great Britian where there are Supposed to be four men who may be successfully prosecuted as Nazi war mammals. One of them has died. A Jewish Nazi-hunter expressed his regret at the death of the suspect but it was not for the reason that a human being had died, but because there would now be one suspect less to be tried, thus reducing the amount of satisfaction that would have arisen from the trial of the whole lot. This shows the nature of the timeless justice! Again, it should be the function of each individual state to decide, of its own free will, whether or not to seek and try these alleged criminals. The active persuasion by the Jews turns the Whole episode into a charade, and also shows the enormous influence of the Jewery on the internal affairs of other countries. Since they have the power to change foreign laws, one can surmise what they can do to the individuals who do not suit their palate. This success which the Jews are enjoying today will form part of the cycle which I have previously mentioned. The new British generations will take notice of their fathers' follies to restore the balance of justice which will prove horrendous to the next generation of Jews. The reader does not have to believe me; he ought to look into the pages of history. What is true law Of course, laws are made and remade but law is law only when it contains a natural element. Having discussed this issue in "Taxation and Liberty" I shall not go into details of this point here but must add that the law is the ambassador of legality only when it acts as an effective restraint on dictatorship, that is, it forbids the executive, legislators and judges to use law as the tool of convenience. It must be beyond the manipulative desires and powers of the political magnates. When they can mould it to act as the medium of realising their particular designs and dogmas, the law loses its basic values of defending liberties and ensuring natural justice. The natural element which I have previously referred to concerns these basic values. Once these basic values are lost, the law becomes the source of legal dictatorship known as legalism. Existing British law

This is exactly what is happening in Britain. Since these suspects were neither born in Britain nor did they commit the alleged atrocities as British nationals, the existing law does not permit their trial. Bowing to the Jewish pressure, the British parliament, which is the custodian of British honour, is about to dishonour the entire concept of British honour, based on fairplay. A fairplay is a fairplay only when it is free of bias but when the law itself is being modified to suit a particular purpose it is the proof of a fundamental bias because it shows that the end is being considered good enough for justifying the means. This is an act of high treason against the traditions of British fairplay whose virtue once echoed throughout the Empire. Those who are guilty of this monstrous act will have to stand trial at the bar of history to receive eternal condemnation which they so truly deserve. Richard, The Lion Heart If these men were really criminal, they would have committed crimes over the last forty years since they have been in this country. On the contrary, they have been law-abiding citizens of this land and thus deserve protection of the British Law, and moral strength of this country. Assuming that they are guilty of the alleged offences, they did only what everyone else was doing at that time in the Eastern European countries; Jew-bashing had been made as fashionable during the Second World War as murdering a Moslem or a Jew was considered an act of piety during the Crusades. Has ever anyone reviled Richard, the Lion Heart for participating in the holy carnage? Mitigating factors If these men did act wrongly they were victims of the abnormal circumstances brought about by the local press which incited to murder the Jews, the local police which instead of protecting the Jews sought their extermination and the local regimes which rewarded Jew-bashing. How can you try such men who had lost the insight to act correctly? They can be judged only in accordance with the then prevailing conditions and laws in those countries. It is stupid and sinful to apply the same rules of conduct to mental patients as applicable to normal people. These suspects were themselves the victims of their local environment. Is there a person who is ever immune to the effect of his social surroundings? Edward I and Jews The concept of timeless-justice, is the most dangerous nonsense. What about Edward I? He expelled Jews from England and Gascony and thus subjected them to a great deal of agony. Shouldn't we punish him for Jew-bashing? Since many a crime is committed in the name of law, there is an English precedent to sanctify such a profanity: Charles II dug up the bones of Oliver Cromwell and hanged them. Why doesn't the Parliament commit such a lunacy which the law permits to carry the concept of timelessjustice to its logical conclusion? In addition to pleasing the Jews, it will also appease the Scots who have always moaned about the harsh Edwardian attitude. Retrosepctive legislation This type of atrocity is nothing to the government which is prepared to indulge in passing retrospective legislation. What is retrospective legislation? It springs from the dark interior of mankind because the brute force of authority declares that a certain law existed in the past whereas, in fact, it did not exist, and nobody had ever heard of it. Passing this type of laws and placing them on the statute books was a speciality of the Nazi who mastered the art of murdering their Opponents legally! What an example for the British Parliament to follow! Henry VII Usually the retrospective legislation seeks to legalise illegality and all its attendant horrors In England, Henry VII used this device and had himself declared the King of this country one day earlier than his actual date of enthronement. Henry VII was a despot and could have beheaded anyone but that constituted "injustice and cruelty" which looked bad for his royal image. The purpose of this trick was to declare all his opponents as traitors who resisted his "lawful" authority, which he actually did not possess for being an invader with a very dubious claim to

the throne of England. He wanted to punish all his antagonists legally. A crime committed in the name of law looks most beautiful despite being one of the ugliest things in reality. Who cares about reality? People usually fall for the appearance the more attractive a thing looks, the greater its appeal. This fact equally applies to the retrospective legalisation which the British government may pass to enable the Jews to wreak vengeance in the disguise of justice. House of Lords In "Taxation and Liberty", I had argued for the upgrading of the British House of Lords and suggested that its members should not be subjected to electioneering but appointed on merits, especially with regard to the services that they have rendered to the nation. There are plenty of such peers already in the House of Lords. They will probably defend the honourable traditions of this country by defeating such a bill. My admiration for this noble House has always been copious. Since it ranks as a great human institution for guiding the path of democracy and checking the pace of ravenous tax-gatherers, I hope that it will nip the evil in the bud. German-bashing The connotations of such a bill becoming the law do not seem to have been understood properly: 1. Firstly, propagating horrors of the Nazi camps has become a very regular Jewish affair and thus ranks as a business which strives to achieve certain rewards. In addition to making money out of misery, it seeks to denigrate the Germans habitually. This is an act of revenge to depict them as the most despicable race. It is totally unfair because Germans are a great people whose scientific, industrial, cultural and religious contributions to civilisation need no introduction. Is there a nation which has not been aggressive to its neighbours at some point in history? Why pick on the Germans with a religious zeal? I certainly do not condone the German atrocities but it equally baffles me that nobody has so far apportioned the blame attributable to the Jewish attitudes towards the Germans during the pre-war era. It does not seem proper to call Adolf Hitler "insane". The man who commanded the loyalty of his people and stood up to the whole world for several years, could not have been mad. His genius, though tinted with evil, deserves a better appraisal. His passion for supremacy was no greater than that of Alexander the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte. Ban anti-German propaganda The fact that the Germans have become ardent supporters of the European Community, shows that they have realised the evils of nationalism and want to be a part of mankind. Their participation also ranks as a proof of repentance Besides, they have paid for their follies and deserve a clean slate. Their partnership calls for genuine respect from all her European allies; continuous campaign of mistrust and assassination of the German character will eventually provoke the Germans and destabilise the European Community. It is high time that the Shoa business ("the holocaust industry") was banished and preaching of hateful propaganda against the Germans made illegal throughout the European Community. Wisdom demands that the Jews must heed this warning. European dream of unity is becoming a reality. It is the Jews who will suffer for being an eastern race. Their future lies in the East, the land of Moses and David. I refrain from developing this theme because to me, every Jew is as human as anybody else and thus entitled to equal dignity and respect. Nazi-type Jews 2. If the purpose of securing retrospective legislation is to seek justice against those who harmed the Jews, then it opens up a new avenue, far more macabre than the fertile imagination of a novelist can dream of: the Nazi were not the only Jew-bashers. History has recorded that there were some Jews who sent fellowJews to the horrors of the gas chambers. Some did it to protect the lives of their relatives and others were sordid enough to make a business out of it for financial rewards. A murderer is a murderer whether he is one's brother or a stranger. What has the British government done to trace such Jews? Has the Israeli government done anything to prosecute them? They are probably being cared for in some Jewish sanatorium.

British Jews and Palestinians 3. Finally, it raises a point of far more fundamental importance, utterly repugnant to the Jews themselves. Justice means justice for all the aggrieved and not for one particular section. If the British government is so anxious to dispense justice that it wants to change the law for trying its citizens who were not born and bred here, then it must also be equally zealous to prosecute all those British citizens who were born and bred here and are guilty of harming others. I am, of course, referring to the British-born Jews in relation to the Palestinians. The British Jews bear a direct responsibility for the misery, molestation and murder of the Palestinians. Why? Because every Jew is considered a citizen of Israel. Secondly, donations of the British Jews must play a considerable role in keeping the Israeli state alive, and thirdly, there are plenty of British Jews who have their second homes and business interests in Israel. Have the British Jews ever demonstrated against the Israeli attitudes towards the Palestinians? No. Not at all, yet they clamour for justice! It is strange that they cannot tolerate racial discrimination in the lands of their abode whereas their motherland, i.e. Israel, is founded on racism. All Palestinians are second-class citizens but all Jews in diaspora are more than first class citizens for holding exalted positions in the commercial, industrial and political life of other countries. I can develop this theme far more effectively but I shall not do so because the purpose of this criticism is not Jew-bashing but pointing out the lethal effects of fundamentalism which relegate man to the status of a lower animal by reducing his vision and curbing his conscience The modern Jews owe their social recovery to the broad-mindedness they showed in response to the Napoleonic investigation. They can be liberal without turning their backs on Judaism. The diplomacy of clenched fist has brought them nothing but misery. Their children and virgins are entitled to human dignity and respect This is high time that they opened their arms a little, instead of antagonising the Gentile. Until such time that they make forgiveness a part of their culture, history will keep repeating itself. There is no evidence that anti-Semitism has died down it has simply become dormant and is likely to raise its head when someone's interest persuades him to change the prevailing climate. Islamic fundamentalism Jews are not the only fundamentalists in the world. Fundamentalism, irrespective of its origins, is destructive. Whereas Jewish orthodoxy has been partially responsible for the preservation of Judaism, the Islamic fundamentalism has become a tool of dominance for the Moslem politician who deliberately corrupts the Islamic principles to advance his own cause but in the name of Islam. It has been quite easy for him to do so. Since there is no formal priesthood in Islam, the Moslem clergy could not gain an authoritive position in his own right like the Christian priest. Thus his secular weakness made him a puppet of the politician whose patronage depended upon how skilfully he interpreted the Koran to suit his master's purpose. Mulla and Learning The Moslem Mulla (priest) is a learned man but his erudition is lopsided because he hardly knows anything other than the Koran and Hadith; he is usually pious but poverty poses a problem to his probity and he feels obliged to prevaricate for providing the politicians with preferential and not precise interpretations of the Koran which should make the faithful believe that snow is as hot as fire and a sparrow is a higher flier than an eagle. Koranic Law To understand this fact, one must realise that the Koran is considered by Moslems as the last revelation of Allah, and its purpose is to guide man through an eternal code of law. Since the Koranic law is for ever, it obviously means that it is capable of providing legal guidance under all circumstances and for all ages. Such a law must be capable of interpretation without losing its essence. The mulla's submission to the will of politician has struck a big blow to the Koran as the eternal legal guide. It has been stressed by the Moslem scholars that once a principle has been unanimously agreed through Ijtihad (Juristic effort) it is final, and binding on Moslems of all ages without any regard to the passage of time. Thus they have destroyed the value of juristic deliberation and made Islam a rigid and regressive code of life.

Qatl-E-Murtad Take for example the unanimously-agreed doctrine known as Qatl-E-Murtad (decapitation of a renegade). It is utterly against the Koranic principle which clearly states that a renegade shall be beheaded only if he makes a game of apostasy, that is, he embraces and renounces Islam again and again. This is further supported by the fact that hypocrisy was the Prophet's biggest abhorrence. If a person born as a Moslem wants to renounce his faith, he will not do so owing to fear of decapitation and shall be forced to live as a hypocrite. The spirit of the Koran confirms it abundantly that the Prophet would have preferred apostasy to hypocrisy: he wanted true followers and not phoney believers. This is the reason that the Koran states "La Ikrah Fe Din": there is no compulsion in religion. As a result of such attitudes, most of the Moslem nations do not practice Shariah i.e. the Islamic law. For example, Turkey discarded it in 1926 and adopted the swiss family law; India and Pakistan have essentially become Common Law countries Even in Egypt and Tunisia Shariah courts do not exist as a separate entity and many Islamic countries have abolished polygamy, changed rules of divorce and modified procedures of evidence. Secondly, what made Islam a practical religion was the fact that the Amir-UI-Momineen (head of the Moslem Community) was required to be the practical model of the faith. To make sure that the faithful follow this law strictly, the Koran gives them the legal right to rise against an unrighteous ruler: "So you must not obey who tell lies . .. Never you obey the mean swearer, backbiter, those who indulge in slander, obstruct righteousness, the guilty agressor, the uncouth and the ignoble" (The Pen: 10). Today, one has only to look at the Moslem leadership to realise that the genuine practice of the faith is no longer an integral part of leadership in many Moslem countries. Instead, the Moslem followers have been carefully and excessively conditioned to the word: "Islam". Whoever, can use this word effectively, commands the obedience of the Moslems. This is why Islam has been turned into a blind faith and serves as a tool of dominance for the politician and seekers of social prestige. It is this wilful misinterpretation of the Koran that has led to the decline of the world of Islam. Every Moslem wants to practice his own brand of Islam without knowing what real Islam is. In fact, the true Islamic principles have been overshadowed by the darkness of misinterpretation to such an extent that it is no longer possible to establish them. This is the reason that Islam has broken up into numerous sects; it is totally un-lslamic: "Those who have made divisions in their religion and become sects, you have nothing in common with them" (Cattle: 160). The Islam that is full of sects is not Islam. The present state of the Moslem world does not reflect the character and teachings of the Prophet. On the contrary, it represents what the Prophet disliked and forbade. The Islam that the Prophet Propounded enabled its followers to rule the world for a thousand years! This s why the Koran states: "You are the best nation ever raised because you bid for honour and forbid dishonour" (House of Imran: 105). Need I comment on it? Allah's curse on Jews After this lengthy explanation, now I may resume the discussion of Islamic fundamentalism; the Koran says:

"Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings . . . . but God has cursed them for their unbelief . . ." (Women: 45). Interpretation of Allah's curse Moslems all over the world interpreted these verses to mean that Allah's curse meant that the Jews would never be allowed by the Almighty to return to Palestine and form their own state. This interpretation became a fundamental part of the Moslem faith. This is the reason every Moslem felt that he had been struck by lightning when the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948. To prove that it was a fleeting affair, the Arab world including the Palestinians wanted to drown all Jews in the sea; the ensuing bloody wars were waged to appease the Islamic fundamentalism. Every nation has the right to a homeland, and the Jews are no exception. If we accept the interpretation that the Moslem scholars have put on this verse, then it means that the Koran is wrong because the Jewish state has become a reality. I am more inclined to think that it is the interpreters who are to blame. Having been born as a Moslem and trained to be a scholar of Islam, I know that the Koran has been frequently subjected to misinterpretation by those who seek power and influence as Moslem Zealots but without having any true reverence for Islam. Jewish rights and heroism The Jews have the right to a homeland like any other nation. Where is the Jewish homeland? It has to be the land that has always been loved and adored by the Jews. Obviously, it is Palestine which according to the sincerely-held Jewish belief, was promised by God. No nation has ever shown half as much reverence to its homeland as have the Jews. Palestine has been their vision, their palpitation and, above all, an integral part of their faith. They waged bloodiest wars against the aweful Roman imperialism. Their velour, tenacity and heroism knew no bounds to defend the Holy Land, the Gift of Yahwe, the apex of devotion. Why the Apex of Devotion? Without a mighty, marvellous and magnificent devotion they could not have fought the lethal wars that raged between 132-5 and then again during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-61). These wars were based on the ideal of liberty, sincerity of conduct and true piety of faith, and therefore, marked the apex of devotion because they led not only to the decimation of 985 towns but also the slaying of 580,000 men, women and children. The Jewish population fell below half of its original strength. I applaud the Jewish gallantry. Each of the slain was a hero whose blood was infused with divine purity, preference of death as a lover of liberty, to the slavish living, is a mark of honour and godliness. These Jews were immortal and their blood was sacred, super and sublime. They were a different species from the Jews who went to the Nazi gas chambers like lambs. Though they lost the battle, the quality of their struggle constitutes the true human virtue and ranks as the ultimate dream of mankind. Palestine, the greatest human romance It is not only the sacrifices of the Jews which make Palestine their natural home but also their undying love of this country. The Jewish love for Palestine is the greatest romance that man can dream of. Its sanctity is lifted sky-high when we realise that this love is not based on design but devotion, without any expectation of reward. Am I exaggerating? Not at all. The Jews had several opportunities to found a new homeland abroad. For example, in 1903, the British government offered them 6,000 square miles of uninhabited Uganda but they turned it down. Why? Because they wanted to go back home, that is, Palestine. In fact, they have always wanted to return to Palestine. The story of this yearning and the selfless attempts to achieve it, is a long one. The Jewish attachment to the Holy Land is ecstatic and devotional; without this relationship, they could not have been willing to throw their wealth, position and comfort, which they enjoyed in Diaspora, in exchange for the frightening uncertainties, awaiting them in Palestine. There is a New York, New South Wales, Nova Scotia, New England but there is no New Israel. Why? The reason is obvious. Indivisibility of Jerusalem What is Palestine? It was a territory on the eastern Mediterranean coast, once embellished by the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. But now after many centuries the situation has changed. The United Nations on 29th November, 1947, recommended the establishment of seperate Arab and Jewish states in Palestine. Though Jews could claim the territories of modern Lebanon and Syria, extending to the Euphrates once ruled by David and Solomon, they ought to be realistic and

acknowledge the rights of the Palestinians who are also entitled to a homeland. Not only that, they have the duty to give full human rights to all the Palestinians who live within their jurisdiction. After all, they enjoy all such rights in the foreign lands. However, they cannot renounce a part of Jerusalem, the dream of David, the passion of Solomon and the bride of Yahwe. The Israel without the whole of Jerusalem is an eye without sight, a marriage without consummation, a fireball without light, a cloud without rain and a romance without excitement. It is not a matter of fundamentalism. If it were so, I would oppose it openly. It is a matter of fact that Jerusalem is Judaism and Judaism is Jerusalem. Being a rationalist, I believe that every person has the right to a belief of his own choice, provided it advocates tolerance and respect for other people's views. Since sanctity of Jerusalem is an integral part of the Jewish faith, dividing Jerusalem means the destruction of Judaism. This is what makes it indivisible. The Bride of the Lord is not available for seduction. Yes, the Bride of the Lord is untouchable. Dividing it, is an act of profanity. Partitioning means desecration. Why desecrate Jerusalem now? Just because it is in the Jewish hands? Then, in all justification, it is a Jewish city, and to establish this fact, I wrote about its background in the beginning of this chapter. It is a nonsense to say that it should be treated as an international city because Christian and Moslem shrines are located there. What about Mecca? One billion Moslems of numerous nationalities truly believe in its sanctity. Yet it is legally and morally an integral part of Saudi Arabia. Rome is, similarly, a part of Italy despite being the holy centre of Christians of all races. To say that (part of) Jerusalem is a conquered territory, and therefore, it should be given up, is an even greater nonsense. The Jews have conquered nothing; they have simply repossessed what is legitimately theirs. If we look into the matter fairly, it transpires that Arabs are in Palestine by conquest. Shouldn't they also be made to leave Palestine? The answer is an emphatic "no" because they have been there for so long that Palestine ranks as their home. They are entitled to all the dignity and rights of a homeland but the whole of Palestine does not belong to them exclusively. Jews are the natural claimants to a part of it known as "Israel", yet they have been deprived of this fundamental right for a very long time indeed. It has made Jewry a major international problem fraught with lethal consequences which are likely to arise from the Jewish sense of insecurity. A deeper examination shows that sense of insecurity is the fountain of inferiority complex which puts on a cloak of imaginary superiority to hide its infirmities and reinforces it with ostentation and belligerence. Prolonged homelessness and continuous fear of survival is the source of the Jewish sense of insecurity, leading to their anti-Gentile philosophy and attitudes. As a result, their faculty of social adjustment in relation to mankind has suffered a serious setback and they find it hard to treat other people as their equals or even as members of the human race. Solution of the Jewish problem lies not in their extermination but giving them a secure homeland. Both Jews and Palestinians are civilised people but they have chosen to live at the same cultural level as did their ancestors 3,000 years ago: they are as full of mutual hatred and revenge now as they were then. This is the result of fundamentalism which benumbs conscience and strangles the faculties of reason. ETERNITY

INTRODUCTION TO BOOK III ORIGIN AND DESTINATION It is not revelation but knowledge which is required to unveil Reality, the greatest mystery. However, knowledge is not an absolute concept because like everything else it is subject to the natural law of polarity such as right and wrong or light and dark. Ignorance constitutes the opposite pole of knowledge and inevitably precedes it; curiosity, mystery and uncertainty are extensions of ignorance and play a major role in raising the magnitude of knowledge. As man is the microcosm i.e. the miniature cosmos, the knowledge of one's self ranks as the true knowledge. Of course, cosmos is a symposium of interrelationships, but they remain

obscure without the torch of consciousness; existence or non-existence of the universe makes no sense without it. Since man is the only (known) being endowed with the power of knowledge, it naturally exalts him over everything else. Again, the emergence of consciousness implies that the cosmos wants its presence to be felt. It certainly alludes to a cosmic teleology or purpose which is obviously inscribed in the atoms and exhibits their capability of realising it. Nothingness denotes a passive state without any purpose, but existence refers to a state which is active and meaningful. Therefore, existence is its own purpose and the cosmic purpose is NOT imposed from outside but is self-determined because the cosmos represents existence. Since there is no evidence of a Creator God one can only assume that the universe stems out of nothingness. Logically, as nothing can come out of nothing, the said nothingness qualifies as the womb of existence. Again, as things happen on the principle of "simple to complex", the preliminary conditions of the universe must be so simple or chaotic that they can't be very different from the concept of nothingness. Process of simple to complex can be constructive only if it is gradual and based on some principle. As we know, the universe develops gradually and is subject to a principle. We refer to the gradual development as evolution which is nothing but a process of systematic change. Thus change is the governing or evolutionary principle. Like everything else the Change itself as an evolutionary or the Creative Principle must be infantile in its initial stage, and evolves gradually to maturity through interrelationships. Where do we come from? I have already answered this question. To be more explicit, as nothingness is the fountain of existence in its embryonic shape, the universe has always been here in its potential form, and as its integral part, so have we. Obviously, we have always existed; each of us started from the lowest possible state and gradually envolved to the present stage by a disciplined process of Change or the Creative Principle. One fact we ought to know: development from particles or the primordial stuff to subhuman level is strictly governed by the Creative Principle but at human stage, man exerts his independence and to a great extent, takes his destiny in his own hand. Since there is no proof that evolution stops at man, any further evolution largely becomes the responsibility of man himself. This next, the highest stage of existence happens to be man's destination. What is man's destination? It is Godhead. And what is Godhead? This is the highest state of existence brought about by the combination of souls the same way as existence of inanimate things is constituted by atoms and the entity of living beings is composed of cells. Godhead in this sense is entirely different from the old mystic concept of souls' union with God. According to this belief, the soul is something entirely different in essence from God, who exists independently, and relationship between the two is that of a servant and master; union simply means closer relationship between the two. My view, on the contrary, holds that Godhead is the merger of souls. Of course, the entity of Godhead is over and above the merged souls, say, like the identity of a radio which is over and above its components. But as there is no radio without its components, there is no Godhead without its constituents, i.e. the souls. Change is eternal; it is the principle, the process and the product. As a principle, it has a purpose. For example, the purpose of principle (formula) H20 is water, the product, which comes about through the process of combining two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. It is the basic characteristic of Change or the Creative Principle to manifest itself: where there is H20, there will be water. In other words, water is the manifestation of the principle H20. Matter can't be shapeless because it is constantly under the operation of Change. Change or the Creative Principle operates through polarity. As electricity has positive and negative poles, Change itself must have an antithesis, that is stability. In fact, existence is

another description of stability, or put it another way, existence means stability-throughchange. As the Creative Principle has a purpose, stability or existence is its ultimate goal. Is it not a self-contradiction? Not at all. Because though operation of Change cannot be eliminated, it can be controlled in such a way that Change as the Creative Principle, operates as the agent of stability and maturity only, and ceases to be the source of Revolution. There is certainly no exaggeration in this statement: we have harnessed the lethal power of electricity to act as a housemaid, and it is we who decide whether it will roast or refrigerate. The point at which the Creative Principle becomes solely the agent of stability, it forms part of Godhead to constitute the Reality. This is the highest state of consciousness and immortality, and also happens to be the final aim of the cosmos which strives through a process of self-elevation to reach the apex of existence. The cosmos attains this goal through man, the cosmic baby, whose piety, purity and probity act as the medium of achieving this noblest purpose. Thus, it is unwise to think of the cosmos as a machine; it is a live and kicking organism. This miracle of immortality is brought about by the birth of soul. However, one should remember that nobody is born with a soul. It is the seed of future life and comes into being at the point of death, depending upon one's piety, purity and probity. Those who lack these elements of survival, perish; they just become Part of the dust but there is no hell to roast them. Contrary to the usually-held belief, it is not God who creates man but it is man who is the fountain of Godhead - no souls, no God. Life-after-death is a distinct possibility. Since all things evolve from the same source, they vouch for their unity of origin. It is reasonable to assume that the things having a common origin should also have the unity of end. This unity of end can't be anything but the common destination. Of course every sprinter does not complete the race successfully, every arrow does not hit the target and every climber cannot reach Mount Everest. Similarly, everything cannot gain the point of final unity, that is, the destination. Out of millions of species, it is only man who has the ability to attain this goal. Yet every member of the human race is not capable of doing so because all of us do not possess the virtues of piety, purity and probity. Most of us ride the horse of faith to enjoy self-deception because it does not have the flying power and thus takes off nowhere. The lucky ones who make righteousness of deeds as their guiding star generate sufficient force to carry them to the final destination which is Godhead. It is not difficult to realise that the destination is something different from the origin or starting point. Those who reach their final destination, leave the pangs of mortality behind. Immortality, in fact, is the state of dynamic equilibrium where things are constantly subject to change but change takes place to conserve the basic identity and not to disturb it. This is the wonder of Godhead, which comes into being as a result of immunity from Revolution. At this stage, there is nothing more to evolve. Everything is subject to evolution and Revolution except Godhead. Since Godhead represents the apex of evolution, it follows that God is not in the beginning but at the end. Godhead is the dream of the cosmic evolution because reversion to total Revolution denotes chaos and flouts the concept of the evolutionary success. It is only the hope of reward that creates a destination. If distinction between destination and origin cannot be maintained, the entire cosmic process begins to loom as a nonsense. Of course, Godhead is the state of dynamic equilibrium but its continuity is subject to the constant supply of souls. When evil increases to such an extent that it stops the formation of souls, the rule of Final Rejection comes into operation and intelligent life perishes. It happens only when despite numerous chances man becomes incorrigible. Since Godhead constitutes supreme intelligence and wisdom, God interferes with the law of nature on other planets to make up deficiency of souls caused by the condemned planet. I must confess that the thoughts expressed in this book, have occupied my mind for a long time but I did not know how to state them. Eventually, I decided to use physics and biology as the medium of expression. However, I must warn the reader that modern sciences are far from being perfect, and secondly, I am not a scientist but a lay student of these subjects. It must be clearly understood that science on its own cannot explain the mystery of Godhead. I have used it only as a medium of expression in keeping with the spirit of time. The views expressed in this book are independent of the existing scientific opinions, and have

illustrative values only. Lastlv. I should add that criticism for the sake of criticism represents destructive mentality. To be beneficial, criticism must be reformative. Therefore, the critic has the duty to suggest an alternative to what he has criticised. It is for this reason that I have attempted the outline of a metaphysical system in Book III but without pretending to be a God, Messiah or Prophet. I am sorry if this book proves to be a bit abstruse and complex. This is the nature of the subject though I have tried to make it easy to understand.

CHAPTER TEN EPISTEMOLOGY Epistemology or knowledge is the only medium that can lead to Reality. The evidence shows that we have to look for things we want to find; they do not put themselves in our way. Thus accidental discoveries are rare. Again, the existence and operation of the universe is based on mystery. The cosmos does not display itself. It is wrong to claim that God reveals Himself. Without mystery there i' nothing to search for. It is this search which makes life exciting, challenging ant hopeful. Reality is a mystery; it does not reveal itself; we must look for it; if il unveils itself, it ceases to be the Mystery or Reality. This is the function oi knowledge, otherwise, it has no purpose. Polarity What is knowledge and how it arises, are complex questions and cannot be answered through the medium of definitions. I may, therefore, draw the attention of the reader to the scientifically established fact that existence of everything depends upon polarity. For example, electricity is brought about by the interaction of positive and negative charges. Similarly, there are quarks and antiquarks, particles and antiparticles, matter and antimatter, electron and antielectron (positron). Even where distinct polarity cannot be discerned, as in force-carrying particles, the antiparticles are the same as the particles themselves. The same remarks apply to the forces of nature because a force has been described as a mechanism of push and pull. This situation also prevails in ordinary life: sweet has no meaning without bitter, light cannot be imagined without dark; coward does not exist without bold and hot loses its identity without cold. These opposities are equal in magnitude, and their opposition is so constructive that not only the identity of one depends upon the identity of the other but whatever there is in the universe owes its existence to the harmonious working of the opposite poles. Despite their contrariness, they are working partners. Ignorance as part of knowledge Knowledge is no exception to this fundamental rule of nature. It comes into being, and sustains itself, only through ignorance which is its opposite pole. They alternate the same way as day and night follow each other. In fact, regression of ignorance counts as progression of knowledge, and vice versa. Curiosity Ignorance has precedence over cognition. Knowledge is the offspring of ignorance as existence is the child of nothingness. Take "mistake" for instance. It is prompted by ignorance which requires correction. Such a correction, which is the Opposite of mistake, ranks as knowledge. Again, knowledge usually comes into being through curiosity which is represented by such inquisitive words as "how, why, what, where, when" etc. and many other interrogative forms. Such interrogatives are ambassadors of ignorance, yet they are the tools of enquiry leading to knowledge. If we know the answers we shall not use these words and other interrogative forms. This fact is culturally true as well because civilisation emanates from a very primitive level which is the antithesis of its modern form.

Exploratory urge of birds Exploratory urge of birds illustrates this fact still further. Exploration simply means jumping from the unknown to the known. This urge of birds is inherent, and is passed on from generation to generation. Biologists believe that without the exploratory drive, a bird will perish. Mystery Besides curiosity, mystery is also an integral part of ignorance. A mystery though eventually surmountable, is not immediately within the bounds of knowledge. It resists knowledge yet it excites curiosity to enter the realm of knowledge. Without such excitement life shall be a prolonged process of death due to sheer boredom. Rainbow Rainbow is a good example of mystery. Its stunning colours and the superstitions associated with it explain its nature. It was considered an animal which drinks up rain to hold it back from people. The rainbow as a serpent was looked upon as a justification for bisexuality. In many countries, people thought of it as a divine bridge which connects the worlds of gods and humans. The Greek declared it the path of the goddess Iris and some American tribes visualised it as the gorgeous robes of gods. It was not until 1704 when Newton's publication: "Optics" solved the mystery of the rainbow by declaring that "white" light is really a blend of all possible colours: what we call the rainbow is, in fact, the dispersion of light in the spectrum. Mystery, a continuous affair Mystery is a continuous affair because the solution of one mystery leads to another mystery. Rainbow is "white" light, but what is light itself? Is it a wave or a stream of particles? Since scientists can't establish the truth, they claim that it has dual nature; sometimes it is convenient to treat it as a wave and at other occasions it is better understood as corpuscular i.e. consisting of particles. Principle of uncertainty Uncertainty is yet another description of mystery. Until we are certain about Something it contains an element of mystery, which is more like twilight, and not darkness. It is because the purpose of mystery is to arouse interest in knowledge by limiting its speed whose unrestrained conduct can be devastating. Werner Heisenberg stated the principle of uncertainty scientifically. He propounded that to predict the future position and velocity of a particle, one must be able to measure its present position and velocity with complete accuracy but it is not possible because accurate measurement of the one, leads to the inaccurate determination of the other. Thus scientists believe that uncertainty is the fundamental property of the world. Role of mystery In fact, uncertainty or mystery is the pillar of practical life. If we acquire the capacity of absolute knowledge, then we shall know exactly everything as it is. It will lead to inactivity and chaos. Why? Because I shall know on what day I am going to be ill or embrace death and I shall be aware of what is in the mind of my fairweather friends. As the ozone layer acts as a curtain to save us from the harshness of the Sun, a bit of mystery provides a good deal of protection against the nasty shocks of real life. If everyone knew what was going to happen, nobody would strive to do anything and mankind would cease to exist for lack of trust, self-confidence and enterprising spirit. Worse still, the excitement and hope that Chance provides, shall vanish, and life will become a long series of boredom, longing for death. Purpose of knowledge Is knowledge inborn or acquired? It is both. Without innate knowledge, the first living creatures would have perished instantly for not knowing how to react to the environmental stimuli such as hot and cold and dark and light. Some innate knowledge is absolutely essential for survival. This

fact also determines the basic purpose of knowledge, that is, survival, though as knowledge progresses, it comes to be based on conscience and the concept of survival gains moral force. Instinctive knowledge The innate knowledge is referred to as instinctive knowledge. Ii is inherited by organisms genetically. This type of knowledge provides not only the fair chance of survival but also guides each species in determining its own behaviour to differentiate itself from the rest: the foodhoarding activities of squirrels, web-spinning habits of spiders and the prey-catching techniques of wolves, explain this point. Though instinctive knowledge is minimal, the activity it fosters may lead to complex behaviour as displayed by many nest-building birds. These nests come in many shapes and sizes and thus exhibit a patterned arrangement of acts. Communal sense Instinctive knowledge also ascends the boundaries of individual needs to create a communal sense amongst the members of a species. It has been noted that insects, fishes and birds possess certain instinctive movements which serve as signals to fellow-members and thus rank as a communicative mechanism. The beauty of these signals and movements is, that they are understood only by the members of the species and the prospective mates. Without such distinctive behaviour communal sense cannot develop. It also proves that even the lowest organisms are endowed with an instinctive system of perceptual abilities, and life cannot be sustained without them. Knowing one's self Since instinctive knowledge is inherent, and the basis of survival, it surely starts with knowing one's self. As I shall discuss later, knowing one's self is not only the beginning of knowledge but also its end. However, as everything is related to something else, knowledge of one's self cannot be complete without knowing and evaluating these relationships. This consideration makes an individual a natural part of his community thus making his dole and delight dependent upon the realisation of these relationships. Man, the cosmic baby When thinking of relationships, one comes to realise that an individual's relationship is not confined to the society but extends far beyond, to the cosmos which was here long before man. In fact, man is the baby of the cosmos and our earth is a very tiny part of it. All our properties physical, intellectual and spiritual, are surely derived from the elementary particles of the cosmos. We are born in a small part of it, called the earth; we eat and drink what the earth can provide; we play and rest on the earth; we grow old on the earth; we die on the earth and are eventually returned to the earth. In view of these facts, man's relationship with the cosmos is infinitely greater than with his parents. It is not the parents but the cosmos that gives us birth and accommodates us. Cosmos as organism The cosmos is not a machine but an organism; a machine, no matter how efficient, is lifeless but an organism, no matter how clumsy, is live and kicking. The fact that man is a child of the cosmic evolutionary process, clearly shows that his qualities of intelligence, wisdom, justice, courage, magnaminity etc., lie dormant in the atoms and become live when they reach the level of arrangement associated with the human stage. Purpose of evolution A study of the cosmic evolutionary process from the elementary particles to human level, indicates that man is the highest member of the cosmic family and his greatness is pivoted on consciousness, that is, the ability to know and create further knowledge. Without man the universe's knowledge of its self can't be any more than the consciousness of a dreaming person. The entire purpose of evolution s to create man so that the cosmos can gain self-cognizance

through him because it is only man who possesses active consciousness and the faculty to understand himself analytically, and whatever exists in the universe. Although everything is connected with everything else, this relationship is dormant. It is only through the human consciousness that it becomes awake. Thus, man serves as the interconnecting link to the universe and acts as its pulse. Man, the microcosm This is what turns man into a miniature cosmos or microcosm. Thus knowing one's self counts as the universal knowledge in terms of being. Urge of self-improvement Another point that arises from this discussion is the fundamental cosmic urge for selfimprovement. The evolution (say) from atoms to man denotes a gradual process of selfupgrading which is, in fact, the realisation of the self-improvement urge. It means that the potential qualities of atoms such as intellect, consciousness, feeling, dreaming, determining, designing etc. have been aligned by the long and gradual process of self-improvement to emerge as man. This is no fairy tale. Look at the computers: cybernetics can't be anything but engineering of atoms for arranging them into patterns able to express their underlying intellectual capacity as computers. The ultimate goal Yet man can't be the ultimate aim of the cosmic urge of self-improvement because he is imperfect and needs a lot of further improvement. The goal of this cosmic urge extends beyond man but I find it prudent to terminate this discussion here. I shall pick up this strand in due course. However, I may add that the final goal of the universe is an integral part of interrelationships, and its understanding requires a good deal of learning besides instinctive knowledge. Knowledge is always incomplete Compared to the instinctive knowledge which is minimal, the acquired or learnt knowledge is limitless. Man's rise from horse-riding to flying to the moon, proves this point, and also confirms that knowledge is never complete. It is not only because ignorance is an integral part of knowledge but also because knowledge unfolds itself in stages. We know more than our ancestors did, and our children will know more than we do. Again, if this were not true, evolution could not take place because the jump from a lower species to a higher species is usually accompanied by an increase in the power of understanding. It shows that purpose of knowledge, whether inherent or learnt, is not only survival but also self-improvement. In fact, the entire process of evolution, from microbe to man, is an annotation of this point. Besides, without knowledge being a gradual process, the rate of dissemination is likely to be so fast that man will not keep up with his own innovations and thus it (knowledge) will prove his Frankenstine. This measured progress of knowledge is rooted in ignorance. Take fundamentalism-versus-science, for instance. It is amazing how ecclesiastical ignorance arrested the brilliance of Galileo and how interests of the religious leaders have curbed the march of Moslem nations towards progress. Finally, if knowledge were not limitless, society would eventually become tagnant for lack of new ideas, and abundance of dogma. Such a state will disturb the balance between ignorance and knowledge, and the former will swallow the latter, leading to chaos The fact that the human brain is so brilliant yet possesses a limited memory, expresses the need for a balance between ignorance and knowledge. Some implications of knowledge At this juncture, one must realise some implications of knowledge: a. Dividing line between knowledge and ignorance becomes very thin, indeed, when knowledge is subjected to wilful interpretations to suit the purpose of the interpreter People, not only in the

religious field but also in scientific theories, resort to deliberate falsehood to prove something which they ought to condemn. Einstein, for example, to appease his religious convictions, concocted what is called "cosmological constant" for introducing a new antigravity force into his equations of the general theory of relativity. By this exercise he wanted to prove against all evidence, that the universe was static. It shows that an increase in knowledge proportionately expands the frontier of ignorance either through the reactions of the fundamentalists or through the exaggerated attitudes of the zealots. Quest for Eternity b. . Quest for life beyond death is the natural instinct of man because survival is his most ardent passion. This desire is as naturally embedded in him as greenery lies dormant in a field. Therefore, the branch of knowledge that restricts life-span to three scores and ten years and does not anticipate what lies beyond, is like the brilliant eye which cannot penetrate through a solid barrier. There is nothing more legitimate than the search for eternity because without eternity, knowledge itself becomes perishable for the simple reason that it is peculiar to man: no man, no knowledge, and thus loses its purpose which is survival. Free Will c. Knowledge means knowing more and more. Therefore, it implies an everincreasing choice which advocates free will i.e. the freedom to choose and act. On the contrary, ignorance indicates constant shrinkage of knowledge and minimization of choice leading to external controls. In communist lands, stateworship is deliberately fostered to keep people ignorant of their civil liberties for practicing deterministic philosophy. This equally applies to the religious fundamentalists who resort to false propaganda against other faiths and tenets to indoctrinate their followers for subjecting them to their own will. However, one should not forget the complementary role of ignorance which Contributes to the meritorious aspect of knowledge because without it the elements of curiosity, mystery and balanced growth of knowledge cannot come into being. Evolution is nothing but gradual emergence of knowledge through the interactions of cosmic forces. Knowledge can't be defined d. Knowledge cannot be defined precisely. One can only describe it approximately e.g. it is an answer to a question, and the answer may be the result of an accident or a deliberate effort, which recognises a case or a proposition for an investigation Trust and knowledge e. Knowledge cannot be complete or absolute. Therefore, one is quite legitimately entitled to hold presuppositions. Again, knowledge is more indirect and less direct because we cannot observe everything ourselves, and are obliged to depend upon the testimony of others. Even direct evidence of witnesses becomes hearsay evidence to the presiding judge who has not himself seen the events. Thus knowledge comes to be based on trust, and "I believe this to be true" ranks as "I know it to be true", at least until such time that one's trust can be proved misplaced. However the belief emanating from bribe or fright (heaven or hell) as in the case of "revealed" religions does not qualify as trust because it is forced upon the believers. Effect of time on knowledge f. Meaning of knowledge and its purpose is not usually accepted as it is but governed by the spirit of time. In a materialistic age as ours, economic theories such as Marxism, colour the vision of life. About two hundred years ago, abandonment of material necessities and indulgence in asceticism marked the apex of knowledge. Even scientists wore the yoke of bigotry; Newton, like the people of his age, believed in an absolute God and thus considered space as absolute against the implications of his own laws. Before him, Galileo, despite knowing the falsehood of the Biblical doctrine, remained a faithful Catholic.

Practical aspect of knowledge g. Finally, knowledge is not power but the potential power. H2O, as an underlying principle of water though meaningful in itself, does not become a reality until atoms of hydrogen and oxygen combine in the ratio of 2:1. It follows that knowledge is not just a theoretical affair but also has a practical aspect. Source of knowledge How is knowledge attained? Many theories have been evolved on this subject and each has some truth in it but they all can be integrated into a single whole if I state that knowledge is mainly the function of the brain which has several faculties such as sensory organs, perceptical ability, memory, dreaming, thinking, reasoning and intuition. The truth of this statement lies in the fact that when the brain is influenced by anaesthetics or stunned by a blow, we become unconscious and know nothing about ourselves or the environment. Without a minimum degree of consciousness, life is not possible: in hibernation, an animal is said to retain some 10°70 of its consciousness to react to the external stimuli for staying alive. The brain According to the-present state of knowledge, the human brain comprises some lo1' neurons Thus the total number of synaptic contacts is likely to be 10'4. It makes the brain a very vast system based on an autonomous will. The embryonic human brain, during the first three weeks, looks like the embryonic brain of any other animal. It shows the similarity of origin of all beings. However, as the time progresses, the human brain exhibits the parts which are not seen in those of the lower species. Obviously, it is a proof of its further development It has been suggested that the appearance of the extra brain tissues resulted in the development of higher and additional faculties. During the evolutionary process, the brain has retained all its original associations - ranging from the oldest, innermost region known as the reptilian complex, to cerebral cortex. Since the reptilian complex governs the basic functions to ensure survival, it has been held as a remnant of the times when ancestors of the human race still dwelt in marshes. The cerebral cortex is associated with intellect which gives man behavioural dignity, leading to cultural and spiritual values. Teleology Sensing, perceiving and the intellectual disciplines are essentially the functions of the brain (and central nervous system). Animals deprived of cerebral lobes lose their ability to perceive, judge and remember. Identity of an individual is inseparable from the brain and the sense of actual existence is also a part of it, and lies in the parietal lobe. Thus physical structure of the human brain along with the central nervous system, carries evidence of the beginning of intellect in organisms to its existing magnitude. This unique development has been in response to environmental vicissitudes and pressures. Since it marks the triumph of the intellectual process leading to consciousness, which makes the existence of the cosmos felt, it alludes to a purpose inscribed into the molecules and exhibits capability of realising it. Sensory reception Apart from the inherent epistemological powers of the brain, learnt knowledge starts with sensory reception which enables an organism to react to changes in external and internal environments. This is facilitated by the neural elements which translate changes into nerve impulses. Without this process, organisms, especially at the higher level, could not survive for lack of adjustment. The mechanism of sense reception speaks for its role in epistemology. Each type of sense cell or receptor produces a specific output reaction and a measured sensation known as the ``modality perceived". The significance of a sense cell becomes obvious by the fact that if the optic nerve could be functionally joined with the ear and the acoustic nerve connected with the eye, lightning would not be seen but heard and thunder would be seen instead of being heard. Even the instinctive knowledge is likely to lose its value without the most befitting biological arrangement of sense cells, which ensure selectivity by inhibiting the effect of the unwanted

simuli and making extremely sensitive the effect of the desired ones. Without such selectivity, sensation will be very confusing, indeed This process is further aided by the fact that there is a close relationship between the highly developed sense organs and regions of the central nervous system for coordinating the incoming information which enables the organism to understand its environment. Sense organs To the traditional senses of man such as sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch the modern knowledge has added several more; skin alone is said to possess a number of different modalities or senses such as hot, cold, pressure and pain. Yet another addition is the kinesthetic sense i.e. the sense organs in muscles, tendons and joints. Again, scientists have discovered a sense of balance or equilibrium. The circulatory system is also endowed with receptors (sense cells) which respond to the changes in blood pressure, and even the digestive tract has its receptors which mediate the experiences of hunger and thirst. Perception Surely, without sensory reception, knowledge is impossible. Without the mediation of the sensory faculties, even the inherent knowledge of the brain will be hazy and insensible. However, sensory reception in itself is not knowledge but sense data requiring coordination and interpretation. It is done by perception, a faculty of the brain which translates the sensory stimulation into an organised experience or percept, a joint product of the stimulation and process of perceiving. There is always a specific relationship between a stimulation and its associated percept. For example, light from a distant star bears testimony to its properties but assessment of the truth depends upon the accuracy of the inference that we draw from it. Relativity of knowledge of observer A percept is obviously a private experience because I see and feel with my own sense organs which are peculiar to myself, and their sensitivity and level of operation may also vary from other people. This is the reason that no one may know how I feel or think about a certain experience. This is an extension of mystery which is a part of ignorance, and explains its role in life. It also follows that knowledge is relative to the observer. Understanding depends upon the acuity of one's sense organs, one's age and maturity, one's personal conflict and expectancy, one's culture and faith, one's habits, training and experiences. Above all, one's concentration of mind, intensity of purpose, the magnitude of stimulus, sex, time and distance - all play roles in acquiring knowledge and these roles are relative to the observer. However, though knowledge is relative to the observer, the reality it seeks is universal e.g. distance of the moon from the earth or its size are the same for everyone. Thus perception cannot impose its own dimensions on the exterior world which exists independently, and the observer recognises them according to his own perceptual abilities. Problems of Epistemology Instead of making understanding easier, the epistemologist has made it more difficult. He argues that as perception is a private experience, testimony based on it cannot be valid, and therefore, we cannot know if a real physical world exists independently of human experience! Proof of existence This is a strange stance but one cannot dismiss it as fun. Every point of view deserves consideration. I am not an illusion; I exist because I worry about my survival. That what does not exist, cannot worry about its existence. Again, the entire civilisation and its physical trappings result from man's struggle for existence. The one who asks this type of question must also exist; otherwise he could not ask questions. If I exist, my parents, brothers and sisters must also exist, and so must all members of the society. Again, they must exist somewhere. Since they exist on earth which is a part of the universe, the universe itself must also exist.

The scientists have solved this problem beautifully. They have demonstrated beyond doubt that the cosmos was here before the emergence of man, and without the cosmos, man could not have come into being. The Bible also confirms that the earth and heaven were created before man. The Koran also states that the earth, heaven, angels, Iblis (Satan) etc. existed before Adam was created. Since existence was a reality before the birth of man, what can turn the universe including man, into an illusion? The human mind is a part of the human body which exists in this universe. If the human mind can't perceive this reality, fault lies with the mind and not the universe. World as an illusion is an old myth cleverly woven into the texture of philosophy. It is simply a device of escapism based on despondence which thrives on denial of reality. The world is real: an elephant looks an elephant to me each time I gaze at it; neither its shape nor its dimensions change. If the elephant were not a reality, it must appear as different things at different times. Brain and innate ideas The epistemologists also doubt if the brain has any innate ideas. Brain is the highest and the most complex form of existence in the universe. Its power to criticise itself and appraise everything else testifies to its excellence. Since ordinary atoms have latent properties, their most accomplished form, that is, the brain must possess immeasurably higher qualities. As an idea represents potential power, innate ideas must be the cornerstone of the brain. The fact that different nations at different times thought of similar mathematical theories, vouches for this fact. Again, the consistency of the grammatical rules of various languages proves the originality of the human brain in terms of thinking and innovation. Innovative power of brain Innovative power of the brain is demonstrated by its virtue to increase its Perceptual abilities almost endlessly. Take, for example, a person of weak eye-sight. With glasses, he may be able to read the minute print and by using a powerful telescope, he may observe the wonders of the moon and beyond. Rationalism It is said that perception is an unconscious process of the brain. May be it is so, due to the tremendous computations involved. However, reasoning is surely a conscious faculty of the brain because it involves weighing up the pros and cons of things, their analysis and synthesis. It is critical but judicious. Rationalists claim that reason provides the perfect guidance. It is positive and contains no hypothetical element. Limits of rationalism Though I adore rationalism, I find these claims exaggerated because the best scientific conclusions are based on hypotheses. For example, the assertion that the universe is closed and finite, cannot be proved exclusively. Again, the statement that in a finite yet boundless universe, the maximum possible distance between two points is not much greater than 10'° light years, is nonsensical because the figures involved are too large to be encompassed by the flight of imagination for rational understanding. Again, in logic there is always a counter-argument for every argument. Though in pure knowledge, it is essential to create mystery and curiosity, in practical life, it may not always be helpful and may lead to confusion. For example, the second postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity states that the velocity of light is always constant relative to an observer irrespective of how fast or slow an observer and a light source are approaching or separating: the speed and direction of movement of an observer should affect the velocity of light yet it travels at 186,000 miles a second relative to the observer. Why? Because this is the law of nature and reason cannot negate it. It certainly does not lower the value of reason because everything that has a practical significance is within the reach of reason. In fact, reason is intellect and intellect is reason. This is what elevates a mammal to the dignity of man, and this is what saves him from the clutches of total ignorance to keep the candle of knowledge aflame.

Rationalists also claim that senses cannot gauge universals i.e. abstract concepts such as whiteness. The fact is that unless one can see white things, one cannot reasonably think of whiteness. An abstract noun (universal) is just an extension of a common or proper noun and cannot exist on its own. Reason itself is a higher faculty of the brain and can have no meaning without sensory reception and perceptual abilities. Can there be a sensible or reasonable person without sense organs such as sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing and many other senses that science has discovered? Without senses a person will lack the ability to survive for not being able to respond to the internal and external stimuli Empiricism Empiricism is not an antithesis of rationalism but its natural extension because it intends to test the validity of a reasonable hypothesis experimentally. Surely, no rationalist wants a fantasy to gain the status of a fact. Intuition intuition is the highest faculty of the brain and serves as the final arbiter of the truth. Whereas reason decides on the basis of certainty or balance of probabilities through an intellectual process of sifting the truth from trivialities, intuition reaches its verdict by the sheer intensity of its insight. It is an intellectual virtue which is peculiar to humans only. It is a torch whose luminosity varies from person to person. Some of us possess it in greater degree than others. Mostly, it is to be found as a potential, but with devotion it becomes active. However, as a general rule, it illuminates the paths that one treads purposely. A person may be a genius in a certain respect, say, as a guitar player but if he does not play the guitar, intuition will not guide him; it will stay dormant for lack of devotion. Some examples of intuition through devotion are to be found in daily life; a physicist gets the feel without consciousness that his experiment will succeed if he adopts certain measures. An architect may decide without knowing the geological reasons that construction work should not commence on a certain plot of land. We know that Newton asserted the veracity of the views of Galileo which lacked experimental validity. Some aspects of Einstein's theory were tested to be true long after his death. Michael Faraday had no formal qualifications, yet he was the first to develop the concept of electromagnetic fields. All these discoveries were intuitive. It shows that intuition is not a guesswork based on experience. A discovery or judgement is intuitive only when it is correct and carries no element of speculation related to the techniques of argument and counter-argument. Intuition is like a glow-worm (Lampyris Noctiluca) which is self-illuminating and whose luminosity increases correspondingly as conditions become murkier. It is the natural guide and needs no measurement, calcualtion or sense-data. Nature of intuition Intuition may also act as a flash when one is riding the fantasy-horse. A sudden thought to do or not to do something is an example of this flash which is always instructive and prompts righteousness. The flash persuasive of evil is not intuition but a force of the morbid mind. Intuition may also be activated by the need for weighing up a situation when reason cannot decide it one way or another. Thus intuition is not under the command of the will. It operates independently. Intuition and mystical vision Contrary to the function of instinct which guides an organism at the lower level, intuition operates at the highest level, that is, it steers mankind towards eternity. Thus its goal is much loftier than that of instinct. In the intuitive field, the end does not justify the means but the instinctive behaviour is more interested in achieving the end than worrying about the legitimacy of means. Thus, intuition concerns moral conscience and the matters spiritual. Its ultimate aim is to create mystical vision leading to Godhead. Idealism is yet another important issue of epistemology but I shall postpone its discussion to a later stage.

Evidence Finally, the purpose of sensory reception, perceptual abilities, thinking and reasoning is to provide evidence for reaching a conclusion, the goal of knowledge: 1. Evidence is direct when it is based on personal observation but it is indirect or hearsay when it is accepted on trust. 2. Direct evidence is closely related with the magnitude of the observer's sensory organs and perceptual abilities. 3. The quality of hearsay evidence involves more than the witness's sensory powers and perceptual abilities. His memory, motives, integrity and voluntariness are of the utmostimportance. 4. The method of tendering evidence exhibits its own significance, as displayed by the courtprocedures and skills of the professional advisers. 5. Methods of collecting evidence and interpreting it are equally important to the outcome. Inference Inference is another word for interpreting. It means deriving conclusions from the available evidence or the information offered. An inference must be reasonable. Emotion, faith, prejudice and wild imagination have no place in it. Above all, the motive and purpose must not influence the nature of the evidence i.e. the material collected for this purpose. Some of the accepted methods of inference are as follows: a. Induction: it is arguing from many instances to a general statement. b. Deduction: it implies analysing the accepted forms of argument for eliciting the conclusion implicit in their premises. c. Statistical reasoning: its conclusions are based on averages, that is, a certain percentage of a set of figures is held satisfactory to justify the stated conditions. d. Probability is based on the frequencies that take place within a certain sphere and lead to conclusions of stated likelihood. From the above, it is not difficult to understand that pure reason i.e. the reason free from the pollutions of bias and bigotry, is the basis of inference i.e. drawing conclusions. However, as knowledge is relative to the observer, none of the stated methods can guarantee a universally acceptable judgement, and different people may draw different conclusions from the same evidence. Despite this diversity of opinion, the eventual judge still remains inference: even the scientific data are Subject to the authority of inference for emerging as meaningful concepts. Thus inference passes the ultimate judgement based on pros and cons. On the contrary, intuition is the supreme judge when pros and cons are not available. What I am about to say in the succeeding chapters shall be expressed in terms of the evidence provided by physics and biology. The reader is entitled to draw his own inference.

CHAPTER ELEVEN THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE

Metaphysics, among other things, primarily concerns investigation of the first principles of nature and thought, and therefore, broadly speaking, ranks as ontology or the science of being. Search for discovering the Creative Principle which manifests itself as the universe and all its interrelationships is understood to be the Reality and thus constitutes as the goal of epistemology or knowledge. What is reality? It happens to be not only the toughest question to answer but also the most important because the entire purpose of life is closely related to it. Again, this enquiry is fundamental: it is embedded in the human nature as greenery is interwoven into the texture of a meadow. Therefore, one must seek the truth (reality) consciously and actively, and not through the rosy glasses of faith which create a biased and restricted vision, thus destroying the goal of genuine search. May be an enquiry can be launched into the nature of reality by asking the following questions: (a) Who am I? (b) Is this universe real? Who am I? Answer to (a) is seldom given in a satisfactory form. For example, it has been said that "only I exist". If this be the truth, then there is nothing to be explored; Thus I simply live for myself and by myself. But it is against the experience because I live relative to the social and physical environments. As I exist relative to other things, everything else exists relative to me. I am because I am a part of existence which is a mutual process. The world, an illusion The answer to (b) has been even more misleading. Man's desire to escape the demands of Reality, has frequently used the fast flying-horse of faith to carry him into the fanciful domains of paradise filled with the greatest fecundity that imagination can offer. Philosophical thought has been equally evasive. Plato, using the Hindu concept of Maya, projected the world as an illusion which has prompted mankind to seek release by escaping the problems of existence instead of facing them through courage, discipline and equanimity. If the universe is an illusion, then being a part of it, I am myself an illusion but my urges and the mighty struggles that I wage to realise them, clearly show that I exist. In fact, it proves that as a member of the human race, I am so superb and significant that the universe exists through me. How? Because I am the only intelligent being who is endowed with sufficient consciousness to recognise that there is a universe. Without me, the universe is just an aggregate of dust and gases because unless its existence is recognised, it is no better than the most beautiful rose that has grown in the wilderness but there is no pretty damsel to make it a part of her ornamentations. Godhead, the cosmic purpose The universe has a purpose. To achieve it, the cosmos strives sincerely, strenuously and slavishly, and with a unique blend of wisdom and wizardry, to bring about the wonderful evolution of man. Thus man is truly the baby of the cosmos; and the goal of his life is simply to realise the cosmic purpose which as I shall explain is Godhead, the highest and the noblest state of existence. In a nutshell, the answer to (a) and (b) is that I am the cosmic baby who is destined to be the fountain of Godhead, the ultimate goal of the cosmos, which is real. In a previous chapter, I have discussed at length that there cannot be a Creator God. It means that existence of the universe cannot be explained in terms of cause-and-effect, yet one has to probe the mystery: Where does the universe come from?

There can be only two answers to this question. Firstly, the cosmos has always existed, and secondly, it comes out of "nothingness". Assuming that the universe comes out of nothingness, then surely we are talking about the type of nothingness which can't be anything but the womb of existence. In this case, we are indulging in a play of words because the distinction between nothingness and existence ceases to be a real one, and it becomes more appropriate to say that the universe has always existed. However, we must realise that the cosmos could not have always existed in its present elaborate form because the entity of everything proceeds on the principle of simple to complex, minor to major, chaos to order and lower to higher. How did, then, this universe start? Origin of universe The best person to answer this question is the modern scientist who is always burning midnight oil to illumine the mysteries of nature. I shall, therefore, base the explanation on his discoveries; we are told: Elementary building blocks 1. The world is made of matter which is composed of two elementary building blocks: quarks and the electrons. However, to simplify the discussion, I need not go into such details, and should add that matter is made of atoms. Atom 2. An atom is the smallest unit of a chemical element which retains its elemental identity. It has a central core, known as the nucleus which consists of protons and neutrons, and is surrounded by a number of electrons. Not only the interactions of atoms are determined by the arrangement and conduct of the electrons but the chemical processes and the physical properties of matter are also governed by their arrangement and behaviour. Since nature provides about 9o different elements, there naturally exist 90 types of atom. The nucleus is positively charged; neutrons and protons represent the subatomic order; it is raised to the atomic level by the negatively charged electrons which revolve in their orbits around the nuclei. The nucleus represents 99.95 per cent of the mass of the atom but occupies only 10-'s Of the volume; electrons encircle the remaining part. The mean distance of an electron from the nucleus is about 10-8 centimetres, and it is this distance which determines the size of the atoms Despite being a very tiny object, an atom is the epitome of the planetary system; its nucleus is surrounded by the electrons as the sun is encircled by the planets. It vouches for the basic unity of the underlying principle. Yet another point to remember is that despite containing opposite charges, atoms are electrically neutral owing to the exactly equal number of positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons. Value of a property It is the property of a thing which gives it an identity. Matter is matter because it has properties such as density, thermal conductivity, electrical, magnetizability, dielectric constant, specific heat, etc. These properties which matter possesses as a spatially stretched expanse, give birth to numerous other properties. Take man, for instance. His intellect, ingenuity, speech, taste, choice, temperament, arrogance, adjustability, kindness, cruelty, prowess, pusillanimity, etc. are all expressions of matter at the human level. Since matter is made of atoms, all the known properties, qualities and attributes are embedded in atoms. These atomic characteristics obviously emanate from the latent tendencies of the particles which constitute atoms. This transformation from tendencies to particular traits is brought about by physical processes and chemical reactions, which are nothing but a mechanism of change. One should note that change is basically from a lower point to a higher status. The change in the opposite direction is the inability of something to retain the evolutionary advantage gained. Thus urge for selfimprovement is the basic trait of evolutionary change because without it evolution becomes meaningless. Change, as becoming

Becoming means changing from one form to another: Change of position is called movement and change of form is referred to as a chemical reaction. Change of substance is also a change of form because form concerns not only the outward appearance but also the interior. Since everything is constantly in the process of some kind of change, things come into being through change and exist through adaptation to the environment which is yet another description of change. Again, it is through change, things discard their old properties, attain new ones and sustain them. Though atoms can be frozen, they are restless by nature, and thus in a process Of perpetual change. If we delve deeper into the concept of change, it transpires that change is another name for motion or movement; movement, especially the creative movement, is always directed towards a destination. Therefore, the cosmos which is a phenomenon of change, has a purpose. Are atoms, which constitute the natural phenomena, really the product of change? Big Bang Modern physics reveals that the elementary particles were born of the Big Bang, the initial explosion, though the atomic nuclei were formed in the central cores of stars. As these stars exploded over a long period of time, they emptied their sizzling materials into the immensity of interstellar spaces where the nuclei adorned themselves with electrons to evolve as atoms. The luminosity of this theory is clouded by our near-ignorance of such concepts as time, space, energy, matter, force, direction, chance, law and so on. Since existence of the cosmos cannot be imagined without these concepts, they must rank as its integral parts. The minimal information that we have of the natural phenomena arouses our curiosity to indulge further in the hypothesis for conquering the realm of ignorance. Initial stages of evolution What has been said above in a few words, now I may enlarge to elucidate the purpose of this discussion: 1. It is just a conjecture what happened during the first second of the Big Bang. Quarks are said to have played a major role in the first millionth of a second. In the ratio of three to three they combined to form nucleons. Deutrons, as individuality a. The ocean of heat, during the first second, contained populations of five elementary particles: protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, and neutrinos. These particles which at temperatures above 102a degrees lose their individuality, wandered at will without recognising each other. However, in some cases, protons and neutrons did combine to form the simplest nuclear system known as the deutron i.e. heavy hydrogen nucleus. Primordial nucleosynthesis b At the completion of the first second, the temperature drops to a billion degrees when deutrons begin to capture neutrons and protons. This period of fierce nuclear activity known as "primordial nucleosynthesis" gives birth to nuclear systems Comprising three and four nucleons (proton and neutron) but these are helium nuclei. This process lasts only a few minutes because the temperature drops to such an extent that the nucleosynthesis i.e. nuclear evolution, cannot continue. At this stage the universe has a copious population of helium - 4 nuclei. c. This first stage is governed by the emergence of nuclear force. The cosmic fiasco d. Scientists claim that the primordial nuclear evolution came to a halt with the production of helium-4. They say that it marks the failure of the cosmic experiment in its effort to evolve. Why? Because helium is too strongly bound to associate with other types of nuclei and thus

flouts the law of nature which requires association through bonding to create complexity for extending the ladder of evolution. But association cannot take place if the bonds are too strong; the extraordinary strength leads to sterility and the system closes in upon itself. Thus helium stops the evolutionary process, and this so-called "state of interregnum,, continues to exist for a million years. Birth of atoms 2. As temperature drops still lower, the state of the universe brings about the awakening of electromagnetism. It is at this stage that a proton arrests an electron to form an atom of hydrogen. Protons have positive electric charge and electrons are negatively charged. They waited for the appropriate change in the physical conditions to assert their role. This happened at a temperature of about 3000 degrees when each proton united with an electron. This union marked the birth of atoms, the building blocks of the universe. Thus existence owes itself to two facts: a. Association between particles which can take place only if the bonds between them are not too rigid, and secondly, b. The union is a directed one; it is neutrons and protons that combine to form nuclei, and not neutrons and electrons; it is the opposites which react towards each other to create atoms, and not the reaction between positive charges. The particles are obviously endowed with a potential which is realised according to the predetermined laws which are probably the part of this potential. It must be true because one can become only according to one's potential; no potential -no being. Of course, potential of everything is brought about by change but this change as potential determines or directs the identity of what follows from it. Force of Gravity 3. As the realm of radiation is conquered by matter, the force of gravity begins to play a major role in the creation of galaxies, clusters and superclusters. These combinations are brought about by the gravitational force the same way as nuclear force welds the helium nuclei, and electromagnetic force shapes the hydrogen molecules. Gas condensations take place and a part of their energy is transformed into internal heat. The heated gases begin to shine as stars thus giving birth to the evolutionary growth of complexity. These "stars" in their embryonic form contain the primitive products of nucleosynthesis such as hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium but no trace of heavier atoms. The stars in their interior manufacture the chemical elements of life thus providing a second chance for nuclear evolution. It is caused by the thermal ascent which reaches about 10 million degrees. Various chemical reactions lead to the formation of a new nuclear system, i.e ``carbon" which plays a major role in chemical and biological evolution. Again, carbon nuclei unite with helium nuclei to bring about oxygen, which enhances the probability of evolution through the magic of complexity; the nuclei of intermediate mass appear and through a long chain of gradual additions the most massive nuclei such as uranium - 238 emerge: this system contains 92 protons and 146 neutrons, and is thus capable of changing into thousands of forms each having an internal arrangement of orbits of protons and neutrons peculiar to itself. During its long life, a star goes through various vicissitudes and eventually suffers an explosion' releasing the stellar matter which travels through space at the speed of many thousands of miles per second. The death of a star draws attention to the following points: Evolution as Principle a. It goes through the same pattern of events which took place at the time of the Big Bang. Obviously, the evolutionary principle precedes the evolution itself and thus plays the directive role. Death, the ambassador of life b. The exploding star or a supernova is the germ for an advanced phase of evolution (i.e. death opens a new door to life) because the ejected debris of the star consists of heavy nuclei. This

change, i.e. variation from nuclei of intermediate mass to heavy nuclei, carries the promise of cosmic evolution. The interstellar debris becomes richer to produce heavy atoms. It is these enriched gases which act as a womb for the birth of the later generations of stars. These stars, through a process of change, father ninety elements such as hydrogen, helium, lithium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, sodium, iron, nickel etc. which suffer many changes to produce the garden of existence with innumerable forms, each carrying its own history of change. Universal interrelationships We should remember that different structural (chemical) elements have a potential, that is, their innate properties, but through chemical reaction, they also come to possess family traits i.e. they develop the ability to form relationship with one another. Their combinations carry an aura of natural choice because they associate with certain other elements only and not with any element. Thus expansion of relationships leads to new and larger families or diversity, but contraction in realtionships marks the beginning of extinction. Therefore, the universe is an exhibition of interrelationships and not of cause-and-effect. However, at the root of relationships lies change because all that appears or disappears, hides or seeks, lives or dies, is subject to the Law of Change. Coming into being of the primordial fire ball was itself an act of change. Since its explosion, change has been rampant ceaselessly. Since all natural phenomena are manifestations of change, only change seems to be the reality. Is it so? Yes it is. To understand this trUth, we must look at the following facts: Peculiarities of Change 1. One can state straightaway that Change as the Fundamental Principle cannot be subject to any extraneous influence because it is its essence to keep changing all the time. Therefore, what is immune from the extraneous influences must be original; it has always existed, and it always will. However, initially, as I shall explain later, change was infantile or embryonic. It evolved through interrelationships which were its own manifestations, and the resulting stability emerges from the latent desire of maintaining them. It is this desire or tendency of change to maintain interrelationships which causes systematization based on rigid rules of composition. Initial change was, indeed, a wild force. a. As all natural phenomena are displays of change, and change is eternal, existence is not subject to extinction; it is an eternal circle of appearance and disappearance or more properly, a play of evolution, Revolution and re-evolution because change as the fundamental principle cannot operate in a void. Therefore "extinction" is just a change of form: annihilation of a positron and an electron produces two photons, and when two photons collide, a positron and an electron come into being provided they possess sufficient energy. Thus extinction is not only a form of change but also a reversible process. Change is the essence of things. All attractive and repulsive powers known as forces are various aspects of change. In fact, without perpetual change, existence is impossible. This is why Einstein asserted everything attracts everything, and scientists include in "everything", movement as well as bodies which have no mass such as photons of light. Matter attracts light and light attracts light! Reality is circular b. Again, what is perpetually changing cannot have a distinct starting point or an end. It is like a circle; after a circle has been drawn, it is impossible to say at what point it started and at what point it ended because one end runs into another quite imperceptibly. Thus reality is spherical and question of start and end does not apply. Therefore, cause-and-effect does not initiate the universe; it only explains, whenever possible, how change operates as the principle. Unity of origin 2. Modern scientific studies, as explained above, reveal that everything is composed of elementary particles which themselves lose their individuality at temperatures about 1028

degrees. Therefore, they all must have the same origin. This unity of origin clearly shows that everything is a variation of the same truth. In other words, everything is a different manifestation of change. Weinberg-Salam theory a. This point is further explained by what is called the Weinberg-Salam theory which propounds the spontaneous symmetry breaking property, and claims that particles look different at low energies only and thus their difference is related to the difference of states because in fact all particles are of the same type. Cause-and-effect Since things have a common origin, diversity cannot be attributed to an external cause. It must lie within things which are helped by the environmental factors to assume different forms. b. The above fact is illustrated by the composition of things. For example, HaO equals water, that is, when two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of oxygen, they change into water which can assume gaseous and solid states as well as change into myriads of other forms of vegetation and animals. Exactitude of change c It reveals yet another characteristic of change, i.e. entity or composition of things is a measured or regulated one. In other words, nothing can come into being without an underlying principle or law. In this case, H20 is the law. There is no other way of bringing water into being. Urge of recognition This observation unmasks another mystery: water is the manifestation of its underlying principle (H2O). Thus without manifestation the underlying principle cannot be recognized. The urge for recognition seems to be an integral part of the underlying principle, and therefore, manifestation and the underlying principle become one and the same thing: when we decompose water, the underlying principle also disappears (in relation to the decomposed water). Stability d. Put it another way, manifestation refers to stability. As cold is meaningless without hot and dark cannot be understood without light, change is not comprehensible without stability. They are the two opposite poles of the same reality as photons and electrons are (said to be) their own opposites. An even better example is provided by a light wave which is never stationary (i.e. perpetually changing) but always moves in crests and troughs. Obviously, both the crest and the trough are equally essential for the concept of change because change cannot take place without transformation from one state to another. Obviously, where there is change, there is also stability. The creative principle 3. What I have so far called "The Fundamental Principle" and "change", can also be described as the "Creative Principle" owing to their precision and flexibility: it is these two characteristics of change which impart order to chaos through evolution. Precision Here are some examples of precision:

a. It takes three quarks to build a proton. Why? Because of their respective electric forces, two quarks repel each other exactly the same way as two electrons do Similarly, it requires three quarks to form a neturon. Without such a precision, existence will not be possible. b. The universe is said to have been expanding for the last ten thousand million years. The precision in the rate of expansion is absolutely stunning. Scientists claim that one second after the Big Bang, if the rate of expansion had varied by one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe could not have evolved! Obviously existence means being in the precisely right ratio. c. Electric charges which are opposite to each other, have got to be exactly equal in numbers. To realise the vastness of the opposite charges in the universe, just take one gram of hydrogen which contains about 600 billion trillion (600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) protons and exactly the same number of electrons. A proton has a positive charge and an electron has a negative charge If an ounce of ordinary matter suffered as little as one per cent difference in the numbers of its positive and negative charges, the said ounce of matter Would explode with a force equal to the entire weight of the earth! What a precision it is! Flexibility The following examples illustrate flexibility of the Creative Principle: d. All known particles are divided into two groups according to their type of spin. It is claimed that the particles of spin 1/2 constitute the matter whereas the particles which possess spin 0,1 and 2 give rise to interactions (forces) between the matter particles. Pauli's Exclusion Principle Flexibility of the Creative Principle lies in the fact that the matter particles obey the Pauli's Exclusion Principle but the force-carrying particles do not. The Pauli's Exclusion Principle declares that two similar particles cannot exist in the same state: if they both have the same position they must have different velocities within the limits allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. This is the reason that matter particles can resist the influence of the forces generated by the particles carrying spin 0,1 and 2. Without it, they would collapse to a state of extreme density. To elucidate this point, I may add that forces between matter particles are thought to be carried by particles of integer spin - 0, 1 or 2 which operate in the following manner: As an electron or a quark emits a force-carrying particle, its bouncing effect changes the velocity of the matter particle, thus causing a collision between itself and another matter particle. Though the force-carrying particle is absorbed, its head-on clash serves to change the velocity of the second particle and thus behaves as if there existed a force between the two matter particles. Immunity of the force-carrying particles from the Pauli's Exclusion Principle, imparts this exchange mechanism an unlimited boost, giving rise to a strong force. This immunity amounts to flexibility, and forms an integral part of the Creative Principle. Without it, operation of forces will be faulty, and the necessary prey that the universe requires for its evolution, shall not be forthcoming. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle e. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is yet another example of flexibility. It states that the prediction of future depends upon the exact measurements of the position and velocity of a particle but this is not possible because only one aspect can be measured correctly - position or velocity. Therefore, there is no such thing as certainty' and the scientists believe that the Uncertainty Principle is the fundamental property of the universe.

This does not seem quite true. Uncertainty means near-certainty because if it were not so, the scientists could not land a man on the moon, nor could Voyager 2 probe the mysteries of Neptune. This truth is equally borne out by life which cannot be based on sheer guesswork and a series of chances. However, for the purpose of this discussion, uncertainty simply means flexibility as opposed to certainty which is a form of precision or rigidity. f. Operational wisdom of the Creative Principle is unlimited. It knows exactly when to be precise or flexible. Take for instance, the forces between molecules. Without mutual attraction molecules will not form but if they go on attracting one another, matter will condense to such an extent that the universe will implode. The interatomic forces must become repulsive at shorter range with such a precision that molecules can retain their natural identity. This is a demonstration of discreet precision and flexibility. 4. All these principles that I have stated are ramifications of change or the Creative Principle the same way as branches are offshoots of a tree, and are controlled by its root complex. Interrelationships These principles, which I should designate as subprinciples, provide the basis of interrelationships between all things. Yet the Creative Principle stands apart from the subprinciples as does a tree from its shadow. Perhaps, a more befitting example is that of a father and children. Though they all inherit him genetically, he exists independently, yet they all are related to him and to one another. Father is not the real cause of their birth but a precedence in time because he and his children are members of the same species, bound by relationships. As relationship stitches people mutually, it also binds one atom to another; it is quite evident from the family traits of the chemical elements. Thus the universe is a symposium of interrelationships and their order is regulated by the Creative Principle. Urge of self-improvement This leads us to a very important point, that is, the primary conduct of the Creative Principle. As denoted by evolution, that is, gradual progress from simple to Complex, it is instinctive and infantile and seeks self-development to become elaborate The elaborative conduct of the Creative Principle emerges from its relationships with the things that it creates haphazardly and its will to hold those relationships Take a savage for example. He seduces a damsel who bears him a child, thus arousing his paternal instinct which creates a relationship based on ve and care. This relationship is highly instructive. As the savage's children grow into a family, clans and tribes, their mutual relationships give birth to rules of defence and aggression, restraint and freedom, rights and obligations, ways of living and eventually a culture like ours based on laws, customs and traditions This evolutionary process must impart elaboration and refinement to the Creative Principle itself by means of successive relationships. It is no different from the human experience: we build our personality, attain maturity and create and retain our cultural values by persistent trials and efforts. One major feature of this evolutionary process is Change for the better. This factor emerges per se from the basic precept of proceeding from simple to complex and rising from descent to ascent. Of course, change can be for the worse but I am talking about the overall change which is surely based on the urge of self-improvement. This urge is embedded in the chemical elements themselves. Without it, they cannot change into atoms, cells and man. It is this urge, as I shall discuss later, which leads man to the search of Godhead - the apex of selfimprovement It all depends upon the successful maintenance of one's relationship with others In fact, it is a matter of securing one's rights and discharging one's obligations The notion of relativity springs from the interrelationship of things, and the concepts of precision and flexibility are modes of honouring them. Spontaniety of principle 5. A principle cannot be created:

a. E = mc2 is E = mc2 (E is equivalent of energy, m is the mass of the object, and c is the velocity of light). There is nothing one can do about it because when certain factors arrange themselves as expressed by this equation, energy (E) is the result. Again, it is a principle or law that protons must have a positive electric charge and electron must have a negative charge, and it must take three quarks to make a proton or neutron. A principle is subject to elaboration but cannot be created or destroyed. Principle and purpose 6. Of course, change can be haphazard at its primary stage but as the Creative Principle it has, or comes to possess a purpose through the relationships it creates. The principle H20 certainly has a purpose, that is, water. If H20 does not lead to water, then it does not qualify as the principle. It certainly does not imply the stereotyped sense of determinism because the creation of such elements as hydrogen and oxygen requires a great deal of effort The role of helium, as narrated earlier, clearly shows that the purpose does not dictate a specific effort to achieve it but opens the door to trial and error which eventually leads to success through choosing the best course of action. If it were not so, evolution of the universe would have stopped at the stage of helium. The fact that it did not, indicates that particles have their purpose written into them, that is, to evolve and become the universe. This purpose, in a way, can be equated with the potential of things to become but they have to realise it through their own effort. It does not eliminate the role of chance in evolution but certainly reduces it by expectancy Of things to realise their own purpose. Limits of change 7. Change is evolution and evolution is change but change is not limitless because the Principle of Change cannot transgress the boundary where it can no longer change Thus change can take place only between two extremes. Therefore, when change has reached one extreme, then it proceeds in the reverse order. If forward movement is labelled as positive, the backward movement becomes negative, thus it observes the law of opposites like protons and electrons, particles and antiparticles, and quarks and antiquarks. Second law of thermodynamics Here the law of thermodynamics may help explain the above statement. The second law of thermodynamics holds that in a closed system the change is always towards a situation with a higher entropy i.e. lower order. Concept of entropy 8. The concept of entropy states that the natural tendency of a system is to move from a higher state of order to a lower state of order, that is from organization to disorganization. As disorganization accelerates, so does entropy. Scientists use a different language to describe this fact, i.e. the lowering of order refers to the decreasing information content. Thus entropy and information are said to be inversely related. In view of what I have said, it follows that the universe is moving from the positive to the negative direction. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is conserved; it can neither be created nor destroyed. It means that the energy lost equals the energy gained or conserved. Surely, the energy conserved is energy only if it retains its original properties If the universe was born from energy what can stop its rebirth from the same energy specially when giving birth to the cosmos seems to be the essence of energy. When the extreme state of entropy is reached, the principle of change must become positive by reversing its direction of movement. Change, the ultimate cause.

9. Change is restless by nature. Initially, it operates at random but becomes purposeful and elaborate through interrelationships. Since everything comes into being through change, the Creative Principle, is ceaselessly working and therefore its existence and operation are independent of external factors. Thus, it is the cause of every thing without being caused by anything else. However, this cause, at least Initially, is in terms of precedence, and not as cause, the creator (as understood by the cause - effect relationship). Change, the reality 10. As I shall explain later, eternity is not possible without change. Therefore, what is subject of change cannot become extinct. The universe being the manifestation of change cannot cease to vary and therefore, it must stay alive If there remained nothing to change, the Creative Principle would become inoperative. This is not imaginable. a. In fact, things stay alive only because they have the capacity to change hydrogen and oxygen change into water which gives birth to myriads of forms through processes of further changes. Thus what does not change cannot exist There is no reality but change. Change as principle, process and product 11. Whatever is in the universe represents change not only as the principle but also change as the process and change as the product, thus confirming the unity of being. H'O is the principle; the act of covalent bonding (combination of the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen) is the process; and water is the product. Everything, natural or artificial is the manifestation of this truth - the change. Manipulability of change a. Change never ceases to be operative. It can be visible or invisible. Though its operation cannot be eliminated, it is subject to improvement, degradation, acceleration and deceleration. For example, life can be improved, prolonged or reduced. It follows that change as principle, process and product is subject to individual or collective will and the quality of existence depends upon the quality of control which raises the status of free will above that of determinism because in the long run it is the quality or degree of development that counts. Constructive change is life-giving but destructive change is extinctive. Change and law of opposites b. Change expresses itself through the law of opposites e.g. at physical level as negative and positive forces, and at social level as morality and immorality, legality and illegality, justice and injustice, love or loathing, and so on. Why? Because all love is not change, it is loathing that provides variation though it may differ in degree. Similarly, at the physical level, neutrality of atoms, and tension are not possible without the law of opposites. Again, it is the friction of the Opposites which brings out the best and makes life pretty, precious and palatable. Change for the best c. The ultimate purpose of change is to be the best and stay the best. According to our present knowledge, particles struggle to be the best and thus reach the stage of man but he can be devious, devilish and despicable. Worse still, he is subject to depression, derangement and destruction. Yet the attempt to be the best is there, and even after a Revolutionary process, evolutionary process - an attempt to be the best - starts all over again. Possibility of becoming the best Is it really possible to be the best and stay the best? Yes it is. It is achievable through the agency of change only. Is it not a contradictory statement? And if it is not, then how do we reconcile these assertions?

Though I shall explain this point at a later stage, it suffices to say at this point that man does not represent the final development; it is Godhead that is the Ultimate mode of existence, and it is sustained by a continuous process of change. How? We shall examine it in due course. The Creative Principle and manifestation 12. Matter, the building material of the cosmos including man, is the manifestation of the Creative Principle. Since matter cannot be shapeless, the Creative Principle must manifest itself in one form or another. The diversity of forms emanates from the variation of properties which the elements acquire from chemical changes. Again, a natural force is an agent of change, and change creates as well as alters properties. For example, not only sweetness, stickiness, stench, hardness, brittleness, flexibility, colour, fragrance etc. are brought about by the electromagnetic force but it also gives birth to the phenomena of life such as thinking, feeling, sexual responses, digestion, muscular activity and so on. It follows that as the Creative Principle must manifest itself, and manifestation is nothing but existence or stability, it is proper to say that the purpose of change is stability. In fact, stability is an integral part of change because change means variation in stability. This is no fairy tale; though I exist, I keep changing all the time, and if I do not exist, change would have no meaning in relation to me. Hence change and stability (existence) go together. This truth is further attested by the ever-changing heavenly bodies which have existed in space for millions of years. Since perpetual flux of the universe is responsible for the patterns of stability such as moon, mountain or monkey, it is a fair assumption that the goal of change is the maximum duration or the longest period of stability. Why? Because the longer the period of stability, the greater the chance for change to manifest itself (in that particular form)! The infant principle This statement does not sound irrational, if we realise that the Creative Principle is live and kicking, and manifestation is nothing but an act of self-exhibition. As stated earlier, the Creative Principle despite being the source of existence, is primarily an infant which attains maturity by experience. As a savage through rape or cohabitation becomes a father and thus establishes relationships with his Children, grandchildren and so on, the Creative Principle though initially manifests itself at random, each further manifestation begins to count as a relationship. As it is natural for a father to honour his relationship with his children, it is essenlia] for the Creative Principle to enter into a definite relationship with its manifestations, each manifestation establishing a similar relationship with its own offshoots. It is the tendency of the Creative Principle to maintain these relationships which display themselves as the exact formulas of chemical changes, and laws of precision and flexibility. The cosmos which is a symposium of interrelationships stabilises itself through honouring these relationships. This is the reason that everything exists relative to everything else. If this relativity is weakened or destroyed, the cosmos is sure to devolve and eventually plunge into chaos. Significance of recognition Before a relationship can be honoured, it must be recognised. Of course, a relationship has an intrinsic value but it is enhanced many times over through recognition. In most cases it is the magnitude of recognition which makes a relationship what it becomes. Nothing can be recognised without acknowledging its individuality. Since existence is relative, both the recogniser and the recognised have an equal obligation of recognising each other. Thus the Creative Principle recognises its relationships with its offshoots and they recognise theirs' in return the cosmic cohesion and physical exactitude produced by forces such as gravitation electromagnetism, nuclear etc., are examples of recognising and honouring the natural affinities. However, this pattern changes at human level where consciousness takes over the natural conduct. Recognition means realising what is that exists besides us, e.g. what is parenthood? What is a friend? What is a foe? Honouring such relationships gives rise to ethical concepts such as vice and virtue and rights and duties, which lead to behaviour patterns, laws and cultural traditions.

Thus each relationship acts as a link in the chain of life which prospers or perishes according to the fulfillment of these relationships. Search for stability In a nutshell, relationships create systems, and there is a natural tendency in every system to seek stability through a harmonious working of these relationships. Search for stability is the fundamental property of matter because it constantly probes for the highest state of stability. However, stability does not mean hardness but the longest possible duration as a system. The ultimate reality Since everything emerges through the process of change, change becomes the source of existence, and existence is nothing but stability thus change and stability become reciprocal. As the tendency of matter is to seek not only the higher but also the prolonged form of existence, reality is not just change but the stabilitYthrough-change. If change did not lead to stability, nothing could come into existence; there would be no moon, no stars, no rivers, no forests, no birds, no humans. And without intelligent life, the Change or the Creative Principle itself would have no value for lack of recognition. Immortality Whether a thing lasts a moment or a millenium, it represents a form of life or stability. In human terms, the real issue is: can man live for ever, or is he destined to survive a few years and then turn into particles of dust? Can he achieve immortality? Of course he can. It means that although change itself cannot be eliminated, its effect can be tamed to become the contributor of everlasting stability. This is not a fantasy but a well-known fact. Take electricity, for instance; it can be used as a means of execution but can also be harnessed to act as a saver of life; again snake venom is lethal but can also be used as an antidote. Change can equally be an ambassador of death or life. The basic characteristic of change is that it is not only deterministic but it is also docile. One must know how to manipulate its effect. After all, it is change which is the source of both evolution and devolution. Because of the importance of this issue, I must repeat that stability is the Opposite pole of change exactly the same way as negative is of positive or light is of dark. Thus the Creative Principle is completed by its built-in polarity and stability-through-change emerges as the reality. It refers to the stage of existence where change or the Creative Principle operates at the highest possible level to become the agent of stability, that is, it retains its highest evolutionary level without showing any tendency of Revolution. This level of existence becomes superior to the rest of the universe for becoming immune to the Revolutionary process and thus represents the cosmic purpose which is the preservation of its best aspect. Scientific proof of eternity Once again, is the notion of everlasting stability a fact or fiction? It is a fact, and there is cogent evidence to establish the veracity of this statement: Quarks combine in threes to create the strongly interacting family known as "hadrons" whose life-span is measured in trillionth of a second. I am not aware of any other thing as short-lived as a hadron. The moment a hadron disintegrates, it turns into a proton or neutron. An isolated neutron does not last for more than fifteen minutes but once it is incorporated into a nucleus, it becomes as stable as the proton. Of course, a proton is mortal but it has an expected age of 103' years, that is, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years! Think of this figure and compare it to the age of a hadron or a neutron. Do not forget that man is made of exactly the same materials as the rest of the universe. If other things can attain sufficient stability to postpone a rendezvous with death, why can't man achieve that status? In fact, what I am about to discuss is more than a very, very, very, long life; I am going to discuss eternity, the natural goal of mankind. Cosmos, man and consciousness

Eternity does not mean a stone-like existence but an eternal life based on consciousness. This concept of eternity applies to man only because he is the only being endowed with active consciousness which marks the highest state achieved by the cosmic evolutionary process. Achievement of eternity is a very real possibility because the cosmos can realise its dream through the immortality of man only. Why? Man is the greatest cosmic achievement and, therefore, his extinction implies failure and total loss of labour of billions of years that the cosmos did to evolve man. Therefore, man must be preserved not only because he is the baby of the cosmos but also because the conscious status of being is the highest state of existence and thus constitutes the greatest cosmic achievement. The real problem is how to make this achievement everlasting. It is evidently the concern of consciousness. If the journey from the human state to eternity could be accomplished through mechanistic means, subatomic level of existence would be more suitable for this adventure. Thus agency of faith leads man in the opposite direction because it ranks as a programmed probe based on total brain-washing which destroys his power of consciousness, though this is the very essence which makes him man. Eternity means preserving the best. What is not best is not worth preserving, and the best way of preserving one's self is through self-endeavour. As a footnote to this discussion, I may recapitulate the Concept of Reality. There is no Reality but Change. Since everything emerges through Change, Change becomes the source of existence, and existence is nothing but stability. Thus change and stability become reciprocal. As the tendency of matter is to seek not only the higher but also the prolonged form of existence, the Ultimate Reality refers to the highest state of existence which lasts for ever. Though it is not immune to the law of change, at this point, Change ceases to be an instrument of deterioration and acts as the agent- of continuous stability. It is this function of Change which gives it (Change) the dignity of the Creative Principle. The highest and the eternal state of existence, I have described as "Godhead", which I shall discuss in the following Chapters of this book (III) along with how Change solely becomes the agent of stability.

CHAPTER TWELVE MIND AND MATTER Man's concern for eternity has always aroused his curiosity about the nature of mind and matter. Are they mutually opposed principles or are they two aspects of the same reality? This debate has raged over centuries leading to divisions and subdivisions which have lowered the standards of humanity, yet man's search for eternity, which is connected with the solution of this problem, has remained unabated. Attitudes of the modern scientist are even more puzzling; he thinks of man as a mammal whose only purpose is to eat and drink for a few decades and then happily walk into his grave for ever. This is surely not the natural end of man because extinction is man's greatest fear, and existence is his sweetest dream. This is why he condescends to the most frivolous, freakish and futile attitudes. Thus in the hope of preserving himself, he prevaricates, perseveres and willingly suffers the brunt of such persuasions which would ordinarily insult his intellect and torment his conscience. Since man's entire psychological conduct is based on self-preservation, death as we know it, contradicts the whole purpose of life. Human dream of eternity is most sincere and constitutes the cornerstone of existence. Fear of death can turn love of life into an ever-rising obsession. It is this psychological condition of the mind which is preyed upon by gods and gurus, messengers and messiahs and prophets and *pirs. These merchants of holiness portray themselves as saviours of people, not to deceive them intentionally, but to save themselves. Their obsession for self-preservation is much greater than that of the ordinary folks. By projecting themselves as the object of total fidelity, submission and adoration, they aspire to create a class of men and women who dedicate themselves to obey their commands and worship their memories. Thus they preserve their identity through the imagination and behaviour of their followers! In doing so, they achieve their ambition but at a very high cost to the believers whose conscience, which is the only hope of securing eternity, they distort through the destructive force of blind faith and bigotry.

* A Pir is a personal Spinuai mentor in the Islamic World He guides his Mureed or follower to paradise Is cosmos a machine? The goal of life is eternity but this assertion is true only if the cosmos itself has a goal. If the cosmos is just a machine, then man being its product, albeit the highest, is also a machine and therefore, can't have any purpose. It is on the Strength of such an assumption a biologist declares that eyes are not for the purpose of seeing, we see because we have eyes! This is an attempt to replace the view of final cause or purpose with the concept of function which holds that function is the activity of a part in a whole and plays a necessary or beneficial role for that particular whole. Cosmic purpose This mechanistic view cannot be true because, for instance, the human race without eyes shall constantly wallow in a sea of darkness without ever appreciating the beauty or realising the wonders of nature. Again, eyes are an integral part of the perceptual system, and consciousness, which is the apex of evolution, cannot emerge without eyes. Since consciousness means cognition or knowing, there must be something worth knowing. Therefore, eyes have a multiple purpose; firstly to play a definite role in the evolution of consciousness, and secondly, to know the world around us. From this conclusion, it also follows that the world or cosmos has a purpose: it wants to be known; it aspires to be conscious of itself. This seems to be the entire purpose of consciousness. Since man is the cosmic baby, he happens to be the medium for the universal consciousness. Principle and purpose That man is not a machine but a living-being is quite obvious from the fact that the entity of everything is based on an underlying principle. For example, the underlying principle of water is H2O. It means that if there were no H2O, there would be no water because irrespective of any process that may produce water, its underlying principle is always the same, that is, it requires two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen to bring about water. The same truth can be described thus: every underlying principle has a purpose which is its integral part because where there is H2O, there will be water. In simpler terms, principle and purpose have mutual existence. This is the reason that when the principle H2O is decomposed, water disappears as well but when the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen combine according to their natural relationship (the underlying principle) water must come into existence. Surely, the cosmos cannot exist without an underlying principle. Therefore, it must have a purpose. However, the modern trend amongst scientists is to think of man as a machine because according to their interpretation, purpose implies predestination and the existence of a creator. This thought annoys them the same way as the presence of a policeman irritates a thief, the sight of a mongoose maddens a snake or the chase by a dog saddens a drake. They deny the cosmic purpose to inflate the evolutionary dignity of chance, and to deflate the value of purpose. Role of chance If we look into the operation of the universe, we cannot allot the sole evolutionary role to chance because chance is something which may or may not happen but the universe has a definite existence, and is thus, way above the evolutionary capacity of chance. The cosmos is the manifestation of a certain and clear principle whereas certainty and clarity are no parts of chance which is always based on ambiguity. It does not mean that chance plays no part m the process of becoming. It does, but its role is secondary. The Planet Earth A glance at our own planet can settle this issue. Without the planet earth, as far as it is known, the existence or non-existence of the universe would not have mattered, because it is the earth that has mothered man, the only (known) species with consciousness that can tell the difference between existence and nonexistence and appreciate the magnitude of being. Is the earth a product of chance?

The scientists declare that it is so. I find this statement a glorious part of science-fiction because to be able to produce life the earth has to be a marvel of planning, engineering and operation. As we know, these things are not part of a chance no matter how prodigious, but a consequence of cogitation and seasoned deliberations. Again, the earth cannot be the product of one chance but trillions and trillions of homogeneous chances - all aiming at the same thing, all heading in the same direction and all having the same purpose. It is well known that chances of happening the same thing twice exactly the same way are only fifty-fifty. Therefore, it is highly likely that if something has been done by one chance, it may be undone by another. But when it requires trillions of befitting chances to produce something such as the planet earth, then such chances cease to be chances and count as natural links of a planned chain. Direction and earth The earth cannot be a product of chance; it is the consequence of a direction and a direction has always a purpose. This assertion is borne out by the fact that the earth is at exactly the right distance from the sun to receive the correct amount of sunlight; otherwise it would be too hot or too cold to serve as the cradle of life. The magnetic field of the earth is also made to measure for deflecting back to space the lethal radiation of the sun whose severity would otherwise destroy life. Its miraculous engineering is vouched for by the spin at its axis at just the right speed which enables the day time side to warm in sunshine and the night time side to cool. The precise gravity of the earth ensured by its calculated mass is the product of a brilliant mind, and not of a dreamer dependent on chance, because without this gravity the molecules of such a vast variety, instead of holding together as they do, will drift off into space. These facts which I have described above, constitute what is called biosphere, he a water-based environment which is a must for the evolution of life, as we know it. These events are not only improbable without an ingenious designing of the superlative quality, but forging them into a creative chain is beyond the capacity of chance. It is the result of direction, and the direction has always a purpose. The purpose of this direction is the evolution of life endowed with the highest possible consciousness, which itself has a purpose. Source of direction Possibly, the reader may be inclined to question my idea of purpose. It is a legitimate enquiry that if there is no Creator God, and if evolution as we know If, is beyond the capability of chance, then where does the direction come from? In a previous chapter, I stated that if existence comes out of nothingness, then nothingness is just another name for existence because what flows out of a fountain is a part of that fountain. Since existence is a reality, the universe has always existed in one form or another. However, to elucidate what I am about to state, I must add that the initial state of existence must have been haphazard because at that stage chance did play its part which was neither premeditated nor skillfully executed; it was an instinctive play of the child that I have already named as Change whose restless nature triggered a wide variety of things related to itself and one another. It is this mutual relationship of things and the inherent sense of maintaining them which enables things to unite, disunite and reunite for creating the chain of "cause-and-effect" which is not original but the sequence of the said union, disunion and reunion generated by the necessity of maintaining mutual relationships. Self direction In a nutshell, the change initially is infantile, and therefore, haphazard. The expansion of relationships and the inherent sense of honouring them give birth to new properties and forces, capable of sustaining and supporting the chain of mutuality. To emphasise this point, I must add that it is the innate urge of things to maintain mutual relationships which constitute existence. Since existence is spontaneous, it is its own purpose, and therefore, self-directed. This explanation may seem far-fetched but it is not when we enquire what is it that gives particles their positive and negative charges? It is surely the sense of mutual relationship which is governed by the properties of the constituents of a thing; without these properties particles will not stick together to form relationships. The fact that things do form, and are inclined to retain their forms as long as possible, gives them the direction of movement; it enables them to retain their form (i.e. the particular mode of existence) which also happens to be their goal.

Evolution is self-directed Evolution is self-directed, and the sense of direction lies in the atoms themselves; they are activated by change, which ranks as the Creative Principle, for evolving the ability to systematise relationships and creating new relationships based on precise formulas. Urge of self-improvement The further proof of this fact lies in the human body which is self-directed. As differentiation starts, all cells of the same kind instinctively recognise one another to unite together. A reflex is a self-directed response of the body. The human brain, which is made of atoms (cells), is selfdirected and depicts the apogee of intelligence which directs myriads of processes and phenomena. Again, this self-direction of atoms is also self-elevating and constitutes the urge of selfimprovement which is the fountain of evolution. Unless it were true, an atom could not evolve into a cell and an amoeba could never attain the dignity of man. This evolution does not stop at man but eventually reaches Godhead, the real subject of this book. Tendency To Be No matter where this universe came from, it cannot evolve or exist without the tendency To Be. Change is another name for the tendency To Be because it (change) is always operative and cannot reach the stage where change ceases to be change It is change which creates, and creation takes place through a process and chain of relationships. Change creates a potential which is realised by further change This is the reason that everything is linked with everything else one way or another Thus existence is not possible without relationships. An example of the tendency To Be is provided by the nature of atoms, the building blocks of the universe. All electrons of an atom can be removed by sufficiently destructive forces of heat but its denuded nucleus with its concentrated positive charges, attracts electrons (which carry negative charges) to become an atom again. Thus the universal tendency is To Be and not Not To Be. As said before, the tendency To Be operates through change, thus making the two equivalent. Change usually takes place in three ways: 1. change of position called movement; 2. change of form such as water to ice or vapours; and 3. change of substance, which is a chemical reaction. Properties and interrelationships The properties of a substance depend upon its atomic composition. There are 105 known elements which constitute the fundamental materials of which all matter is composed. An element is a substance that cannot be split into simpler substances, and all the atoms of a pure element have the same gross chemical properties. As the properties of a chemical compound are determined by its atomic structure, the properties of an atom itself are determined by its electronic composition. If all the known elements are arranged in the sequence according to their atomic numbers, i.e. the number of protons in the nucleus, their chemical and physical properties will be periodic, that is, similarities in properties will occur at regular intervals in the sequence of elements. These elements have their particular properties. For example, helium is an "unsocial" element because it is reluctant to combine with other elements whereas carbon has the property to form covalent bonds (combine) not only with other elements but also with its own atoms. The carbon compounds are considered organic compounds because this trait of carbon contributes to life. Elements gain their properties through a process of change which is said to occur in the interiors of stars where light elements are transmuted into heavy elements. It is these properties which determine the mutual relationships of things, that is, how things should come to exist, and their further combinations (relationships) give rise to further properties which create still more relationships thus establishing a cyclical pattern whereby properties produce relationships and relationships create properties. Once a relationship is formed, as a general rule, it develops the urge to preserve itself. This is the reason that man dreads the decomposition of his cells which means disturbance of the cellular relationships, or in plain language, death.

Evolution of Change through interrelationships To put this idea of relationships more simply, let us assume that in the beginning' the earth surface was covered with water. First there grew single cells Whose associations (relationships) led to the evolution of complex plants and animals, which in turn, produced communities of organisms as well as those of grasslands' jungles, etc. Here, we should also consider photosynthesis, the single most important photochemical reaction, which is the union of carbon dioxide and water in plants through the interaction of sunlight and chlorophyll molecules. What has this chemical reaction got to do with relationships? The end product of this reaction within green plants appears as carbohydrates and energy-rich compounds which become the food of the herbivorous (plant-eating) organisms which themselves constitute the diet of the carnivorous (flesh-eating) animals. Though this relationship is based on animosity, it leads to the emergence of the urge of survival, i.e. the preservation of one's own organismic relationships as well as one's relationships with fellow-members of the species. Thus, maintenance of relationships becomes the goal of organic and inorganic compounds consciously or unconsciously. It is the vigour of achieving this goal which begins to discipline the pace and mode of change which becomes precise, formulated and predictable. Though change in its initial stage was infantile, as the net of interrelationships grew bigger and more complex, it lost its frivolity to assume the dignity of law. Do you know what is carbon dioxide? It is the relationship of carbon to oxygen in the mass ratio of 3 to 8. Similarly, ammonia gas consists of a relationship between nitrogen and hydrogen in the ratio of 14 to 3. This whole discussion can be summarised as follows: Change creates relationships which develop the urge to preserve themselves, thus preservation of interrelationships becomes the purpose of existence. However, existence does not mean existing for the sake of existing but existing at a gradually rising level through selfimprovement. These two urges, i.e. self-preservation through preservation of interrelationships and self-improvement, act as the catalyst to give Change the dignity of discipline, precision and predictability. The cosmic purpose Since the universe itself is a phenomenon of interrelationships, it must have the same purpose as everything else, i.e. self-preservation. As man represents the peak of natural phenomena, the cosmos aims to preserve man - its best manifestation, which ranks as the cosmic attempt to preserve itself. Thus the universe strives for eternity through the agency of man. It is this purpose which necessitates the discussion of "matter and mind" because the attainment of eternity depends upon soul which is an extension of the mind. Is eternity really possible? The short answer is "yes" because nothing dies: This universe is a phenomenon of positive and negative electric charges but an electric charge can neither be created nor destroyed. Though this answer alludes to immortality, it does not vouch for the concept of eternity which implies not only an everlasting conscious life hereafter but also a better life which is pure, untouched by the pollution of fear, and filled with the fecudity of freedom and felicity. Human nature When searching for eternity, one cannot find a better starting point than human nature itself. Though we may differ about the definition of human nature, it is difficult to disagree with the fact that all human actions are directed at self-preservation one way or another. This proves that love of life and dread of death are the basic constituents of human nature. Secondly, the search for self-improvement is the basic trait of human nature. Therefore, what constantly seeks to improve itself, as a general rule, is good though concept of good may vary in individual cases. Soul The truth is that man has always yearned for eternity and to console himself, believes in Soul which he has held to be immortal without ever trying to find out what it really is.

The traditional view of soul is mirthful, magnetic and mystifying, though lacking proof and precision, yet powerful and pressurising. Of course, the mere fact that people have always believed in soul does not raise it to the status of reality but being compatible with human nature, it cannot be dismissed as a frivolity. The history surrounding belief in soul is imbued with an unusual charm: All Semitic religions advocate that God himself has a soul. Every human has a soul and it is immortal. According to the Koran: "God takes the souls at the time oft heir death, and that which is alive during sleep" (The Companies. 40) Hindus think of body as a prison for soul whose ultimate goal is to free itself from the body; they believe that soul survives death and suffers birth in another body as a man, mouse or monkey according to its actions in the previous life. Though Buddhists do not acknowledge soul, they believe in reincarnation which is the rebirth of a soul! The old Greeks (especially the orphics) also professed to have a similar faith; both Plato and Plotinus thought that soul lived a purer life after its release from the body at death. It is also believed that soul haunts the living after death; it may visit graveyards in search of suitable bodies or may take over the body of a living person by dispossessing its occupant. Soul has not just been a vehicle of faith. It has also received philosophical consideration. Plato and Plotinus I have already mentioned. Aristotle thought of soul as a tripartite concept, i.e. vegetative, sensitive and rational. Rene Descartes identified soul with the mind because of its thinking aspect. Berkeley believed in the immortality of soul; Kant denied any human knowledge of soul whereas modern thinking treats of soul as an unnecessary and unverifiable concept. My view of soul is different from what is currently thought about it or what might have been believed in the past. To start with, there is no substance in denying the entity of soul on the ground that it cannot be seen or experimentally established in a laboratory. Take the example of atom. Mach, as well as Wilhelm Ostwald, the originator of chemistry were bitter opponents of the atomic theory in physics and chemistry. Just because it could not be seen, the positivists considered it at best a "convenient fiction,' and at worst an "illegitimate ad hoc hypothesis". Again nobody had ever heard of microbes until the 17th century. These tiny creatures now subdivided into various disciplines such as bacteriology, protozoology and virology, cannot be seen with naked eyes. Yet the microorganisms had existed for millions of years! Nature of scientific evidence Such views about the reality of atom sprang from ignorance. Once our knowledge advances, we may be able to see the truth about soul more closely but not completely because what we call scientific evidence is no more than a hypothesis of the person who advances it; his own subjectivity colours the face of reality, complexity of the instruments he employs adds further distortions; interpretation of the data gathered through scientific observation depends upon the purpose and prejudice of the observer. For example, Einstein forged the "cosmological constant" to prove that the universe was static. Similarly, Newton refused to accept the concept concerning lack of absolute position (absolute space) on the ground of his faith though his own laws implied this truth. The choice of facts that a scientist makes may not be truly representative of the whole field of enquiry. Perfect objectivity though is the aim of science, yet it is seldom feasible because progress towards the goal is always made through approximations, and the insurmountable gaps which are usually encountered in scientific investigations, are always plugged with guesses. The Quantum Theory which bases physical enquiry on probabilities, decides the nature of the scientific evidence: it ranks as a near-truth and not the whole truth. This view is confirmed by the fact that scientists have developed such concepts as "imaginary numbers" and "imaginary time" to overcome their difficulties. Though one should salute scientists as I do for their intellect, dedication and hard work, one cannot overlook the arrogance which power, pomp and prestige engender. Max Born, a Nobel prize winner declared in 1928, "Physics as we know it, will be over in six months". Despite all the machinery and exploratory knowledge at our disposal, we have not yet discovered the whole truth about our own planet where we live; the rate of success, say in prospecting gas is only one in eight. How scientists know everything precisely about the stars and planets billions and trillions of miles away, escapes the grip of my understanding.

Warning to the reader Having discussed the nature of scientific evidence, I must warn the reader that I can state facts only as I see them. As mentioned earlier, mystery is a part of knowledge, therefore, certain facts cannot be explained with total clarity. It does not mean that one should accept a vulture for an eagle, a pebble for a diamond or an ass for an Arab stallion. An argument should be factual or at least rational. It is for the reader or the listener to decide its merits but his judgement ought to be honest and fair I intend to proceed on this basis. Of course, mere belief in soul does not create the soul itself. But the dignity of man that has been debased, decried and derided by the materialistic and mechanistic views of modern scientists, requires reappraisal instead of outright rejection for such childish reasons that the existence of soul cannot be verified experimentally If there is a soul, then it is certainly a higher and more complex species than the human species. Despite all our ingenuity and effort we have so far only touched the surface of the human sea and the deeper we dive the more mysterious it becomes; study of cells provides a good example of this point. It is openly admitted that it will need some four hundred million pages of this size for the understanding of human cells. Assuming that this assertion is true, what is the guarantee that perfect understanding of this subject can be achieved? The sheer vastness of the issue suggests that there will spring up myriads of controversies which are likely to darken rather than illumine it. Even if such a comprehension were possible, mastering information of such a mammoth size and complexity is beyond the capacity of any single human brain. Method of studying soul Obviously, it is far more difficult to understand soul than ordinary forms of matter, e.g. plants, animals etc. One must be prepared to make an allowance for reasonable assumptions as it is done in the field of science. For example, they have invented the concept of "virtual particles" which unlike the real particles cannot be detected but their presence is recognised because of their "indirect effects". Similarly, we are told that particles and antiparticles, as they come into contact, annihilate each other, yet it is claimed that the antiparticles of light and gravity are no different from their particles, i.e. they are one and the same thing! Is there really a soul? The answer to this question is really complex, and may be found in the age-old debate of ``mind and matter", usually referred to as dualism. Plato thought of mind as a completely nonmaterial entity; it is distinct from body and can exist independently. `'Psyche" is the word that Plato used to describe mind which has been translated as ``soul". In line with the Indian traditions that held body as a prison cell and thus treated matter as impure and the source of all trifles, troubles and torments, Plato deplored matter and adored mind (soul). The ascetic traditions and the cynical attitudes that retarded the progress of mankind for over 2000 years thus making this planet the abode of misery, malevolence and molestation, spring from such philosophical interpretations. The euphoria of self-debasement attained the magnitude of a charming opiate whose addictive effect, as it penetrated the human guts, happily reconciled everybody with the most alluring wonders of belittlement; eagle thought of itself as a sparrow, lion believed itself to be a lamb and man delightfully ranked himself with a mouse. Mind: a property of matter As far as knowledge is concerned, we are luckier than our ancestors. We know that everything is made of matter which is composed of positive and negative charges. I think that what is without some kind of body does not exist. The mere fact that the said charges exist, and cannot be created or destroyed, clearly points to the possibility of an everlasting bodily existence and also establishes that mind and matter cannot be two separate things because mind, in its usual sense, is a property of matter in the same way as fragrance is that of a rose, heat is that of fire and cold is that of snow. In fact, mind is a natural extension of matter because physical makeup leads to spiritual attributes. For example, the body of a savage develops moral sense and attains cultural refinement. Matter, brain and mind

In this context matter means brain, and mind cannot be anything but another description of the cognitive powers of the brain because without brain, mind has no existence. Brain, like other parts of the body, is just a piece of flesh, thus a manifestation of matter, and all its properties must be considered as properties of matter, associated with its particular form. It looks like a huge walnut and may weight up to three-and-a-half pounds. The old physicians described its various parts in layman's language: wrinkled exterior of the cerebrum (brain) was called Cortex (bark) and was divided into Gyri (ridges) and Sulci (valleys). This description of the old masters is not laughable but expressive of amazement as how something which is shaped by bark, ridges and valleys can become the fountain of consciousness which ranks as the apex of the evolutionary process. A strange working feature of the brain is its up-side-down performance: the left half of the brain controls the right half of the body and vice versa, and top of the brain regulates the lower parts of the body and vice versa. What specially concerns this discussion is the fact that growth of the brain is rapid during the first three years of life and attains its full weight by the age of seven though gradual growth continues until the 20th year; females may approach this stage somewhat earlier. Thereafter, the brain experiences diminution in its weight at the rate of one gram per year. Again, the cerebrum in humans, which is the core of thinking and conscious activities, is about 85°70 of the brain's weight thus distinguishing man from other animals. What is mind? Mind is, basically, the extension of matter, but how do we describe it? It is "that which thinks, knows, feels and wills". This covers the entire cognitive process including dreams, desires, designs, ditherings, determinations, delusions, detachments, deliberations, deeds and all the mental processes such as images, sense perceptions, memory, expectations, reasoning, believing, motives, emotions, choices, traits of personality and the unconscious. Each of these characteristics of the mind is individualistic: neither will is thinking nor thinking is knowing. These traits may or may not work in harmony; they may even have rebellious or competitive inclinations. It is a common experience that thoughts and emotions disobey the commands of will based on sagacious choices, and feelings may stage a mutiny against knowing: it is not unknown that a lover under the force of his feelings may disregard the knowledge that his ladylove is fickle and unfaithful. Personality The gradual, repetitive and competitive working of the mind-traits over a period of time give birth to patterns of thinking, feeling, believing and acting which in turn, create a somewhat mechanised behaviour called habits, leading to a conduct. This mechanization of the mind-traits emerges as personality which is over and above the sum total of the brain cells, yet totally ingrained in them. There is always a centre for everything as nucleus is the centre for an atom (electrons) and nothing can gain stability without sticking to its centre. Personality is no exception to this rule. It must have a centre, which is provided by Self: it means "I, me, mine" because all these pronouns refer to one's self or whatever belongs to one's self. Another name for self is ego. The ego in its basic form is self-adoring and to achieve its ends becomes flexible despite the built-in mechanization of the personality. Ego And what is ego? It is recognition of one's identity which implies the natural desire and the right to exist as an individual and to enjoy one's individuality without fear of usurpation, frustration and molestation; it requires a guarantee of freedom and a charter of liberties. But the most important factor which I have not mentioned as yet is consiousness because nothing can be known or recognised without it: consciousness has the same relationship with brain as flame has with candle, sight with eye or rainbow with colours. It follows that consciousness has a purpose. Therefore, we see, not because we have eyes, we see because the purpose of eyes is to see. A scientist ought to know that he enjoys sex with his wife, not because he is married to her but because the purpose of his marriage was to have sex with her. Role of consciousness

If we delve deeper into consciousness, it transpires that it is the apex of evolution. Without it, existence or non-existence of the universe will not matter. A thing may exist but it is the knowledge of its existence which gives it a proper valuation. The universe obviously wants to be recognised, otherwise consciousness will have no meaning because whatever man sees, feels, senses or perceives relates to the universe; man himself is a part of it. Therefore, human consciousness belongs to the universe. More properly, the cosmos evolves man for the sole purpose of seeing, feeling, sensing and perceiving through him. Thus man ranks as the cosmic baby with a special purpose. What is this purpose of man? Godhead As stated before, the cosmos is a symposium of interrelationships which are brought about and governed by change. However, interrelationships, once they have emerged, want to continue undisturbed. It is for this reason that the loss of a son, daughter or friend hurts badly. Therefore, there must be a state of existence where change continuously expresses itself through the opposite pole i.e. stability, and this state of existence may be termed as Godhead which is total illumination and nothing remains transcendent. It happens to be the ultimate goal of both man and the universe. Is Godhead possible? Of course it is, otherwise it will not be the cosmic purpose. Soul and Godhead Let me add straightaway that Godhead is the symposium of souls as human body is the combination of cells. And what is a soul? It is the rebirth of a purified and elevated ego. Evidence and mystery I am aware of the fact that these are extraordinary statements, and thus I have undertaken an arduous task of explaining them. However, it will be helpful to remember what I said about the nature of scientific evidence and the fact that mystery is a part of knowledge. Depolarisatio n and repolarisation This explanation involves exploration of the mind which is more than cognitive aspect of the brain Mind represents the nature of the universe which though unitary in essence operates through a mechanism of duality such as the working of negative and positive charges. This fact is made vividly clear by the operations of the cells capable of electric activity. They have a resting potential in which their interiors are negative by about 0.1 volt compared to their exteriors. When the cell is activated, its resting potential may reverse suddenly in sign; as a result, the outside of the cell becomes negative and the inside positive. This condition of the cell is temporary and resumes its original state after a short time. This sequence is called depolarization and repolarisation, showing that opposite poles are not dualistic in nature, and their repolarisation, i.e. the resumption of polarity, confirms that they require duality for a successful operational mechanism only. Mind, the spiritual environment A better example of this duality is provided by light. Is it a wave or particles? This cannot be settled because here the rule of mystery, that is, the Uncertainty Principle is operative. Similarly mind is a mystery which is likely to be solved if we assume that it is the spiritual environment of the brain, leading to the emergence of a soul. Significance of environment It is not likely to retain one's identity (i.e. stay alive) without reacting to the environment, and reactions must be judicious and not refractory. Modern scientists have done a great deal of work to explain the relationship between environment and becoming. An appropriate example of this fact is provided by the birth of the solar system and the incredibly complex and delicate evolutionary mechanism of the planet earth (which I have already described).

Life on earth is the product of a suitable physical environment, and cannot be sustained without it, either. To understand this fact, we must realise that the earth was originally a hostile and barren planet, and in this inorganic state, it vas referred to as "geosphere". The process of change gradually converted it into "hydrosphere" (the water), then "atmosphere" (the air) then "biosphere", having the capability of producing life, eventually leading to what is called "anthroposhere", i.e. the environment suitable for the emergence and sustenance of mankind. It is obvious that when the anthroposhere is destroyed, man as a species will disappear. Further, until such time that an environment rises to a certain standard, it cannot give birth to the highest species it may aim for. Thus the environmental greatness guarantees the advancement of its organisms. This is the reason that an environment must have a built-in mechanism to improve itself for the purpose of bettering the lot of its creations. Take the earth, for instance. Life started here without air and the early creatures had to survive through a process of adaptation. Obviously, the early creatures were microbes, quite insignificant compared to man; he could not have been evolved without a system of air, i.e. oxygen, which started appearing in sufficient quantities some three billion years ago through an advanced photosynthetic mechanism known as photosystem II. Scientists have discovered in Iceland the existence of a micro-organism known as Isuasphaera dating back 3.8 billion years. It is anaerobic, that is, it has a mechanism of survival which supports life without air. They further claim the existence of a similar system in the cytosol of higher cells and the cell sap of most present day bacteria. A change of such a high magnitude, from an anaerobic energy-producing mechanism to the aerobic system of humans, is highly significant, indeed. It is not a dream but the product of the determined environmental design, delirious of improving itself with a view to creating the highest possible entity known as man. Birth of Soul Every species has a habitat, i.e. a well defined climatic space to live in. It could not come into being or survive without the specific environmental conditions because of its physiology and the general characteristics of its body. It shows the essential relationship between a particular type of environment and the species. It means that when certain climatic or biological conditions are met, a certain kind of life comes into being. Man himself is the product of a suitable environment. Therefore, I have no doubt that proper development of the mind, i.e. the spiritual environment leads to the formation of a still higher species known as soul. Soulosphere There is no reason to believe that evolution stops at man. It will be logically wrong to make such an assumption because the evolution from a microbe to man proves that the cosmos is striving to achieve perfection, but man despite being the marvel of wisdom and wizardry, is still very imperfect indeed, and cannot be anything but a stepping-stone to something higher which is capable of realising the cosmic dream of still higher existence. After all, evolution is based on the overall principle that a lower species leads to the emergence of a higher one. One has only to think about the difference between man and microbe to reach this conclusion. There must be a higher species than man, and it is soul, but as the emergence of man depends upon anthroposphere, soul cannot come into existence until the spiritual environment of a person rises to a certain standard of purity which I may call "soulosphere". Neither soul is a vital principle, nor human body, which is an autonomous system, requires a driving force. Thus the belief that soul comes into being at the time of fertilization of an egg or birth is a mistaken one, and the same remarks apply to religious and philosophical concepts which think of body as the prison-cell. Relationship between man and soul is the same as exists between man and his environment. To express the significance of this statement I should add that man has no choice but to react to a stimulus such as heat or a chemical substance; a stimulus usually directly acts to modify the permeability of an area of membrane. This reaction is automatic; thus unless a stimulus is removed or some metabolistic adjustment is carried out, the membrane continues to fire and recover and fire again. As a man's reaction to his external environment determines the development of his life, his response to internal environment decides the quality of his spiritual environment which may lead to soulosphere, and finally to the birth of a soul. In this context, "internal environment" does not mean homeostatis but refers to one's purity of designs, sincerity of deeds and harmony of moral conduct. I shall shortly describe the "homeostatis" to make this concept more clear.

Internal world of man The internal world of man is far more complex and wonderful than the external world. Interior of each human is dwelt in by some 100,000 billion beings thus making every adult person twenty thousand times as large as the entire earth in terms of today's population. These beings are cells and they are beings because each of them is capable of living an independent life in a suitable environment. Cytoplasm The significance of environment is demonstrated by the fact that even the nucleus of every cell is surrounded by a highly structured and dynamic environment called cytoplasm; it is the portion of a cell between the nucleus and the limiting membrane and this is where synthesis of molecules and transfer of energy takes place. Homeostatis Stability-through-change, as stated earlier, is the reality, and this fact is fully supported by the biological process which goes on inside the human body. It is called homeostatis; it means tendency of the body to maintain stability by adjusting to the conditions which are just right for survival. The stability attained thus is actually a dynamic equilibrium which is a state of continuous change yet ensures existence through uniformity of conditions. Steady state is another description for the dynamic equilibrium. Thus the homeostatic discipline is nothing but a controlled internal environment. Without the homeostatic mechanism, existence ill be impossible in the persistently changing world. For example, the human body consists of many types of cells which are subject to constant change; some Survive a few days, some a few weeks, some a few months. They all have to be replaced within six years. This ceaseless process of replacing what has been worn out, is an attempt to restore the steady state which the organism has come to enjoy. Even those cells (neurons) which may last for decades, have to be renovated. From this, it is quite obvious that life has to be manufactured through personal effort and to be lived bit by bit; it is a process of securing optimal adjustments with the everchanging conditions for creating a controlled environment. What is life? Life is like the lustre of a glow-worm which appears and disappears in a regular rhythm Each alternating cycle witnesses its presence and absence. Thus, it is something which is not there all the time but keeps happening. Is it possible to make this happening continuous, constant and concinnous? Yes it is, but it all depends upon securing the right adjustment with one's environment - social and natural. Noosphere One type of environment leads to another type of environment unless the law of change can be made inoperative. Transformation of geosphere into anthroposphere vouches for this truth. In fact, it is proper to say that a physical environment eventually changes into a spiritual environment. Even scientists claim that the physical environment of the planet earth is superimposed by another dimensional sphere which represents reflective impulses produced by the human intellect, and thus qualifies as noosphere, i.e. the sphere of the mind or the collective memory and intelligence of the human race. It can be imagined to cast its weight on the entire globe; its influence is mystical; its presence can be felt but cannot be measured scientifically. Social environment Since human mind represents the evolutionary magnitude of the universe, it is only logical to acknowledge that the cosmos has not only a mind but the human mind is a reflection of the cosmic mind. Thus it is natural for a physical environment to change into a spiritual environment which is mystical and requires intuitive understanding rather than the logical faculty of the brain. Man's social environment is a good example of this fact. Men and women are made of matter, they live on matter and crave for material things. Yet they want to acquire things in certain ways and develop methods of pleasing and displeasing one another. Out of these

particularized dealings arise manners, rules of behaviour, customs, traditions' laws and even superstitions which give birth to a social environment; it can neither be seen nor measured, yet it influences all walks of human life, and acts as the major guide of behaviour. The nations with better social environments become superior to those which are addicted to social degradation. Mind, as spiritual environment of brain Likewise, the cognitive powers of the brain create the spiritual environment usually referred to as the mind. In other words, mind is the spiritual environment of the brain. The effects of a person's thoughts, feelings, intentions, inclinations dreams, determinations, designs, decisions, and above all, deeds and deliberations constitute the spiritual environment the same way as drops of water form a river When we say that someone is in a low or high spirit, we refer to the ordinary function of the spiritual environment which is the agency to degrade or upgrade the level of performance. We all have ordinary spiritual environment at human level but nobody has a soul at this stage because soul represents the existence that starts after the expiration of present life. As purity of water determines the quality of river, sincerity of intentions and deeds decides the magnitude of the spiritual environment. Thus it has to ascend the ordinary level which helps the process of living but does not assist rebirth, that is, the emergence of soul. As sea water must have certain properties to be the producer of marine life, spiritual environment must rise to the status of soulosphere through a process of purification which is brought about by the virtue of sincerity and righteous deeds. Faith has nothing to do with it because attainment of soulosphere is way above the flight of faith which happens to be the frail faculty of the brain. However, faith does have a survival value in this life because it provides a shield against the harshness of reality. But in the long run it can be the destroyer of the soulosphere because people intoxicated with the wine of faith are usually prone to sin for being sure of absolute pardon irrespective of the enormity of their deeds. If we realise that it is the cells which manufacture human life through their own effort, it becomes evident that rebirth is also the sole responsibility of man who has been endowed with free will and the ability to achieve this aim. Again, creation of the spiritual environment is an individual's responsibility, and like cultural endowment, cannot be inherited. Hence, in the race of rebirth, every man stands for himself. There is nothing that these self-appointed gods and gurus and messiahs and messengers can do for him. Nature of spiritual environment It is not possible to give a concrete description of the nature of spiritual environment. Scientists talk of virtual particles which cannot be observed, but their existence is confirmed by the influence they exert. Again, as gravity is supposed to consist of gravitons and, light of photons, the spiritual environment must also be composed of something similar to these particles because presence of the spirit is felt by the degree of enthusiasm and level of attachment or detachment in ordinary life. As far as I am concerned, there is no soul in the living bodies because it is neither a prisoner nor a vital principle because human body is an autonomous system which needs no foreign assistance. Its excellence becomes evident from the working of the cells which keep creating their own life. To me, spirit is just another description of the spiritual environment, and not of soul. Spirituon What is the spirit or spiritual environment composed of? Mind is the spiritual environment of the brain (nervous system) which consists of nerve cells or neurons. A typical neuron has a cell body containing a nucleus and two or more long fibres which serve as transmitters of impulses (the dendrites) though in higher nervous systems only one fibre, the axon, carries out this function. Surely, the spirit or Spiritual environment is made up of small bits as gravity is made of gravitons and, light of photons but it will be wrong of me to assign them a particular structure like that of a neuron. It suffices to say that the spirit or spiritual environment is made up of Spirituons which are small particles and rank as spiritual cells. When soul comes into being Soul is not spirit but something which may rise from the ashes of the spirit at the time of death. How does it come into existence? To understand this process we should refer to biology, the science of life. It has been established that all genes of an organism are present in every cell

but they all do not act at the same time. Further, some genes act only at certain times during development, and certain genes never act in some cells. The spirituous or spiritual cells may have a good deal in common with the behaviour of genes. Death acts as a catalyst which activates them through a swift churning action. However, this action is of avail only if the spiritual environment is capable of turning into a soulosphere, that is, it has been refined enough through consistent piety, to produce a soul. Spiritual environment of the persistent sinner is like the skimmed milk which loses the ability to produce butter. Master spiritual cell What turns a spiritual environment into a soulosphere is the ability of the spirituous to produce a soul. Behaviour of the spirituous resembles that of the millions of sperms which struggle to achieve life through the act of fertilization but only one succeeds, as a general rule, and the rest perish. The rule of singularity is final in respect of the spirituous. The spirituous that become active at the moment of death, wage a violent struggle for survival but only one succeeds and the rest perish through shock or frustration. The one that is victorious deserves to be called the Master Spiritual Cell; its victory is not based on any strategem but the simple fact that it is the best. It has got to be the best to rank as a constitutent of Godhead. Soul may not be born However, I must state emphatically that the emergence of soul solely depends upon one's piety, i.e. the good deeds, and not faith. Every intentional sin affects the Spiritual environment the same way as the turn of a churn acts as a catalyst to render the milk sterile gradually by reducing its content of butter. If you give birth to a soul, your death actually counts as the opening of a new door to eternity, but if no soul emerges at the last moment, you are really dead but there is no hell to roast you because you do not exist any more. Neutrino and soul The escape of the Master Spiritual Cell may seem more of a fairy tale than a convincing mystery. To my mind, it is a fact, and may also sound a reality to you if I describe it in terms of physics: Scientists claim that each time an event takes place, energy is emitted. They have enunciated "the law of conservation of energy" which states that the amount of energy before an event is exactly equal to the amount of energy after the event During the 1930's they discovered the existence of neutron, which is an unstable particle and disintegrates into a proton and electron, but the energy balance is always less after disintegration than before. Obviously, something has disappeared. Wolf-gang Pauli, the famous scientist, proposed the existence of a new particle as a face-saving device. This imaginary particle was named "neutrino" (little neutron) by E. Fermi in 1934 and was experimentally observed in 1956. A neutrino has no mass, no electric charge; it has one half-unit of spin yet it always travels at the speed of light and is the most penetrating of subatomic particles. Now we are told that we receive from the sun 10 billion neutrinos per square centimetre, every day. It is the persistent endeavour that has raised neutrino to the status of a fact. May be one day we shall experimentally establish the truth about soul. Its possibility is far more likely than its impossibility. How soul comes into being Why has death got to be the point of emergence for soul? Firstly, though body is the matrix of soul, it is a different species altogether and therefore cannot take birth inside the body. Its coming into being is like lightning which occurs as a discharge when storm clouds rub against each other; it is the bang heard when a Christmas cracker is pulled, it is the fire that appears when a match is struck. Secondly, death does not necessarily mean extinction; it may also imply improvement and a new phase of life. For example, some weeks before the birth of a child, it has far more cells in the brain than that of a newborn child. It is the large scale death of cells which plays the leading role in the perfection of the brain.

In a hostile environment, when organisms face death, they reproduce themselves in a frenzy (because they want to live through their offsprings). Their progeny is usually better suited to the environment thus increasing their chances of survival. Further, the exhausted organisms may be moved to another phase of nature which permits potentially more successful combinations of genes. Thus the death of inferior species leads to the succession of the superior species. Before closing this chapter, I should restate that mind is the extension of matter. However, mind represents more than the cognitive power usually ascribed to it. In fact, mind is the spiritual environment of brain which gives birth to a soul when it attains the potential to become the soulosphere. Rebirth or raising a soul is an individual's own responsibility. The selfappointed gods and gurus, messiahs and messengers and prophets and pits have no role to play in the birth of a soul Once a soul is born, salvation becomes automatic because soul is the symbol of eternity. The death of a wicked person cannot lead to the emergence of a soul; it is the end of the road of life. It is cruel to raise false hopes yet this is the most effective weapon of these self-appointed holy-men to establish themselves as gods, messiahs and prophets by promising the impossible as the possible to people, who want to have the best without the least effort. "Believe in me, and I will get you into the paradise". It appears that salvation depends upon the magic of words and not the merits of deeds. What a fraud it is! The most precious things cost most dearly. Why not paradise, the loftiest goal of life? CHAPTER THIRTEEN LIFE AFTER DEATH What is Life? Life refers to the stability gained through dynamic equilibrium which is a continuous state of change yet it does not alter the basic uniformity of conditions that constitute the entity of an organism. In fact, this is the state where change contributes to stabilty. Hence life itself is an illustration of the principle: "stability-through-change". However, dynamic equilibrium or control of the internal environment rests upon the personal effort of the body. Thus life is not only what you make it but its rebirth and continuity also depends upon one's own endeavours. What is death? Death, on the other hand, is governed by what is called the principle of microscopic reversibility. It means that though at macroscopic (observable) scale, the things called "dead" seem standing still, at microscopic i.e. atomic level, there is a continuous activity in such objects. Yet they are considered lifeless because they are at equilibrium where each individual reaction occurs in such a way that forward and reverse rates are equal. This type of equilibrium lacks dynamism, that is, the ability to create and control internal environment. Tobacco mosaic virus From this description, it is quite obvious that even what seems dead retains some kind of motion, therefore, there is no real extinction, and things have the tendency not only to stay alive but become alive under the right conditions. Take for instance, the tobacco mosaic virus. In its crystalline phase, i.e. as a piece of matter, it does not display any properties usually associated with life. It looks as lifeless an object as any other but when these virus crystals are dissolved in water and placed on a tobacco leaf, they immediately come to life and can be seen moving from leaf to leaf. More surprising still, they multiply rapidly and form virus colonies. Arguments for possibility of life-after-death These explanations do reveal that death is not extinction but the lowest form of life because motion, no matter how imperceptible in effect, is a symbol of life, and not of extinction. Potential of life is embedded in atoms; it is realised by their ability to arrange themselves into active patterns. Since our atoms survive disintegration of our bodies, the chances of their *reanimation are more than equal. However, this probability is provided by the Master Spiritual

Cell only. In view of the prominence of this subject, I am inclined to develop it by further discussion to show that life-after-death is a distinct possibility. Varying span of life 1. Length of cellular existence is subject to a great deal of variation. The life of a microbe may be only a few minutes or hours compared to man's 70 odd years. compared to this, a bristlecone (conifer) may live for several thousand years. In a stand of bristlecone pines on Wheeler Peak in eastern Nevada, many of them exceed the life-span of 3000 years and one of them is 4900 years old! Man has already improved his life-span through improved medical care and spare-part surgery. Of course, it cannot happen indefinitely at cellular level because the genetic code contains instructions which specify that a species cannot live beyond a certain age, no matter how favourable the conditions. There is no reason to believe that improved medical care and surgery are the only means of lengthening life. Ordinary physical life seems more vulnerable to disintegration than existence at atomic level. Since soul or the Master Spiritual Cell is more akin to an atom, the tree o life germinating from soul is likely to be far more durable. One should remember that not long ago existence of atoms was ridiculed. Now, we know that atoms are the building blocks of the universe, and also of cells which create life. Why can't the same atoms be the basis of something more subtle and refined such as a soul? Evolutionary principle 2. Evolution has displayed one undeniable truth: a higher species emerges from the ashes of a lower species. The higher species is genetically superior to the lower species and more capable of adjusting itself to the environment. In fact, evolution is a process of continual upward jumping, and this spiral takes place for two reasons: a. the lower species can't cope with the rigours of life, but life being an everexpanding phenomenon, seeks a new mode (higher species) to express itself; b. it is natural for things to seek self-improvement. Man is imperfect. It is natural for him to seek relative perfection. Soul is the realisation of that dream. Is there a cogent reason to believe that evolution ends at man? Direct propagation 3. Subhuman species can live through their offsprings only, that is, by means of physical propagation. Every species is the expression of its potential, which irnproves as the species leaps to the higher rung of the evolutionary ladder. At human level, man must be sufficiently evolved to possess a potential which is capable of extending his existence without an external medium such as Children He must be capable of propagating himself through himself. This means is provided by his soul. (Since this potential is evolved at human level only, subhuman species are not capable of producing soul). The greatest human desire 4. Living-for-ever is the greatest human desire. Achieving this aim must be a possibility; otherwise the whole concept of life becomes a hoax. Man represents the apex of consciousness and intelligence, and is also endowed with free will The purpose of these formidable virtues can't be anything but to enable him to realise this goal. Soul is the fulfillment of this dream. Death is not extinction 5. Death does not lead to extinction but to another form of existence. If an electron and a positron collide, they both disappear, and two photons (particles of light) are seen rushing from the site of clash. This is an example of conversion of matter into energy.

Conversely, when two photons encounter each other, they disappear, but from their disappearance emerge an electron and a positron. Thus the reverse process, i.e. the transformation of energy into matter, takes place. Death is, thus, a process of changing from one thing to another. Is it not more than likely that human body when it perishes, can lead to the emergence of something else such as soul? We cannot deny that the cessation of spring leads to summer, demise of summer brings about (autumn) winter and the death of winter gives birth to spring. Why should we deny the application of this natural process to man? Law of sequence 6. This is law of nature that the next stage is determined by the previous stage. For example, if there are atoms, they must compose something; atoms are the previous stage and what they compose is the next stage. Thus there is a definite correlation between the two, and one cannot exist without the other. Therefore, there must be another stage of existence after death, and it ought to be better than the human level of existence because evolution is a process of moving from the inferior to the superior. The more exalted stage than man is soul. Supernova 7. People began to hear of the term supernova in about 1933. It refers to a star which rises in brightness to such an extent that it may outshine the total number of stars in the galaxy. In the core of a star are formed massive nuclei through a long chain of successive additions. When a star explodes through contractions it blazes with the strength of a 100 million suns. However, the exploding star or supernova, as it dies, hurls in all directions at a speed of many thousand miles per second, its treasure of the nuclei which it has prepared over a period of long time. The Crab Nebula is the remains of a supernova which exploded on the morning of 4th July, 1054. Its ashes extend over billions of miles and like the Supernova of the past, will give birth to stars of the future. The death of one star serves as the breeding ground for another. The explosion of a supernova seems to be an integral part of the evolution i e rising from a lower stage of existence to a higher one. It is because through a gradual process it contains heavy nuclei which are essential for extending the ladder of complexity, and it is complexity which is the essence of evolution. We should note that the interior of a star is an unsuitable site for the formation of atoms and molecules due to its extremely high temperature which is injurious to the making of bonds. Bonding can happen only when the supernova has emptied its stellar material in the cold expanse of space. Stars of later generations, like a pheonix, rise from the ashes of the supernova. Why is it not possible for soul, the germinating seed of next life, to rise from the disintegration of its body? If it is feasible for atoms to change into cells, and for cells to appear in the incredible form known as man, what is so supernatural in assuming that man carries the seed of his future life? Does a chicken not carry an egg to continue its existence? Is it not known that every tree carries spores and uses amazing techniques of perpetuating itself? This fact is equally observable inside the human body: cells are created from the destruction of cells themselves. Existence is eternal 8. Existence is not always associated with the present. The atoms that constitute me now, existed billions of years ago. It means that I existed in the past though I was not aware of this fact. What has a past and present, must have a future as well. Again, as my present is far better than my past, it is reasonable to assume that my future can be even better than my present. Again, as my present is different from the past, my future existence is likely to be different from both the present and past, but as a real existence is always subject to rules, the future existence can't be immune from them either. Life as supposition 9. Life, in a way, is a process of suppositions based on curiosity. The universe

with its wonders, was here long before the advent of man. Even the primitive man, as he looked up into the sky, heard the thunder of clouds, saw the dazzle of lightning or listened to the music of dancing waves, felt curious to suppose the existence of a super-being. As a result, he invented many gods and goddesses who governed the various phenomena of nature. Since knowledge comes in stages, and Is never complete, he had to learn the truth through a process of elimination. As most of our knowledge is drawn from supposition, it is quite reasonable to suppose the coming into being of a soul. It is even more reasonable to suppose that man is an important being, and is thus likely to live for ever, rather than a mammal whose entire aim of life is to eat, drink and mate, and then perish to become ashes. The supposition of a phoenix that may rise out of ashes is far more superior to the ashes which are a form of refuse. Unity of end 10. Finally, everything has the unity of origin, that is, they all emanate from the same source, i.e. the atoms (or the particles which constitute the identity of atoms). It is logical to assume that they should also have the unity of ending. It is like snow melting to split itself into many streams which combine to make a river, and rivers flowing separately but eventually joining the sea. Since things have the same identity at the point of origin, they should also be homogeneous at the end. Without being so, union is not possible: it is a mixture of the similar because only birds of a feather flock together. This unity of ending is facilitated by souls whose major attributes must have a lot in common. Final unity Now, we enter the last stage of our argument, that is, the purpose of the final unity of souls which also happens to be the purpose of the universe. However, one should remember that inference can be drawn from the available evidence only: What is a machine? Before one can talk about the purpose of the final unity of souls, one has to establish that man is not a machine but an organism because machines have no goal; they function over a certain period of time and then become a part of a scrap-heap. Again, a machine is operated by an operator who may also be its designer. It is something stolid, passive and obedient. It lacks will and emotive power and knows nothing about pain or pleasure. Above all, it does not possess the instinctive quality of self-improvement, the ability to create relationships and the glow of consciousness which is the fountain of knowledge, moral values and social discipline. What is man? On the contrary, man is characterised with a mind which is the power "to think, know, feel and will". Thus he is motivated by his dreams, desires, designs and determinations. These qualities always have a purpose which man strives to achieve. In fact, his entire life becomes a process of chasing and executing his purpose. He is not only enthusiastic about attaining his goal but also becomes concerned with the right way of attaining it. This is what creates moral conscience leading to the creation of soul. A machine knows nothing about moral conscience. Man is called machine because he has a body which consists of parts that function like the components of a machine. This is no reason to degrade the status of man because cells of plants and other mammals have a great deal in common with the cells of man; they all have the same functions and perform similar processes, yet nobody has ever claimed that a mango or mouse is a man. It looks to me that it is not similarities but the differences, no matter how minute, which create distinction between one thing and another. Take a computer, for instance. It has an "anatomy" including a "brain" which are claimed to be not much different from those of man. Yet any comparison affected between the two is only superficial. Instead Of going into details, just look at the working of man's nerve cells. The result they produce is way beyond the electronic capacity of a computer: man's unbounded imagination, fiery determination, lofty designs, urge of execution, desire to succeed and aspiration to improve, all stem from the operation of his neurons.

Obviously, man cannot be a machine because his entire functioning is geared to an instinctive purpose which is self-improvement though the notion of self-improvement may differ from person to person. In fact, this urge of self-improvement lies dormant in atoms and is awakened by the whip of change which excites them to assume ever-ascending patterns of form to reach the highest point of existence. Intelligence of the computers shows man's ability to rearrange atoms in a particular fashion to bring forth the intelligence that is latent in atoms. However, this fact does not obviate the difference between man and machine, it simply shows a similarity between the two, and the innate creative power of the former. Universe, as organism Similarly, the universe is not a machine either. It expresses its organismic spirit through man who is the manifestation of the universal wisdom, operation and discipline. The evolutionary process is a long chain of change. It has taken the universe some fifteen billion years to create man, the most important link in the concatenation of self-improvement. Improvement from atoms to cells and cells to man, though incredible, is not good enough for the holy plans of the cosmos which seeks the highest form of existence and thus uses man as the matrix of soul. Such an exalted state of being is simply Godhead which is the eternal mode of existence free from the pain of fear and want of favour. It is not that the operation of change ceases here; at this point, change, which was originally infantile and had been evolving all along, becomes the Creative Principle, that is, change contributes to continual integration instead of disintegration. The Godhead To state this point more clearly, I must add that Godhead is the stage where three aspects of change, that is, change as principle, change as process and change as product, unite in perfect harmony. The meaning of change as principle is quite clear; change as a process implies evolutionary activity, and change as a product means souls brought about by the evolutionary process from particles (the Primordial stuff) according to the (underlying) principle. At this stage, we must also bear in mind that it is the nature of principle to manifest itself; for example, the principle HE must manifest itself as water, otherwise it has no value, and its existence cannot be proved. Again, the force of a principle or rule lies in its enforcement. Thus, one can say that the myriads of phenomena that appear everywhere as measured chemical changes (Compounds) are the enforcements of the underlying principles (formulas). In fact, I am inclined to state that enforcement is an integral part of the rule or law as burning is of fire and reflection is of mirror; enforcement is another description of mamfestation. However, both principle and process are abstract but manifestation is the Visible form though it may not be readily accessible to the naked eye. A soul or Master Spiritual Cell is the product of the underlying principle and process. Therefore, God can manifest Himself through souls only. As atoms are the building blocks of the universe, and cells make up the identity of man, souls constitute the entity of God. In fact, God is the union of souls, as a river is the assemblage of drops of water or a bonfire is the combination of scintillas. This concept of Godhead is entirely different from the usually mystical idea of man's union with God; according to this view man has a separate identity from God and union denotes a friendly attitude of God towards man who holds his status as an obedient servant. Man is God and God is man What I am stating is what I set out to establish, that is, man is God and God is man. Man is God because he has the ability to produce a soul which is a constituent of Godhead, and God is man because of his dependence on man's soul without which the existence of God cannot be imagined. However, the person of God is over and above the sum total of the souls as entity of a radio Is more than its components. This is what makes God an intelligible being. He cannot be transcendent because it makes Him unknowable, and that what cannot be known, cannot be found, and that what cannot be found, cannot be the goal of a search because, as stated previously, the entire human conduct Is motivated by goal. The unknowable God has no relevance to man but the knowable God becomes the goal of man whose nature it is to climb the highest peak for achieving the best. Therefore, the messiahs and messengers mislead people to be treated as God for staying alive through their memory. They do so by exploiting the mystery that surrounds the person of God.

Properties of soul Souls, the building blocks of Godhead, have attributes of their own. What they are, is a matter of speculation. To start with they must be fairly resistant to change because of the super properties of being they possess. Harmony of existence appears to be another of their attribute because each soul must be able to have on its own yet capable of acting in unison and perfect synchronisation. Again, they must represent a purified state of existence, that is, they do not possess or lead to the lower properties, e.g. aggression, meanness, malevolence, etc. as do cells at human level. Self-preservation is man's greatest dream, and Godhead represents its realisation I am not prepared to ascribe attributes to God except that He loves piety and good deeds based on sincereity. Since every soul becomes a component of Godhead, race, colour, creed, caste etc. are the Divine abominations. Thus God is universal and cannot belong to or patronise any one particular religion or race. However, there is one big moot-point regarding the attributes of God because there is hardly any believer who does not think that God wants to be worshipped. If we look into this belief carefully, it ranks as blasphemy. Why? Aggressive behaviour and worship Evolution of man starts from the most primitive conditions. His biggest concern is survival which mainly depends upon feeding one's self; predation, that is, one organism preying upon another to sustain life, has been the rule of survival. In fact this seems to be the case even before the start of life. In the beginning, as the oceans became filled with such substances as sugars and alcohols, there came into being molecules which had the ability to split these sugars and alcohols to drain their energy for keeping themselves alive. As life advanced, the rule of predation gave birth to the aggressive behaviour which became an integral part of animal psychology because life could not be prolonged without the ability to kill, or escape the killer. This fight-or-flight attitude grew more sophisticated at human level, especially when man learnt to look cultured without feeling the necessity to practice moral values. This hypocritical outlook was reinforced by the desire of prestige which emanated from the ability to increase one's own possessions by depriving other people of theirs. Those who lose their possessions become weak and easily governable. Thus man's aggressive behaviour emerges as the urge of dominance which demands satisfaction by depriving other people of their will to act as they desire. To look reasonable and cultured, the powerful individuals invent the rule that "might is right" and thus create conditions through various ruses which keep masses weak because it is their weakness that counts as the might of the mighty. As the wheel of cultural sophistication advances, the dominant feels ashamed of being CONSIDERED an aggressor but not actually being an aggressor because he is obsessed by the urge of dominance and all his life-pattern becomes devoted to the satisfaction of this urge. What is it that actually gratifies him? It is his ability to command people and secure obedience to his commands, the more ridiculous the commands and the greater the desire of the dominated to observe them, the higher the satisfaction of the dominant. Obeying a rational command of the legitimate authority is a virtue, but when boundaries of obedience merge into the realm of servility, it becomes the vilest vice because it deprives man of his dignity and free will, the true elements of humanity. And there is nothing more servile than the act of worship which is a process of bowing and bending, creeping and crawling, prostrating and palliating. Dominating or securing the right of worship, are the marks of aggression which Symbolise primitiveness. There are three ways to secure dominance or the right Of Worship. Terror is the first weapon in this respect; one is frightened into Submission by the enormity of punishment such as death or abode in hell. The second method is a promise of favour such as a high reward of paradise. Thirdly it is the power of brainwashing through faith which persuades people to perform acts of self-humiliation to please the mighty who love such perversions. Since Godhead is the summit of evolution, the rules of behaviour applicable at the 10We5t level cannot hold good right at the top. Therefore, desire for worship is not a property of Godhead but the burning ambition of the self-appointed messiahs and messengers who seek to establish their own divinity in the guise of viceroyalty To give themselves prestige and reverence, they do not act like the secular rulers who behead people for disobeying them. Instead, these merchants of

holiness create for their followers a psychological environment which induces them to obey their commands with the same zeal as moths have, to cremate themselves alive on a burning candle. And those who do not adopt this mechanical behaviour are punished to please the Almighty who is just a euphemism for the guru, messiah or prophet. Thus, they escape the blame for the desire to be worshipped and all the atrocities that stem from it. Universe, as the Creator of God Contrary to common belief, I should also state before proceeding further, that it is not God who creates the universe but it is the universe that creates God Godhead is the highest, the noblest and the eternal state of existence which perpetuates itself; it represents the peak of evolution that started with particles, attained the dignity of man and blossomed into soul. Therefore, God Himself being the goal of the universe (and man) has no goal Himself. Neither He creates nor He legislates. Thus, He has no part in the ills of the world which is self-governing through its own laws. God being the most wise, the most conscientious and the most righteous, does not interfere with the rules of nature until such time that the natural laws become inefficient to regulate the conduct of the universe which eventually suffers entropy through wear and tear or old age. However, there is another situation in which God interferes, that is, when vice becomes so prevalent that man ceases to produce soul which constitutes the fabric of Godhead. Role of God God being the greatest and the noblest purpose in Himself, cannot have a purpose of His own. If He did have one, it would be inferior and. thus, He could not be the highest point of existence. Therefore, when He interferes to break the hold of vice over virtue, He does so, not to perpetuate himself but to protect the goal of the universe (and man). His own perpetuation is a by-product of this process and not His own purpose though it can be said that God interferes to save His own identity which is threatened by the lack of supply of souls. Obviously, the role of God in relation to the universe is that of a guardian, and not as the sole administrator though administration is a part of guardianship. The fact that the universe has a purpose does not subject it to determinism because its goal (Godhead) is the highest and is achievable through a good deal of effort only Again, there is no compulsion involved in accepting or rejecting this goal; one can take it or leave it. I shall discuss the concepts of free will and determinism at a later stage to clear the air. God is one God has got to be one. There can't be many Gods because there is a tendency on the part of things to reduce their roles from several to few: billions of cells forge themselves to make one human; countless atoms join to form a star; billions Of stars combine to become a galaxy; billions of galaxies participate in the formation of a cluster and myriads of clusters anociate to rank as a superstructure. Thus, organization of the universe is hierarchical and must eventually be presided over by one being whose own entity is naturally composed of countless parts (i.e. souls). However, there is one difference. Whereas transformation of other things such as gas and dust into a star is brought about by natural forces, the change from man to God is wrought by man himself. This is vouched for by the fact that man steers not only his own destiny but also influences existence of the earth. In fact, his actions have a special significance to the entire universe because without his consciousness, the presence or absence of the cosmos makes no sense, and secondly his exploratory zeal as shown by Voyager 2 provides an extra link to the heavenly bodies, and what may be in them. Since Godhead represents what is the best, the greatest and the noblest, this existence cannot be mechanical but conscious. As man is the only being endowed with the virtue of consciousness, elevation from man to God implies the highest evolutionary point of consciousness. It also shows that the purpose of consciousness is none other than Godhead. Moral conscience and Godhead By consciousness, I do not mean just awareness but the knowledge leading to moral sense accompanied by righteous deeds. This is particularly true at human level because without a good moral behaviour, attainment of Godhead is a myth. As moral conscience leads to Godhead, it also remains the pivot of Godhead; God's guardianship of the universe is strictly moral because its purpose is to assist righteousness prosper at the expense of evil.

Why morality and not wickedness? One can say, why does morality, and not wickedness lead to Godhead? It is because morality is justice-in-action, the practical distinction between right and wrong. It is natural for man to adore justice and deplore injustice. As the welfare of an individual depends upon fairness, so does his spiritual well-being. A society riddled with evil becomes morbid and life begins to rank as a punishment and not a pleasure. As it is the law of nature that sunshine, and not snow, will ripen crops, so it is the inherent function of righteousnes to promote the cause of Godhead. The role of vice is to demote it. The pivotal question The relevant question in this context is to ask, "Has man got the ability to rise from the status of humanity to that of divinity?" Spectroscope It seems to be the law of nature that everything must carry testimony to indicate what it is. For example, when chemical elements are excited they emit light of precisely defined colours which can be decomposed by means of a prism to identify its source and nature. Thus a physicist, by analysing the light of a star, can determine the presence as well as scarcity or abundance of the elements to be found on the surface of the star. The sequence of wave-lengths emitted by excited atoms when displayed in a spectroscope is so regular that it can be expressed by a mathematical formula, and thus serves the same standard of reliability in identification as do the fingerprints of individuals. Human greatness Application of this rule of evidence shows the unimaginable greatness of human mind and body. Scientists have discovered that the number of possible organic compounds rise to several billions but the contemporary life on earth employs less than 1500 combinations based on no more than fifty molecular building blocks. As a result, only a few chemical and functional patterns are being used again and again, thus reflecting the very close relationships between all organisms. The number of possible ways that nucleotides can be placed in a chromosome is fantastic. The nucleotides are organic chemical compounds which make up the basic genetic material responsible for storing and replicating the hereditary information in cells. The likely arrangement of nucleotides raises the mumber of possible varieties of human chromosomes to 4^4 X 10^9 (10^2 · 4 X 10^9). This number is much greater than the total number of elementary particles i.e. electron, and protons which are about 108° and account for the physical make-up of the entire world. Obviously, every human has the potential to be greater than the universe itself but this fact is usually ignored. Of course, some of these nucleotide combinations can be lethal to life but on the other hand, there must be myriads of sequences which can raise the status of man incredibly higher than his present standing. He obviously has the potential to be God. How souls combine to create Godhead Another legitimate question is: "How do souls combine to form Godhead?" On the basis of what is known about the living cell, the ability to create Divine existence must be inherent in soul, the Master Spiritual Cell. It is because cells are the units of life, and in right conditions they can survive and conserve themselves. Of course, a cell is an autonomous unit but a single cell such as a bacterium lives at a very low level. Cells have the ability to unite, and this union leads to complexity, giving birth to a higher life. This happens because the cells are capable of recognising one another. For example, if kidney cells and retinal cells are taken out of an organism and cultured outside, they join their own kind and form groupings very much like the two original tissues. Again, if the same type of cells are taken out of two different species, they combine according to the nature of the function in their basic organisms. The fact that cells join to form well organised wholes or organisms, clearly shows that their inherent qualities

are much greater than the sheer ability to combine; they must possess the skills to communicate, synchronise all the sequences, and must be capable of a harmonious co-existence to found a highly integrated entity stemming from free will. Theory of collaboration There are about two hundred varieties of cells in the human body each having a fixed role. Each kind could exist on its own to protect its individuality but its magnitude of life would be inferior owing to its simplicity. Their combination into a whole gives them a complexity which results in a marvel like man. Scientists have developed the "theory of collaboration" which states that the simple cells joined together to form the complex cells of living beings and thus each primitive organism became a particular organelle. The speculation about the ordinary living cells equally applies to the Master Spiritual cells. The harmony of their individual character emerges as the regulatory control of the union i.e. the Godhead. Individuality and collectivity of soul Soul or the Master Spiritual Cell, which is the ultimate unit of divine life, must be far superior to an ordinary living cell, and thus capable of recognising and joining the fellow-souls to create the identity of Godhead. However, I am inclined to believe that Godhead is both an individual and collective mode of existence, and this fact is made possible by the harmonious powers of the souls. Destination of souls This discussion leads to yet another enquiry: "How do souls find their destination, i.e. the point of mutual association?" One can speculate on the basis of available evidence only. Flight of soul from human body to the final destination, is an act of migration which is usually undertaken for survival or better prospects of life, and it happens at all levels - vegetative to human. Soul is no exception, and must have a mysterious way of reaching its goal. For example fruits of burdock and agrimony have developed hooks for clinging to the feathers of birds or furs of animals to be carried away from their place of growth. They usually enjoy a free ride of several miles before they are dropped to another place. There are several plants which use localised air currents or large-scale updraughts for migration. This is especially true about the plants which produce very fine spores or seeds. Aeronaut spiders The way an aeronaut spider migrates may help to explain this mystery. It starts its migration by getting hold of a straw and exposing into the air its abdomen which extrudes silk. As the wind strikes at the silk, it produces a still longer thread of this material until it is sufficient to support the spider's weight. At this stage, it discards the straw or whatever it is clinging to, and is blown up into the air Suspended by its own yarn to be transported away. Birds migration Birds may be involved into very long migrations, indeed. For example, an arctic tern may fly over 12,000 miles to reach home from its breeding site. How does it find its home? Nobody knows the true answer. However, it is claimed that in addition to using their powers of seeing and smelling, birds use the earth's magnetic field for finding their way, and can also take cue from the stars, the moon and the sun. Even after an absence of eight years, some birds can recognise their home! How do buntings, tiny birds, cross oceans to reach the same clump of trees where they were born? How do snakes return to the same hole of birth after hibernation? Even more amazing is the migration of the offsprings of the monarch butterfly (Danaus Plexippus). Each winter these butterflies migrate from North America to the Gulf of Mexico. On their homeward journey, they mate and lay eggs but because of their short span of life, it is not they but their offsprings that return home. How do they find their home which they have never seen?

It is these mysteries that make life sweet, challenging and attractive. Soul ought to be the deepest mystery to generate the greatest thrill, excitement and exhiliration. It is the most sacred masquerade of nature packed with marvel, magic and medley. Life as process of combinations What I have said so far about Godhead may sound strange but if we remember that life is a process of combinations i.e. how things join and stay together, then the concept of Godhead that I am advocating ceases to be incredible. Godhead is the superior and eternal mode of existence. Naturally, God has a body which cannot come into being without parts. However, the divine body is composed of spiritual cells compared to other (living) bodies which are made of (ordinary) living cells. To explain the concept of composition or combination, I find it necessary to prolong this discussion: No existence without body However, before proceeding further I may dispel one misunderstanding. Some people claim that God has an "immaterial body". It is a contradiction in itself because what is immaterial i.e. does not have a body, cannot exist independently: thoughts, feelings, moods etc. are the conditions of a body and not the body itself; likewise fragrance and beauty are the properties of a rose, and not the rose itself. A deeper study of biology may help to understand the subject under discussion; life as we know it arose, mainly, from two groups of molecules: the amino acids which join together to form proteins, and the nucleotide bases whose combination emerges as DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid). Proteins Proteins have innumerable shapes which are generated by a coiling and twisting arrangement of atoms. These different shapes are linked by a backbone composed of a simple six-atom repetitive unit which may recur several hundred times. Twenty amino acids participate in the formation of proteins. They are attached to each other by what is called peptide bonds, and are designated residues; the resulting chains are known as peptides. One should remember that the diverse molecular assemblies i.e. the innumerable living bodies that we see, owe their existence to the right combination or sequence of amino acids. Unless sequence of the amino acids is correct, the biological structures, as we know them, cannot come into being. We are told that the right polypeptides which made a primitive cell, combined four billion years ago. It is also believed that the odds of getting one polypeptide right are as small as 10^-130. It makes happening of an event very nearly a figment of the imagination but when we realise that the present evolutionary diversity involves 100 different polypeptides, the probability of arranging them in the right order rises to 10^-13000 It is simply impossible because on this basis it would take many, many, many trillions of years to produce the right sequence of amino acids. This is against the available evidence which suggests that life on this planet began 4 billion years ago. Some scientists believe that life on earth is the result of an exceptionally lucky chance, and others hold that when suitable conditions appear for the right combinations of amino acids, they assemble spontaneously. This statement also relies on the chancesuitability of environment. The truth, as already stated repeatedly, is that atoms (particles) have the innate tendency to be, and the process of becoming is evolutionary, based on trial and error. DNA DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) also results from the sequence of molecules. It is an organic chemical of complex structure; it occurs in cell nuclei as the basis of chromosomes and serves to encode genetic data. The genes are stored in the nucleus of a cell and contain all the instructions for living and reproduction. One peculiarity of the DNA is that it occurs in a constant amount in all body cells of a particular species and its molecules have been faithfully transmitted at the time of reproduction. Because of this constancy or stability since inception of life on earth, DNA is considered immortal. The day this constancy is disturbed, life will cease to exist. Thus life is a controlled affair and this control is exerted from within the organism. Cytoplasm - Symbiosis

An example of this fact is provided by cytoplasm which is a gelatinous substance surrounding the nucleus, and is itself enclosed by a membrane that marks the cell's interior world. As previously stated, cytoplasm defines the internal environment of the cell and is populated by a large number of small entities known as organelles each having a distinct function of its own. For example, mitochondria serves as the lungs of the cell. According to a theory of origin, these organelles or organs of the cell, came into being as a result of the symbiotic union of different cells. Symbiosis refers to a union (combination) which is mutually beneficial to each partner. For example, as the theory goes, an anaerobic cell (capable of living without respiration) swallowed an aerobic cell which needed oxygen to live. With the passage of time, this union became obligatory and the captured aerobes started functioning as mitochondria thus bestowing on its captor the benefit of aerobic respiration. Yet another example of the symbiotic union is provided by the algae which live within the cells of fungi in the lichen partnerships. In fact, some biologists trace the evolution of organelles (organs of the cells) to such partnerships (combinations); flagella or cilia, centrioles, plastics etc. further explain this theory. Three principles I said previously that life is a process of harmonious combinations; now I may add another element to this truth, that is, the principle of combination must remain constant e.g. as molecular sequence of the DNA. Here, the phrase ''molecular sequence" suggests yet another principle, that is, the magnitude of existence depends upon the quality of arrangement of the constituents of a combination. Put it another way, it implies the mutual relationship of things within themselves and to the outside world. For example, every iron atom has innate magnetic qualities, yet every iron bar does not possess the attracting force. Why? Because the atoms of an unmagnetised bar are arranged randomly, and as a result the force of one iron atom is neutralised by another but the bar which is magnetic, its individual atoms are aligned in such a manner that their individual magnetic fields reinforce each other and thus turn the bar into a magnet. The concept of Godhead is easier to understand when we cogitate upon it in the light of these three principles, namely, combination, constancy of the basic principle and the manner of arrangement of the constituents. In the light of these facts, I may state that: Godhead is the union of souls which are, in fact, the spiritual cells, and therefore inherently possess all the virtues of becoming at a much higher scale than the human cells whose stunning properties create the marvel of man. One of the properties of the human cells is that they are reluctant to die, yet their dream of eternity is likely to be realised through death if they can produce a Master Spiritual Cell (soul). One should remember that a normal human adult contains more than a hundred thousand billion 10'4 cells and an average cell consists of some 10'2, that is, one thousand billion atoms. These fantastic numbers unite in so baffling a complexity to create the marvel of man that millions of pages cannot explain it. Our present knowledge of cells is infinitesimal, and possibly the more we delve, the still deeper we will have to dive only to suffer a proportionately increasing disappointment, disputation and disillumination. Even more stunning is the fact that one fertilised human cell can divide itself into 1044 i.e. a hundred thousand billion cells of several hundred kinds, each with a different function! Thus existence or reality becomes so great a picture of beauty that the more one gazes, the more it dazes. May be the only way to appreciate beauty is to admire it. Yet inspection is an integral part of appreciation; one cannot admire it genuinely without gazing at it, no matter how dazing its effect. In view of these facts, it is wrong to state in extravagant details how souls unite to create Godhead. It will be equally fallacious to describe their manner of arrangement. However, one dare assert that the union of souls is based on an extraordinarily efficient rule of harmony. Soul and individuality However, I must emphasise that Godhead is a union i.e. combination of souls, and not a chemical compound in which the constituents lose their individuality Such a hypothesis will be wrong because evolution from particles to man is, in fact, the evolution of individuality. Every cell has the ability to exist independently Nature provides evidence to this effect. For example, the singlecelled Euglena Gracilis which is seen covering the stagnant surface of ponds, looks like a green plant when weather conditions are bright but in the absence of sunshine, the green disappears and it swims like a creature in search of food as any other animal. A still better

example is provided by the slime mould Dictyosteium Discoideum which feeds on bacteria. When supplies are abundant the individual cells can survive independently and are seen moving about as individuals but when supplies of bacteria are scarce, the individuals through a chemical process, cluster together to form a single creature; it looks like a slug and is called pseudoplasmodium which moves about in search of food. Amazingly, differentiation sets in leading to specialisation of the individual cells as in any other multicellular organism, capable of shedding spores which hatch to become new slime mould! The solution Similarly, members of the solar system or a galaxy represent the basis of the union I am trying to explain. They are bound by the force of attraction into a system, yet act as individuals. Souls, the constituents of Godhead, must possess super qualities of combining together yet staying apart. It all springs from the tremendous power of harmony that souls have. Speculating about the form of God, or the shape of souls and their mode of living, is the mystery that cannot be solved until one becomes a part of Godhead. It suffices to say that Divinity is the level of existence suffused with peace, serenity and happiness, and totally free from the fear of death and need of favour. Divine homeostatis Godhead is the state of dynamic equilibrium i.e. this is a condition constantly subject to the law of change but it (change) does not affect its basic uniformity. This is a process of staying alive by controlling one's internal environment through personal effort. It is called "homeostatis" and applies to everything which is alive. God is no exception to this rule but the union based on harmony and consciousness of souls, gives God the knowledge, power and discretion which enable Him to maintain this homeostatis to eternalise Himself. This ability emerges at the level of Godhead only. Cosmic march towards freedom Godhead is not only the apex of existence but also the realization of the cosmic dream which shows that the cosmos has a purpose. The fact that through a constant travail of evolution it seeks to raise higher and higher forms of existence, clearly shows that self-improvement is the true purpose of the cosmos. We can also see that connected with every higher form of existence is the greater desire for independence and freedom of conduct based on individual choice. Thus, the cosmos is marching towards freedom, that is, release from the iron grip of natural laws without violating them and creating its own identity through Godhead which seeks to regulate itself by its own rules. This fact becomes obvious when we look at man: his entire physical constitution and chemical processes are governed by the laws of nature but his personal conduct is subject to his own choices i.e. the moral will. How does God maintain His homeostatis to eternalise Himself? A clue is provided by the activity of human cells which are autophagous, that is, they eat and digest small pieces of their own substance. Thus, they continuously destroy themselves but possess the ability to rebuild themselves. This process of self-demolition and reconstruction is akin to the old fable of phoenix rising from its own ashes. Constant self-rebuilding tendency shows their desire not only to stay alive for ever but also remain young because this molecular renewal, known as "turnover" is an act of continual renovation of the same type as a vintage car receives through repair and replacement of its worn out parts to stay efficient and also retain its good looks. Different cells have different life-spans: protein molecules may live only a few hours or a few days whereas hepatic cells may last several years without suffering any alteration in their structure. However, DNA is an exception to the ravages of change and proves that immortality is not a myth: it has the ability to repair any local injuries that it may suffer. Autophagous activity, as understood in our time, is the fountain of rejuvination and adaptability. Without self-destruction the chances of reconstruction will be non-existent. Thus, turnover facilitates not only rebirth of young cells but the cells are also better adapted to the condition of the internal environment (homeostatis). Of course, brain cells last until man breathes his last. They are also the first to reach maximum development at the earliest age - about eight. The reason appears to be that man needs the longest possible period for the development of the spiritual environment. However, they are equally subject to the law of change but it does not destroy and remake them; instead it rejuvinates and renovates them. This is the reason that

their mitochondria, ribosomes, membranes and other organelles are no older than one month at any time. Bearing in mind what I have just said, the interior of the human body is a life-manufacturing factory where life is being created out of death every moment through a process of change. The role of change is so rapid that all our cells which constitute us, are being replaced about every six years. Thus a ninety year old man has fifteen physical lives. Can he say so? No, he can't, despite the fact that billions and billions of cells which originally constituted him, are no longer there. This unbroken identity is partly sustained by the continuity of the brain cells but the act of replacement itself carries the germs of restoring the original identity. Brain cells which are themselves subject to renovation may assist but cannot be the sole cause for the preservation of the basic identity. A bonfire is made of flames, and each flame is ephemeral, that is, very short-lived. As long as one flame is succeeded by another, the bonfire retains its identity irrespective of the fact that the original flames are no longer there. Similarly, a (sea) tempest holds its identity as long as one wave is replaced by another. Thus, the identity of a thing does not depend upon the originality of its constitutents. Again the identity of a thing is over and above its components e.g. identity of a car, radio or television set etc. is over and above its parts; a heap of components does not have the identity of a car, radio or television set. The spare part surgery also reinforces this principle; a replacement lung, heart or kidney merges in the physical identity of the body. Man, the Divine microcosm An atom is considered the working model of stars because the positive charge is supposed to be concentrated at the centre of the atom and the electrons form rings around it similar to Saturn's rings. Exactly the same way, man is the microcosm i.e. the miniature model of God. Thus God's physical entity must have something in common with that of man. Human cells are reluctant to die but do not possess the ability to attain immortality. However, they stand a chance of eternity if they can produce a soul at the time of total collapse i.e. death. Nature of Godhead It is the union of souls which creates the identity of God. As atoms are the fountain of cells, and cells are the source of souls, God has a physical existence and therefore subject to certain physical laws but not in all the details as we know them. There must be many exceptions because He is the most exalted being. His moral conduct is the noblest and self-regulated. Because of His great knowledge, wisdom and insight, He is capable of interfering with the laws of nature but cannot be immune from them: a being is a being only because its person is based on an underlying principle. This view is not far-fetched. Look at man. His being is governed by physical laws but his conduct is mostly motivated by his free will i.e. personal choice. Thus in the field of behaviour, he is law unto himself. Man, the fountain of Godhead "Survival through personal effort" is the rule which applies to God exactly the same way as it does to humans. As man cannot survive without rebuilding his cells, God cannot maintain his integrity without fresh supplies of souls. Here is a big difference: man has to manufacture his cells but his ability to rejuvinate them is limited, and therefore, he dies after a short while but God does not manufacture souls, He procures them, and the only source of such supply is man. This is what makes man the fountain of Godhead, and gives him very high dignity, indeed. And this is why I hold the view that man is God and God is man, owing to their mutually reciprocal existence. However, there are certain differences; man is imperfect but God represents what is the greatest, the noblest and the best, and this transformation is made possible by the leap from cell to soul. Thus Godhead is the highest rung in the ladder of evolution. Another significant difference is God's ability to eternalise Himself but this is beyond human capability. If it were not so, evolution would stop at man and the wonder of Godhead would not come into being. Yes, man is God and God is man. Yet he is afraid. Why? It is because of igrorance he is not aware of his divine potential which is the guarantee of eternity. If a lion begins to believe that he is a lamb, he is bound to feel and act like a lamb. In exactly the same way, man has been misled by gurus, messiahs and prophets, to believe in his insignificance which acts as the fountain of fear and he clutches at any straw to save himself from drowning. This straw is the

faith which does not have the ability to act as an oar to steer the ship of life to eternity but he desperately clings to it for fear of death. Revelation is a myth, a cruel joke based on the contempt of human dignity Knowledge is the only true guide for man. Morality and Godhead Basis of Godhead appears to be strictly ethical. When social conditions are righteous they help mankind to live a good moral life and members of the human species produce enough souls to serve the cause of Godhead but when vice dominates virtue, people become incapable of producing souls thus acting against the divine purpose. It is because as dead cells in the human body require replacement, the souls need a process of rejuvination which is made possible by the fusion of the new souls with the old ones. This process is so unique and refined that union leads to oneness and not duality of essence. Nor does it add to the weight or size of soul. This point is no more baffling than the laws of relativity which state that at the light velocity the size of a thing reduces but its weight increases. Fusion of souls The fusion of new souls with the old ones, in a sense, is an act of replacement but it is imperceptible and leads to oneness without affecting the identity of the individual soul or that of God. Biology does provide a clue to this type of fusion. It is believed that the organelles (cell organs) known as mitochondria contain DNA but the genetic code used by them is somewhat different from the one that is obeyed by the DNA. From this, biologists conclude that the mitochondria were once free living bacteria that entered a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship with the eucaryotic cells and were eventually incorporated by them. However, a soul is unimaginably greater in magnitude than a bacterium. This fusion of two souls leads to perfect oneness owing to their super traits of harmony. At this juncture, one should also realise that eternity emerges from the way souls merge together, it is not a superimposed principle. It can be easily understood with reference to the union of protons and neutrons - the example previously given. Again, eternity does not imply cessation of time because change, the Creative Principle cannot become inoperative and is integrally interwoven with time. Therefore, eternity means an everlasting existence in defiance to extinctive conditions. Divine administration of the universe It is obvious that lack of souls is likely to endanger the identity of God but it can't happen. Firstly, Godhead is the realization of the cosmic dream to exist at the summit. Therefore, evolutionary forces must guarantee the birth of intelligent life, which can practice a moral code, in several planets at the same time or at finely spaced intervals so that if wickedness annihilates the spiritual potential of people in one place, the inhabitants of some other planet can make up the deficiency Secondly, God being the peak of the universe, is obviously the most knowledgeable' the most wise and the most powerful. He does not make the natural laws, which are subject to error, but being the guardian of the cosmos, He can use His discretion as how to adminsiter them: He can either use certain laws to correct the error for rejuvinating life on a certain planet which will otherwise perish or He can let the error take its full course for the elimination of that particular life. The criterion is simple: if the people of a planet are capable of adopting righteous ways, they will be saved but if wickedness has destroyed their moral potential, God does not interfere and thus allows them to reap the fruit of what they have sown. Final rejection This is no fairy tale but a fact which is easily understood by realising that man is, biologically, a species. A species must adjust to its environment by a process of adaptation, which leads to survival through natural selection, or it must die. Authoritative estimates of the number of extinct species range from 15,000,000 to 16,000,000,000! This total extinction is an act of final rejection and implies the inability of a species to rise to a higher rank of existence. It follows that which loses the ability of self-improvement, the purpose of the evolution, also loses the right to exist. Faith and brain

One must realise that the cause of extinction is the inability to evolve to a higher stage of existence; it denoates apathy, lack of right action, or excess of wrong action. Right deed, which a biologist may call adaptation is the source of survival and faith hardly plays any part in it though it is not to say that it is unnatural for man to have a faith; this fact is supported by the study of mind. It is claimed that brain has opiate receptors, and produces a substance which has the same effect on its function as morphine has in regulating the process of pain and pleasure. Faith is beneficial only when it creates self-confidence and stimulates the urge of righteous action. But when it becomes the sole guarantee of salvation it acts as the largest single source of self-destruction. It has no salvation value whatever. Atheist and salvation Salvation depends upon the quality of deeds only. It means that a righteous atheist is more likely to be saved than a wicked believer. Why? Because if you want to go to London from Cardiff but start walking in the opposite direction, you will never reach there even if you honestly believe that you are on the right road to London. But if you are marching in the right direction you will reach London even if you are not sure of the right way. IT SHOWS THAT HUMANITY IS THE ONLY TRUE FAITH FOR MAN, AND THE ONLY WAY OF BECOMING A PART OF GODHEAD IS THROUGH SERVING MANKIND. Mag God is the noblest, the ablest, the greatest and the best being. He is the divine symposium of the souls of the people who were once philosophers, sages, scientists, teachers, poets, inventors, engineers, and so on, and whose intellectual and practical abilities were packed with the virtues of sincerity, honesty and integrity. This fact gives God an unlimited potential of intelligence, power, sagacity and the ability to use these virtues with the utmost justice, compassion and honour As a mark of reverence to His most Holy Uniqueness, which is all munificence through a sense of care, concern and concinnity for the ordinary mortals, I salute Him, and prefer to address Him as Mag to acknowledge His magnitude' magnificence and magninimity, and to differentiate Him from the ordinary concept of God. Mag and guardianship I am as reluctant to ascribe various functions to Mag as I am unwilling to assign Him certain attributes. Like everything else, Mag has no purpose Out the guardianship of the universe which is best achieved through genuine care and concern for man who is the cosmic dream and on whose realisation depends the fulfillment of the universal purpose and the existence of Mag Himself. Universal purpose As I have repeatedly said before, the purpose of the universe is self-improvement and it wants to create the highest possible point of existence capable of regulating itself without defying the laws of nature. This is the reason that Godhead despite being subject to the rule of change is perpetuated by change itself. The theory of Godhead that I have propounded raises many questions. The reader, sincerely searching for the truth, should have no problem in finding the solution if he/she refers the matter to his/her own conscience. However, I must answer one or two questions: Objections If it takes, say, 15 billion years, to evolve man, then Mag could not have existed for all that duration. Could He? The divine theory that I have propounded clearly states that Mag being the summit of evolution can't be in the beginning. He is at the end; and by the end I mean the highest point of existence; there is nothing beyond or above Him. It must take a sufficient number of souls before the basic entity of Mag can emerge. At this initial stage of Godhead, Mag can't perform the function of guardianship. It is the function of the fully evolved divine personality which depends upon the sufficient supply of souls. Since evolution of man on earth is a comparatively recent phenomenon, does it mean that Mag is only a few thousand years old?

Not at all. The universe is a very great mystery and the only way to know it is by becoming a part of Godhead which is even more arcane than the univerSe. However, one can guess that the universe proceeds in cycles of evolution, devolution an re-evolution. It is quite likely that there are many universes, and when one is devolving another one is evolving. Thus no limit can be put on the process of evolution which produces intelligent life leading to the formation of souls, and Godhead. Hence the antiquity of Mag cannot be measured. Is God a creation? No. He is the apex of evolution which is the principle of growing from simple to complex and from the lowest to the highest. He is not a creation but the most highly evolved principle. Does man need faith for salvation i.e. securing eternity by becoming a part of Mag? No. A righteous atheist is superior to a wicked believer. The proof lies in the fact that if an atheist saves your life you will be pleased with him but if a believer tries to murder you, he will be the target of your displeasure. It means that a deed has preference over belief. Exactly the same way Mag appreciates good deeds because they strengthen Him and the universe. Obviously, Mag does not like flattery, usually known as worship. Origin or destination Which is the more relevant question: where does man come from or where is he going? It has got to be the destination because this is the direction in which we move; this is our purpose and the target of our desires and determinations. If we reach our destination, the journey of life has been worthwhile; otherwise it has been a total fiasco. Man's destination Of course, it does not mean that the origin or starting point has no relevance. It is nice to know where one comes from but the knowledge of destination remains the true goal. In human terms, eternity is man's true destination. I think that I have said enough about man's destination, now I may trace the way that leads to eternity. Since eternity is the reward for good deeds, the way to eternity lies in structuring a righteous society which is free from fear, injustice, hunger and disease. Tolerance of fellowbeings is one of its main features. Though law plays its part in running the society, it is chiefly operated by people's moral force. The society which I intend to suggest in the next book is not a utopia but a practical reality. Since I am not a god or guru, the reader is perfectly entitled to differ or agree.

ETERNITY

INTRODUCTION TO BOOK FOUR THE WAY The Universe is perpetually engaged in a dance, and everything dances to its own music. This accord in the movements of dance and music is harmony, and ranks as the secret of life. Thus the cosmic dance provides man with a model to follow. In human terms, harmony means social accord which requires a society capable of reducing all those tensions which create disharmony. It is only the harmonious society that can sufficiently develop one's individuality leading to the birth of a soul, the guarantee of eternity. The fact that such a society does not exist automatically, reveals the truth about effort and exposes the triviality of faith. If such a society existed naturally, man would be just a

mechanical toy. The creation of such a society is not the task of nature but that of man who has been endowed with free will. In fact, free will is the fountain of life, and should also be the means of making it everlasting; after all, it is free will that makes a man, a man. Since eternity is within the grasp of man, he has a brilliant future but it depends upon the creation of a harmonious society. What are the factors which make a society harmonious? It is a matter of opinion. However, in addition to devoting chapters on "harmony" and "free will" for expressing their significance, I have chosen the following subjects, which I believe, play a major role in building the society congenial to man's social and spiritual development, eventually leading to eternity: 1. Ethics (vice and virtue) 2. Psychology (individuality) 3. Sociology (society) 4. Law (and morality) 5. Politics (state) 6. Taxation 7. Economics 8. Mysticism These subjects have received the attention of scholars and philosophers since time immemorial; opinions differ on each subject; some seem to be even contradictory. To my mind, they are the links which forge the chain of life, and its strength and magnitude depend upon their linkage. However, though each of the succeeding chapters discusses a fundamental principle, I have left its application to the suggested harmonious society, openended. It is only gods and gurus who lay down the law. Not being one of them, I believe that the reader is quite capable of coming to his/her own conclusions. CHAPTER FOURTEEN HARMONY The way to eternity is much easier than the merchants of holiness will have us believe. There are no dragons to be slain to achieve this goal nor are there any rivers of fire to be crossed over for this purpose. These tales have been invented by the gods and gurus to give themselves supernatural prestige for forcing ordinary folks to cry and crawl before them for salvation. Salvation does not mean securing a palace in paradise which abounds in beautiful women and boys and thus resembles the seraglios which were private brothels of the mundane rulers. Salvation means becoming a part of Godhead which is the mode of existence based on bliss, immune from fear of death and want of favour; it is the state of the glory of individual souls which receive their divine immortality through mutual harmony which is the virtue of being singular in diversity. In fact, this principle of unity in multeity is the rule of existence at all stages: myriads of drops join to create a pool, countless scintillas combine to make a flame and billions of cells unite to bring about a human. Perfection of the aggregate, in each case, depends upon the harmony of its constituents. Though this harmony is the basis of physical entity of every human, it does not exist between person and person as is the case between atom and atom or cell and cell. This lack of harmony is mainly attributable to the voracious attitudes of messengers and messiahs who deprive ordinary man and woman from the dignity of participating in Godhead with the sole purpose of establishing themselves as God through various ruses. They attain this goal by dividing mankind in deadly sects who hate fellow-beings in the guise of love and duty, and by destroying their power of understanding for subjecting them to the kind of fundamentalism which forces its

followers to live at the level of animals through ignorance, bigotry and superstition. This disunity based on mutual contempt is the exact antithesis of harmony, and the major cause of human sorrows. Man is endowed with consciousness and thus possesses the ability to live in harmony which is so essential for developing his latent virtues to make him God-like even in this life. Man's responsibility Whereas other things are guided and developed by the laws of nature, man is responsible for steering his own ship because he is blessed not only with consciousness but also free will. Attaining Godhead is the purpose of human life. If he deliberately opposes the purpose, he is naturally leaping towards self-annihilation and not eternity. The person who walks on his head instead of feet, must know the consequences. Harmony is the motivating force of the universe. It is the antithesis of inertia, inactivity and insensitivity because it refers to the rhythm of active actions performed by countless parts of the universe in unison: sound of marching soldiers or dancing of a bevy of girls to the tune, are some examples of this fact. The continuous recurrence of stresses emanates from the congruous spirit of individuals and not that of a forcefully welded whole. The marvels of the universe do not necessarily give us a clear vision of its working; they usually make it more mysterious and we tend to draw convenient onclusions from it. Cosmic dance Despite all this confusion, science has unlocked many secrets of nature to make life lively, lovely and lucid. Take a crystal, for instance. It is a solid of indefinitely extended framework of atoms and ions which are arranged in rows, columns and planes to give them regular geometric patterns. These solid pieces look stationary but in fact, they are in a perpetual state of dancing: for forces between neighbouring atoms cause them to vibrate in unison and as a result set up a series of waves which criss-cross throughout the crystal. This harmonious vibration gives the universe the appearance of a doll eternally enjoying the delight of an atomic or cosmic dance. Man is a natural partner in the cosmic dance; unless he participates in it with total volition, he cannot experience the divine ecstacy. And this participation is not confined to one's fellowbeings; its boundaries extend to include the natural environment; he must learn to appreciate the music of waves, chirping birds and rustling winds, and also the sweet, serene majesty of hills, forests and silvery streams. This atomic or cosmic dance is performed in association with a heavenly tune creating the criescrossing waves. Because of the perpetual motion, everything in the last analysis, is a wave. Matter, the building material of the universe, has been referred to as "frozen light" but because of its mysterious nature, light is considered as both quanta (particles) and wave. Light, as wave consists of transverse vibrations, very much like the vibrations of a violin string. An electromagnetic wave is also a transverse wave like the sound wave which can be set up by plucking a guitar string. Like the plucking of a violin string, everything sings as it vibrates; both a tinkling bell and a squeaking door try to create music but what raises the rank of a noise to music is its vibrational frequency. From the lips of a trumpet player to an organist, sun and galaxy - everything is a musical instrument hilariously producing music. What a physicist calls a sound wave is, in fact, a music wave especially when it contains periodicity i.e. a regular pattern in the rise and fall of oscillations. A sound wave is a mathematical entity because its audibility is inversely proportional to the square of its distance. A sound is likely to be a cacophany, a grating noise, if it is without the virtue of harmony or periodicity. An instrument ranks as a musical instrument only when it produces periodic vibrations which are termed as tones. A tone is the Opposite of noise because the former pleases but the latter displeases. Another peculiarity of tone is that it contains features such as controlled pitch, loudness, timbre and duration, which enable it to become autonomous. Natural way of life From the above narrative, it is clear that everything as it moves, is engaged in a dance, and as it dances it vibrates at a set frequency or periodicity, producing music.

Thus everything dances to its own music which is the natural way of life. Therefore, the universe is not miscreant and malevolent but merry and mirthful. It is marching towards its goal of loftiness through harmony of singing and dancing. In fact, this cosmic dance is the model for man to follow: man's survival lies in harmony, that is, complete social accord. Unless a religion tolerates dissidence and promotes love of mankind, it is the ambassador of discord, and has no place in the human society; it is simply the work of the devil. Universe produces harmony through the force of natural law but man can't achieve this goal by laws alone because he is endowed with free will which is a mechanism of free choice. His conduct, therefore, must primarily be guided by his moral force. It does not mean that man can be completely free from the jurisdiction of law. Yet free will is the key to harmony. What is free will? I shall discuss this in the next chapter.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN FREE WILL Free will is the fountain of life. A scientist does not usually acknowledge a dividing line between life and death, and physically, he is right. But life is much greater than physics. In fact, its magnitude is much higher than the combined stature of all sciences put together because their very purpose is to bring about life, sustain it and improve it. Free Will and Ego Life begins with the emergence of free will. A stone is a stone because it does not have free will but a cell such as an amoeba is alive because it has the will to move about. Yet they both are made of atoms. Obviously, free will lies dormant in atoms and increases in intensity as the ladder of evolution extends higher. At subhuman stage, it is passive but at human level, it becomes active and pines to take over the conduct of one's ego or self. Its emergence is the greatest wonder because it nearly eliminates dominance of the physical law as applicable to human life and enables man to conduct his affairs as he pleases. This point is better understood if we realise that the human body is governed by exactly the same laws of physics and chemistry as all other bodies. For example, my walk is activated by what is called the law of reactions, that is, actions and reactions are equal and opposite. Unless my body observes this law my legs cannot move but this law does not tell my legs where to go. Obviously, something has emerged inside me, and this something is not only over and above the confines of physics and chemistry but also their goal. This something is free will, my own power of choosing which decides whether my legs should carry me to a temple or tavern, a rose-garden or a race-course. Free will bestows upon me the freedom of choice. Thus I am at liberty to indulge in vice or virtue and become a deuce or dens. It means freedom is the goal of life and man has the right to demand the break-down of all those barriers which restrict his freedom of choice and freedom of action, bearing in mind that everyone is entitled to freedom and therefore, one's own free will must not become a source of denying freedom to the fellow-beings. Free will and individuality Extension of the evoluntionary ladder from particles to man clearly shows that the cosmos is marching towards freedom. In fact, it is an attempt to arouse the dormancy of atoms to the state of consciousness for creating free will. Again, free will is imperceptibly interwoven with individuality, which comes into being as a result of the evolution of particles which are all exactly the same, and thus initially lack individuality. Therefore, the purpose of evolution is to create individuality which implies the innate right to maintain one's identity. But this is possible only if one is independent enough to choose one's way of life. Thus free will and individuality become one and the same thing. Determinism

Polarity is the operational law of the universe but polarity does not mean Opposition for the sake of opposition. It is a natural mode of keeping things in balance by tension which creates unity and not disunity. This point is well-explained by the fact that similar electric charges repel but the opposite charges attract. Thus polarity is based on complementerity which is the cause of unity in diversity, and by no means a symbol of basic duality. Like everything else, free will also has an opposite pole called determinism which is complementerity and not dualistic in nature though unfortunately, it has been depicted as such through a never-ending debate that has taken place over centuries. As a result, supporters of one view deny existence of the other: either it is all determinism or all free will. Chance Modern scholarship supports free will, and as a result the universe is considered a child of chance changing churlishly without any purpose. They deny any cosmic purpose because that what has a purpose has been ordained, and is thus created and not evolved. To make matter worse, some of them claim that the cosmos is a machine and not an organism. Purpose of universe I have already argued that every principle has a purpose. Therefore, the universe which is the manifestation of the Creative Principle has inevitably a purpose which is attainment of Godhead, that is, existence at the highest possible point through a process of self-improvement. Dominance of free will over determinism This purpose is an integral part of atoms (particles), and exists as the potential to be. It is due to this fact that matter cannot be formless, and irrespective of what form it takes, becomes associated with a purpose. Yet that purpose cannot be always defined precisely. This fact is compatible with the law of mystery or uncertainty because every action and object comes to possess a side or subordinate purpose in addition to the principle one, thus diluting the force of determinism with a view to increasing the role of free will which decides the priority, and even the meaning of a purpose. Even when a purpose is quite clear, the method of achieving it is not determined but based on trial and error. In fact, this view reduces the stature of determinism considerably in real life because one does not have to accept the existence of a particular purpose or act upon it. Anatomy of chance The purpose is dormant in atoms as imagination is in brain, butter in milk or fragrance in rose. Chance is the only factor that has no purpose, and, therefore, it cannot be the sole agent of evolution. There are several reasons for it. Firstly, a chance may or may not happen but evolution is a fact: no river can ever flow without a definite source; secondly, a chance can be constructive or destructive and thus the work of a constructive chance can be wiped off by a destructive one. This universe requires trillions and trillions of consecutive constructive chances to evolve the universe. This type of happening is wishful thinking which is against the law of probabilities. When trillions of similar chances take place in an unbroken sequence, they cease to be a series of chances and become a definite mechanism based on deliberation, planning and engineering. A chance, by definition, lacks all these elements. It does not mean that chance plays no part in evolution at all; it does have a role but it is secondary. In the beginning, chance must have played a major role when the Creative Principle was not sufficiently evolved but as change created interrelationships, their mutual tendency to retain their identity, led to the evolution of laws which help preserve organisation through systematization thus reducing the role of chance which is likely to be haphazard. We should also realise that a chance can't take place in a void. A chance meeting takes place between two (or more) already existing people. The Creative Principle itself is evolutionary because it develops through constant change which systematizes itself over a period of time through trial and error. Thus evolution is based on a gradually evolving principle of determinism. In fact, free will makes no sense without determinism because existence is another description of determinism. For example, my existence is predetermined. I could have been a mouse or a monkey but I have been determined as a man, and there is nothing that I can do about it. Again, I have no control over my parentage, country of birth, colour and so on.

All these factors play a considerable role in my life. Relationship between determinism and free will What is then the relationship of determinism with free will? A look at your genetic pool may explain the issue. You inherit your genes from your parents. They determine not only your potential to be but also endow upon you the capacity to break away from the constraints of the DNA through individual choice such as learning and also enable you to improve yourself by securing a better adjustment with the environment. Again, it is determined that every action must have a reaction but you can, not only choose the stimulus but also the method of reacting to it; you can forgive or retaliate. The incidence of determinism is subject to a very vast variance, indeed: it is only a bird which can fly, and man can't but he can make up this deficiency through an aircraft and also considerably improve upon the technique and quality of flying. In fact, the existence of determinism and free will is reciprocal. Something has got to exist before it can exercise options. Existence refers to determinism and exercise of options alludes to free will. For example, entity of man is determined, and it is this determined molecular structure (man) that exercises free will. One can say: "No predestination (determinism) no free will" but the more relevant conclusion is that determinism leads to free will. Since the identity of everything is determined by the underlying principle, it becomes the fountain of determinism, on the one hand, and of free will, on the other, because when something is determined i.e. comes into being, it acquires a purpose. Thus joy of existence depends not only upon the realisation of that purpose but also the manner of achieving it. It requires free will to give the actor a fair choice between the alternatives and the manners of performance. Therefore, the purpose of life is better served by maximising the scope of choice to enable man to exercise his options in a more dignified manner. Wrong attitude towards determinism Determinism is usually blamed for one's misery and helplessness. This is a wrong attitude towards life because it is a matter of common observation that we use determinism as the object of free will or personal choice. How? We decide what we want to become i.e. doctors, engineers, lawyers, farmers or factory workers. Thus we choose to determine the course of our lives. Those who fail to exercise such options, have only themselves to blame because the choice is there if they want it. I have used the word "uncertainty" as a near-certainty denoting a statistical value of accuracy. Perfect certainty neither exists nor is it desirable because it will contradict the law of mystery which makes life a great phenomenon. Thus determinism can't be an absolutely rigid concept which is imposed from without. It is more like dynamic equilibrium which is maintained through wisdom and constant effort; formation of atoms is yet another example of determinism. Without constant effort of the electrical forces, an atom could not determine itself. There are people who believe that God has determined everything and chalked out its conduct beforehand. If this be true, then God's own conduct in relation to everything is also preset and thus He lacks freedom of movement and cannot govern such a vast universe which needs a lot of flexibility in handling it. Above all, God ceases to be All-powerful and His wisdom and discretion becomes a myth for lack of use. Beneficence of determinism Determinism has a great beneficial value to mankind because greater determinism brings about a higher purpose which imparts a superior force to free will, raising its quality and effectiveness correspondingly to achieve purpose of the determinism. Therefore, one can express it as a rule that greater determinism is followed by a higher free will. For example, if a Marxist state determines that people should have a higher standard of living, it will have to widen the economic choice by filling shops with all sorts of consumer goods at affordable prices. If it rations even the bare necessities of life, then it has resorted to falsehood. Unless determinism has a moral purpose i.e. a purpose beneficial to mankind and enhances free will, that is, it creates abundant opportunities for widening choice, it is not a natural form of determinism but a

device to deceive and deride people to appease and please its deviser. An example of this fact is provided by the recent collapse of marxism in the eastern European countries. A marxist state practices deterministic philosophy to determine the goal of life and ways of achieving it. Free will is abolished by disallowing individual choices on the pretext of common good. Moral conduct is superceded by the rule of law which represents the will of rulers who enjoy despotism in the guise of public care. Everything is done in the name of people. For example, land is called public property and courts are named people's courts whereas, in fact, nobody owns anything at all. Everything - land, houses, factories and even people themselves become property of the state. Even the people's courts are there to nail the ordinary folks to the will of the state. And what is state? It is just a euphemism for the men in power who love to perpetuate their authority but under the most endearing varnish of hypocrisy. This is abuse of determinism because it does not lead to enlarging free will i.e. widening of choices. The greater the choice the higher the chances to achieve the legitimate goals of life in a desirable manner. Plentitude of choices leads to moral ascendancy but their paucity weaves a web of crockery around most individuals causing their fountain of righteousness to dry up and thus destroying their chances of eternity. Free will and eternity Eternity is the everlasting state of freedom from fear, and want of favour. The element of freedom is all-important in determining the value of a deed which serves as a criterion for eternity or extinction. It is only the action based on free will that has a spiritual value; a forced deed has none. Therefore, the distinction between vice and virtue is what promotes or demotes free will. This is the most significant point because virtue leads to eternity but vice goads to extinction. What is the way to eternity? In fact, I have already answered this question. However, in view of its importance, I repeat that as free will and individuality are one and the same thing, eternity is attainable through the development of individuality but development has to be righteous, and the righteous development is the one which seeks to guard one's own legitimate interests as well as those of one's fellow-beings. One must do so consciously as a moral duty and not as an ostentation. Hence sincerity is the key which opens the gateway to eternity. One should always bear in mind that the development of individuality does not mean selfish care but care of one's self in relation to others so that one's attitudes and deeds being beneficial to one's self also benefit other members of the society, and such attitudes and deeds must be based on one's free will and not forced upon one, nor should they result from convenience. This is the minimum requirement for eternity. When a person develops the capacity to live for his fellow-beings out of pure love, and he actually does so, he has already acquired the godly status; death simply means the divine confirmation of this fact. Significance of individual development in relation to Community, is the key to eternity. It calls for the structuring of a righteous society which is free from the fear of injustice, hunger, disease and ignorance. However, just freedom from fear is not good enough: it must also abound in moral favours such as love, care and friendship. The plan It needs an enormous number of subjects for consideration to evolve such a society but because of the restricted space, I can include only the following topics for discussion: 1. Ethics (vice and virtue) 2. Psychology (individuality) 3. Sociology (society) 4. Law (and morality)

5. Politics (state) 6. Taxation 7. Economics, and 8. Mysticism CHAPTER SIXTEEN ETHICS Ethics has always been man's great passion. It studies the nature of vice and virtue. To an ethical philosopher, "the good" or "the bad" means what is intrinsically good or bad and not good or bad as a medium to accomplish or avoid something. Is there anything which is really good or bad in itself? Fire is good in winter to warm the sitting room but it turns bad in the same lounge during summer; the same thing can be the source of opposite effects: electricity both burns and chills. Of course, hot and cold are two realities but neither is intrinsically good or bad; it all depends upon their usage, the particular situation, the purpose and the belief of the user. Unless a balance is struck between vice and virtue - harmony, the chief guide to eternity cannot come into being. Though ethical values such as justice, velour, happiness etc. cannot be defined, still we believe in their existence without knowing what they really are. For example, a sadist is happy to watch blood gush out of his victim's jugular vein and a bank robber feels delighted with his haul. But these acts are grievous to the sufferers of violence and theft. Thus one man's happiness becomes another man's grief. Am I being narrow minded in describing these ethical concepts? This is not the case. All conquerors who headed large groups of populations, and were thus morally and lawfully considered respectable and divine, indulged in murder, theft and depriving the vanquished of their liberties. This was the main purpose of their conquests. Islam openly legitimised pillage and murder of the infidels and called such wars (Jehad) holy and righteous. Christians who waged wars against the moslems for centuries as crusaders, were no less rapacious and murderous than their adversaries, yet their atrocities ranked as acts of piety! Is it possible to strike a balance between vice and virtue? Dualism If we look at the history of human thought, we realise that the concept of vice and virtue has become a basic doctrine known as "dualism" which holds that the reality or world consists of two principles or substances such as good and evil or mind and matter; they are irreducible and nothing can exist without them. Iranians believed in the eternity of the good (Ahuramazda) and evil (Ahriman) principles, which are equal and opposite. They always have been at war, and they always will. Plato speaks of two souls of the world, one causes good and the other evil. Thus the cosmos faces an eternal recurrence of two alternating cycles, each being guided either by gods or men. His theory of soul and body is an extension of his dualistic views. Gnosticism also firmly opposed body and preached the divinity of soul. The Indian dualism involves the opposition of the one and the many i.e. a struggle between reality and appearances. Thus rebirth of a soul is considered a punishment and its return to Brahman (God) is thought of as salvation because it ends the duality. Chinese also believe in the dualistic principle known as the Yin and the Yang. However, this duality is similar to as it exists between male and female, active and passive, solar and lunar, earthly and celestial sweet and bitter, light and dark, and so on. The Chinese idea of duality is rational for being complementary. The opposite principles, in this case, are protagonistic and not antagonistic. The Chinese principle is eternal and indivisible; it is singular in nature and both Yin and Yang are its double manifestations. Christian and Islamic faiths also advocate the duality of good and evil. In this case, God is good, and Lucifer or Satan is evil but he is not eternal because he is a creation of God. On the Day of

Judgement, he will be cast into hell and his existence will come to an end. Yet they hold that God is not responsible for the vice that pervades mankind but stress it arises from the improper use of freedom by man himself. Polarity Polarity is the operational law of nature but the tension between the opposite poles is complementary as assumed by the Chinese philosophers. Without a complementary polarity man will lose his excellence as the highest specimen of nature. It is because his nature is based on the working of the opposite attributes. In fact, instead of calling man a molecular assemblage, one ought to name him as an aggregate of the opposites such as intelligence and ignorance: courage and cowardice, magnanimity and meanness, kindness and cruelty, magnificence and malevolence, loving and loathing, remission and retribution, fairness and foulness, trust and treachery, fidelity and fickleness, affection and animosity, concealment and candour, honour and humbuggery, suzerainty and slavery, fact and fantasy, tolerance and tyranny, delight and disgust, and so on. These are the characteristics that constitute human nature. They are exactly equal and opposite: love has no meaning without hatred, justice cannot be imagined without unfairness, and freedom does not make sense without the idea of restriction. The fact that different people may view the same thing differently and come to different conclusions shows that the power of perception ascribed to sensory organs is directed by the quality of the opposite attributes. Though they are endowed with equal intensity, the operation of their contrariness is peculiar to each individual: in some people it is intelligence and not ignorance that is activated more readily; in some, loving has the tendency to operate more freely than loathing and in others it is cruelty instead of kindness. It is like two millionaires having equal amounts of money but one being mean and the other munificent. This is what colours depth and attitude of the sensory organs leading to different judgements and deeds. It is the operational preponderance of the one opposite over the other that makes a person intelligent or ignorant and kind or cruel. Though these opposites are determined, their determination is not absolute; it carries an amount of suppleness which enables people to modify and adjust. Again, this suppleness though limited, is like a seed which may multiply itself a hundred-fold or more, according to the limate. From this discussion, it is quite obvious that poles of vice and virtue are real at least operationally and, therefore, neither can be eliminated. If it were possible, the removal of one pole would lead to the extinction of the other, and eventually chaos would result. But we are talking of harmony. The only way to achieve this goal is by making one pole operationally ascendant over he other. Take electricity, for instance, it is the ascendance i.e. excess of positive and negative charges which create electric current; one pole pulls and the other pushes. Thus despite being opposite they attain uniformity of action, that is, they both act in the same direction, and an electric circuit is built up. This is an example of harmony; it shows how the opposites are capable of moving in the same direction to work together. Such harmony is feasible amongst people of varying or even conflicting interests provided members of the society have developed a live ethical sense of vice and virtue. It happens when they not only appreciate the difference between right and wrong but also practice it. At this stage, one can say that the concept of ethical values ranks as morality, which is the conduct based on the distinction between good and bad. The concept of morality is initially a private affair because it concerns not only the activities but also the intentions of an individual. Once this individual attitude and practice receives approval of the majority and becomes the symbol of a good social custom, the society is likely to march together harmoniously. Moral strength is the pillar of harmony. Moral discipline must come from within. It is entirely different from the military discipline which is imposed from without because morality is morality only when it is self-propelled; forced conduct, no matter how nice, is not morality. Of course, moral sense is innate but the practice of morality is not. The difference between the two is the same as between knowing and doing; and we all understand that an ounce of practice is better than a ton of theory. Like a species, morality also requires a suitable environment to survive and flourish. It is no good expecting of a hungry person not to steal a loaf of bread, or telling virile men to practice celebacy. Man has all sorts of needs and desires. Development of a healthy personality depends upon fulfilling these desires and not on denying them. Were this not true, the search for satisfying these needs and desires would not be a part of humanity. In fact, the way a need or desire is fulfilled distinguishes vice from virtue. When a need is met in a

legitimate way, it is a virtue otherwise it is a vice. Sleeping with one's own wife is a virtue but going to bed with someone else's consort is a vice. Polarity between the opposite human attributes is intense, and without considerable force, it is not possible to make one's desirable attribute ascendant over its opposite. One cannot be kind without suppressing one's leaning towards cruelty nor is it possible to be brave without overcoming the fear associated with cowardice. It is this power of self-regulation that exalts man over the rest of beings which are driven by the compulsive desires but he has the ability to challenge them and steer his own destiny. He does so through a process of self-improvement which is his nature like that of the cosmos itself. If he succeeds, the ultimate reward is stupendous i.e. eternity but if he fails, punishment for the fiasco is extinction which is equally enormous. The key to failure or success is the ethical recognition between vice and virtue, and this recognition has got to be practical, that is, pursuit of purity in preference to pollution. This practice is known as morality which is another description of harmonious adjustment with one's social environment. However, harmony does not mean keeping up both with the hare and the hound but standing up for one's own legitimate rights as well as of one's fellow-beings, and an active participation in the removal of all those factors such as poverty, disease, ignorance, hatred, bigotry, etc., which lead to disharmony. The palace of harmony is best founded on a healthy individuality. What is individuality? This is the kernel of psychology. CHAPTER SEVENTEEN PSYCHOLOGY Psychology is the science of behaviour in relation to self-preservation. How? It is because whatever we do, basically concerns ourselves; our sensory organs carry out observations in relation to ourselves; our interpretation, thinking and feeling are centred on ourselves. In fact, preservation of self or ego, is the fountain of behaviour which happens to be the field of psychological studies. Components of self-preservation Though self-preservation is the root of behaviour, quality of preservation remains its ultimate object which has two components, namely: 1. Paucity of fear and plentitude of favour. 2. Maintenance and magnification of individuality. "Paucity of fear and plentitude of favour" refers to a state of minimum pain and maximum pleasure. Man, as a general rule, deplores pain and adores pleasure, though tolerance of pain for the sake of an ideal is not unknown. Categories of fear range from sheer uncertainty to death; gods and gurus exploit human fear of death and thus induce people to carry the yoke of their divinity, and members of the gubernatorial (ruling) class deliberately create social conditions to conjure up an environment of uncertainty and mutual malevolence for keeping people in a constant state of fear to make them toe the line. Yes, man wants to preserve himself but aspires to do so with dignity, that is, he loves to avoid a painful life and does not like to cringe for favours. Fear and fawning, twist personality, and man ceases to be what he ought to be. This is against human nature because I want to be what I am. If I can be me, then I am a freeman but if I cannot, then I am not me but someone else. This is the greatest deprivation that a man can suffer. Me-being-me is an annotation of free will which is another description of individuality. This is the reason that maintenance and magnification of individuality becomes the goal of life because, in many ways, soul is the transplant of a fully realised individuality. What is individuality?

All humans have similar limbs and a fairly uniform appearance. Not only bodily but also mentally they are very much alike because each of them thinks, feels, knows and wills, and each has determination, dreams, designs, desires and delusions, and each has the power to deliberate and indulge in deeds of his own choice Individuality is something which operates all these characteristics at will, usually to its own benefit. It is steam in a locomotive engine, fragrance in a flower, flame in a candle, beauty in a woman and lustre in a diamond. Individuality is the cause of diversity in unity. Without it, uniformity will be the rule of conduct leading to boredom, regression and death. It is the true cosmic dream which comes true at human level. Individuality, as the law of nature Individuality is the law of nature. One has only to refer to the biological process of meiosis which is a characteristic of organisms that reproduce sexually. It is a division of cell involving two fissions of the nucleus and thus produces four daughter cells, each having half the number of chromosomes of the original cell. The pair of chromosomes at this stage undergoes, what is called, "crossing over" which is, in fact, a process of exchanging genes. This exchange is the fountain of individuality because it ensures that no two humans are exactly the same in a pool of a trillion people! Personality In discussion on psychology, may be I should call individuality as "personality" which refers to the organization of traits or characteristics within an individual but I shouldn't, because personality has also been described as persona which points to the mask worn by the ancient Greek actors. Thus psychologists have used the word: "personality" as a cover to hide one's true self for projecting a socially acceptable image of one's self. Alfred Alder who invented the theory of "Individual Psychology" stressed that it expresses a human "drive to power" to gain superiority as a compensation for the feelings of inferiority. This is why a short person becomes aggressive to make up for his small stature. Difference between uniformity and harmony From this discussion, it is quite clear that personality refers to behaviour and the way one projects one's self socially. On the contrary, I am using the word: "individuality" to assert its intrinsic worth as the end product of the natural process that starts with particles and ends with men. Personality is a mode of behaviour as depicted by one's organization of traits but individuality refers to the state when "me wants to be me" according to my own free will. Thus individuality means a search for release from social coercion and the state law with a view to conducting one's self in a socially acceptable manner leading to communal harmony. Here one should note the difference between uniformity and harmony. The former denotes force but the latter implies volition; the former is based on law but the latter emanates from moral conscience. Human nature Individuality represents the law of nature which is self-improvement: evolution of particles into stars and man proves this point. Self-improvement must also be the nature of man who happens to be the microcosm i.e. the miniature replica of the universe. However, self-improvement though eventually an achievable goal, exists as a tendency. It is like an overcast sky which may be taken as a promise of rain but without any guarantee. There is a "psychological" reason for it. If there were an assurance that every one could improve oneself the way one desired, value of action or behaviour would deteriorate. Tendency is something which is more likely to happen than not. The extent to which it may not happen represents an amount of uncertainty. The purpose of this uncertainty is to weaken the grip of determinism so that man can use his own free will, planning and action to make it happen the way he wants it. Self-improvement is the nature of man like that of the cosmos. The fact that every human strives to improve himself, proves the veracity of this assertion. However, the idea of selfimprovement may differ from person to person, and this indicates that man is a free agent. Thus the concept of predestination cannot be applied to him as a straight-jacket. The Stoics

thought that man is governed by fate and is analogous to the dog tied to the back of a wagon, and must follow it willy-nilly. It is man's nature to have a goal, yet he is free to accept or reject that goal; he is also at liberty to choose the means and types of action he wants. Again, when "the fixed goal" represents the apex, it ceases to be predestination because apex is the highest point and there is nothing higher than this. As far as it is known, light has the fastest possible speed. One may call it the destiny of light but it will be wrong because there is no speed that can be faster than this. Again a particle (or quark) is the smallest entity. This is not a proof of destiny. It simply proves that nothing can be smaller than a particle. The fact that things vary between two limits - minimum and maximum, lowest and highest, slowest and fastest proves they have a goal, that is, moving from the lowest to the highest. This is not predestination but the greatest possible choice which is nothing but self-improvement. What constantly tries to improve itself, is prone to be good. This sums up the human nature. However, modern scientific trend is to deny the existence of a universal purpose and assume chance as the sole evolutionary force. This attitude is a part of science-fiction for its total isolation from the world of reality which is based on deliberation, ingenuity, engineering and self-motivation. To assert the supremacy of chance, they claim that the universe came to a halt at the stage of helium which is a poor bonder, and the fiasco was averted by the evolution of carbon which is a great mixer and thus more productive. It is all a guess work. The fact that something saved the universe from becoming a total failure, and put it on the road to self-improvement, clearly shows that the universe has the ability to find its own way forward which is self-improvement; it does not rely on chance for direction. It finds its way through a process of trial and error and thus becomes immune from the clutches of predestination. Therefore, man's nature is self-improvement but the magnitude of betterment depends upon the quality of his effort or behaviour. In the previous chapter, I mentioned the contrary human traits. It does not mean that man as an aggregate of the opposites, or possesses a neutral nature. The purpose of this mechanism is to provide psychic energy for enabling man to set up a pattern of behaviour. Whether he will be virtuous or vicious, depends upon which of his opposite traits is ascendant: kind or cruel, malevolent or munificent. Man is potentially prone to be good, though considerations of self-preservation or interests of ego usually override everything else. What is ego? Ego Ego is a Latin word. It means "I" which expresses the existence of self. Ego is the window through which one looks out at the world: all pain and pleasure exists in relation to one's self; a person who cannot feel his own pain and pleasure is incapable of measuring someone else's dole and delight. The presence of good and bad is also relative to one's own moral sense. Whatever man does, he does it for his ego or self: when he is kind to his friends or family, he does so to enhance his own pleasure and when he is cruel to others he indulges in appeasing his own morbid instincts. Even when he loses his life in a crusade, he performs this duty to find a place for himself in the paradise. Ego or "I" has various forms; some or singular or individualistic e.g. me, my, mine and some are plural or social e.g. we, us, our. It means that man operates both in isolation and in conjunction with others to cultivate his self. Therefore, both individuality and society are extensions of the ego. However, I shall confine this discussion to individuality in this chapter. Operation of ego At its basic level, ego abuses free will i.e. the power to choose between alternatives. It adopts the attitude that solely guarantees its personal pleasures without considering their effects on fellow-beings but once lessons of such behaviour are learnt through painful retribution, man's moral sense is activated by his natural tendency of self-improvement. However, as free will implies the power to choose between alternatives, moral sense means the ability to differentiate between good and bad, and not the ability to act virtuously. This fact can be verified with

reference to any "advanced" society where everyone knows the difference between good and bad but in practice good is what is good for the actor who is usually ready to quote from the Scriptures or the Statutes to prove the righteousness of his acts which he knows full well to be based on falsehood. Purity of motive Whether an action is morally right or not, primarily depends upon the purity of motive Of course, good consequences can follow from bad motives and bad results can spring from good motives, but as motive is the fountain of action, its purity is of paramount importance: a stream which is an extension of a sewer lacks the purity of origin but a brook emanating from snow is originally clean though it may carry pollution as it winds through valleys infested with impurities. If an act is carefully planned and performed with good intention but eventually backfires, it is still indicative of virtue, but an act stemming from a foul motive, however beneficial, lacks the purity of origin. In ethics purity of origin is the master word and is known as sincerity. As no amount of external control and scrutiny can ever fathom the depth of one's heart, it is only the actor who knows whether he is being sincere or not: his integrity and sincerity cannot be judged with complete certainty from without. Therefore, reformation starts within one's self; it is voluntary, and coercion plays hardly any part in it. A system seeking to make people righteous by force is evil even if all of them observe the prescribed standard of behaviour because they do so out of fear against their nature and not through sincerity. Role of sincerity When sincerity becomes an integral part of motivation, man develops moral will which demands that ego does not operate to its exclusive benefit at the expense of others but performs an act because it is right. A person who has developed a moral will no longer treats morality as a matter of personal convenience. He begins to believe in the ascendancy of moral values, and executes them as his duty. To him virtue means virtue in practice; courage and justice are not a cult of the mind but realities which must be displayed actively when situations demanding courage and justice arise. Ethical mechanism So elaborate and excellent is man's ethical mechanism that there is yet another superior called "conscience" which supervises the working of the moral will. Why does moral will need supervision? It is because infallibility is not built into man's nature. A person with moral will may not do wrong purposely but he is likely to behave erroneously through misunderstanding or adverse circumstances. What eventually regulates any good person's behaviour is his conscience which operates invisibly. Conscience What is conscience? It is not possible to define it exactly. However, its existence cannot be denied. Suppose, under egoistic pressure, you deprived someone of his rights to advance your own cause. One day you are sitting happily but the concinnity of your mind is suddenly changed into a torment by the flashback of the event that filled you with delight a long time ago. Conversely, you have undergone pangs of poverty all your life to observe the principle that usurpation is evil though the chances to get rich unfairly were abundantly available to you. The sudden thought of suffering for the sake of piety changes your sorrow into hilarity. What is it that has turned your pleasure into pain and pain into pleasure without an apparent cause? It is conscience which works through the apparatus of remorse and relaxation. Your remorse is the result of the critical judgement of conscience for usurpation and your relaxation springs from its approval of the correct deeds of your moral will. Thus conscience is the self-judgement of one's ego based on complete sincerity and serves as the true criterion of ones pain and pleasure; it is totally subjective and immune from ostentation. When conscience passes judgement on your past behaviour, it is called "syneidesis" but when it acts as a guide to your future behaviour, it is known as "synteresis". Synteresis Preservation of self or ego is the fountain of psychology because our basic behaviour is centred around it. Since selfishness is not godliness, man must raise his individuality to the level where

synteresis guides his motives and actions. This is an act of self-purification and solely connected with one's sincerity and personal integrity which are beyond the examination of outsiders. The man or woman who has developed this virtue is on his or her way to become a part of Godhead, or achieve salvation. I stated earlier that both individuality and society are extensions of the ego. Though I am an individualist, I think that society is as indispensible to the growth of individuality, as the Himalayan peak is inducive to snowfall, equator is to scorching heat and moonlight is to serenity. This fact, necessitates the study of sociology. CHAPTER EIGHTEEN SOCIOLOGY Sociology is the study of the structure and functioning of society. Though a vast subject, it basically concerns the origin of mankind, that is, association of man and woman which brings a human baby into existence and eventually develops into families and clans. Therefore, it is natural for man to associate with fellow-beings and seek companionship. This enlarged fellowship is called society which is as much an extension of the ego as is individuality. This chapter seeks to concentrate on the societal aspect without discussing details of customs, structures and institutions or the various processes which preserve social continuity and produce changes. Nature of society Society is not the result of what is called the herding instinct. Man seeks companionship because it is his nature. The one who does not want to live amongst fellow-beings becomes a recluse or hermit. He is, in fact, a social reject but conceals his shame under the cover of such grand titles as "saint" or "sage". Ascetecism may not be a vice, but it is certainly not a virtue because individuality despite being an end in itself, is neither conceivable without association (of the opposite sexes) nor can it develop without enlarging itself into a society. Again, individuality is an integrated entity: it consists of many parts as a rose consists of numerous petals and a glass of water comprises countless drops. According to the Theory of Collaboration, it is the law of nature that all small things merge into large wholes and become fewer in numbers. Therefore, society is the natural evolution of individuality, and being the fountain of social environment, it acts as the major source of moral sense and cultural and spiritual values. An isolated individual is likely to be an insane animal. It is social intercourse which provides man with the opportunities to become man. Without it, the concepts of harmony or discord have no meaning. However, a human society cannot be treated as a compound where each component loses its identity. It is a mixture where every individual retains his distinction because this is the demand of individuality which is an end in itself. Significance of society In a previous chapter, I stated that the universe is a symposium of interrelationships which hold it together and serve as the evolutionary principle through the tendency of self-improvement. It equally applies to an individual. He is driven by this tendency to seek social relationships with others; the relationship between man and woman leads to the emergence of a family which blossoms into clans, tribes, nations and mankind. There is hardly any need to say that the mirth or misery of man depends upon the maintenance of these interrelationships Thus society is the medium of instructions and the sole Opportunity of creating interrelationships and practicing them. The attitudes involved in discharging one's obligations and securing rights, emerge as rules, customs, conventions and superstitions, thus determining the quality of the society. A good society is the one which is morally ascendant; it helps man to realise his spiritual goal but a bad society leads to circumstances which reduce the chances of souls coming into being. Moral sense and society Since salvation, that is, becoming a part of Godhead, is a matter of action and not faith, society provides the opportunity of realising this goal through practicing interrelationships. It is because moral sense, which is the fountain of virtue and the hope of soul, cannot come into existence without interrelationships. Morality simply means honouring these interrelationships in a sincere and honourable manner. In fact, not only the concept of morality rests on proper execution of

interrelationships but the existence of the universe depends upon it. For example, the forces that hold atoms together in groups must have certain peculiarities which determine the rules of combination. The manner of combination denotes the underlying relationship of existence. Again, the forces that govern the molecular patterns regulate their interrelationships with a great precision; these forces though attractive at longer distances, become repulsive at shorter distances. If this were not true, matter would go on condensing in ever-increasing densities, thus causing implosion. It is the consciousness of maintaining interrelationships that enables the interatomic forces to be attractive at longer range and repulsive at shorter range for the purpose of securing equilibrium at intermediate distances where the net force becomes zero. Imagine yourself to be the only person alive on earth. Will your life have any meaning? Will you find it enjoyable? Will it develop to the stage called "culture"? No, not at all. Such a solitary life will be one hell of misery, completely isolated form culture. Obviously, man without society is less than a mammal because even animals herd together. Society is the natural demand, and goal of healthy individuality I am an individualist but my individuality exists in relation to other individuals If others do not exist nor can I, because existence is a strictly relative business. As one tree does not make a forest, one gust does not constitute wind and one soldier does not count as an army, completely separate and independent individuals do not make a society. The society which consists of totally self-centred individuals is regressive: instead of marching towards enlightenment, it slides into wilderness. Of course, an individual is an end in himself, and all individuals are morally equal. These are certainly sacred goals but they cannot be realised in isolation. Take the economic concept of division of labour, for instance. Can I grow all the food I need? Can I raise a herd of sheep for woollen clothing? Can I spin, weave and tailor my garments? Can I build a modern house all by myself? Can I be my own doctor and surgeon? Supposing that being "the greatest genius", I can do all these things myself and thus sing the songs of individuality without paying attention to harmony, yet economic needs are not my only concern. What about my sexual needs which are equally urgent? Should I seek celebacy or resort to perversion? In either case, it will put a stop to reproduction, thus announcing the end of mankind. This type of individuality which denies other individuals the chance of coming into being is a symptom of madness and fatal to the interest of individuality. The only way I can satisfy my sexual needs are by seeking a mate. This simple partnership is the foundation of society; each partner has rights and duties, and the stability of their relationship, and happiness depends upon how they react to each other for discharging their mutual obligations. There is no fulfillment but the voluntary discharge of duties to one's associates or fellow-beings. It is this voluntariness which is the cornerstone of individuality, and it thrives on discharging one's moral obligations to one's fellow-beings: this is what makes individuality, sacred, sweet and supreme and enables it to be the forerunner of a soul, the guarantee of eternity. Arrogance, malevolence and usurpation are the aggressive exhibitions of individuality and proof of its march in the opposite direction to eternity. The society which consists of individuals who respect their fellow-beings and discharge their social obligations without fear of external force or greed of a secular reward, is a paradise on earth whose inhabitants become immune to extinction. Death to them is nothing but sloughing which gives them a new brilliant coat of life. On the contrary, the society riddled with sophistication, slyness and avarice is a living hell whose roaring flames roast the potential of soul. However, human society is not herding because it usually produces results which are totally opposed to what is expected of a society; crowded rats exhibit cannibalism, homosexually and hypersexuality. A society is society only when it promotes individuality through the operation of free will, that is, people are free to choose and act as they desire but their choices are based on moral conscience. Spacing Society is the natural goal of individuality because it comes into being spontaneously. However, spontaniety is not an haphazard affair; it is something which leads to a principled organisation. One would have thought that society is all about mixing. On the contrary, spacing also happens to be one of its basic rules. This fact is well illustrated by what is called territoriality. Birds and animals are known to keep their distance from fellow birds and animals by occupying a separate territory which they treat as exclusive to themselves and guard it against the intruders jealously. This mutual repulsion is well contrasted by mutual attraction as exhibited by mating swarms of midges and fireflies. This, in fact, is a demonstration of the opposite attributes such

as love and loathing. Thus society is both a congregation of friends and an arena of competitors; it requires a system of rules to regulate it. Altruism However, altruism or care for fellow-beings remains its fulcrum. It implies selflessness because an altruistic animal promotes the cause of fellow-beings without any benefit to itself; the vigilance of a mother bear against the hungry father bear who may devour their cubs or an alarm call of a bird that warns neighbours of a falcon, are some of the examples of the altruistic behaviour. According to Charles Darwin, when an animal protects its offspring, it enables its own kind to survive the process of natural selection. In the case of humans, this principle is the most sacred and significant because care of the fellow-beings without self-interest raises the spiritual status of ego which begins to look upon other members of the society as an extension of itself. Since concept of self-care is better promoted through mutual care, society begins to rank as the guardian of individuals. However, the society which seeks to become itself as the eventual goal of the individuals, is the most sordid entity because it adopts deterministic attitude to tell people how to walk, how to talk, what to eat and what to drink. This totalitarian role destroys people's free will which is the foundation of humanity, and serves as the tool of a dictator or despot who strengthens himself by weakening the fellow individuals. Unity in diversity Diversity is the zest of life but unity is its essence. In other words, unity in diversity is the secret of success and happiness. Unity does not mean bringing everybody down to the same level. Such an attitude is against the law of nature which preserves hierarchy and creates differentiation through the evolutionary process; it is natural for the sun to be bigger than the earth; it is natural for a hawk to be a high flier compared to a sparrow and it is natural for a rose to be free from the stench of a sewer. All beings are entitled to hold their station and rise still higher. There is nothing wrong with it. Mischievious behaviour comes into being when people try to gain ascendancy at the expense of others. This triggers off the process of usurpation, deceit and callousness. As a result, tension rises gradually making strife the way of life. This is deplorable because man's spiritual development as well as secular peace and happiness depend upon harmony; strife is its exact antithesis booming with discord, deviation and destruction. Harmony among the high and low, tall and dwarf, pretty and ugly Is as likely as is the coexistence between rose and thorns or positive and negative electric charges. Alternatively, take a family of, say, four brothers who are endowed with different attitudes of love and loathing and possess varying physical and psychological calibres to achieve their goals. Each may want to adopt an inimical approach to attain his aim, yet it is rare for brothers to follow a mutually destructive line of action to gain what they want. It is the feeling of brotherhood which restrains their spirit of strife and converts it into harmony, proving that love is superior to loathing. Brotherhood of man is as much a reality as is the brotherhood based on parental ties. It is just a matter of arousing their moral conscience to make them believe that they are members of a much greater circle of brotherhood. Marxist vision of society Unfortunately, such a moral awakening is inhibited by the lovers of golden theories. For projecting themselves a cut above the rest, they seek to destroy social harmony which bestows an equal moral status on all and sundry. They advocate class-consciousness and religious sectarianism for creating a body of followers to perpetuate their own glory. Take for example, the Marxist theory. According to Karl Marx, it is the political economy that determines the nature of society. The distinction between one society and another is, chiefly, its mode of production as expressed by the advancement or primitiveness of its technology and division of labour; each mode of production leads to the emergence of a distinctive class system. Each class becomes antagonistic and enters into a conflict with other classes to appropriate what is produced. The dominant class not only controls the material production but also comes to possess the monopoly of the production of ideas Thus, it begins to rule the society through a cultural style and a political doctrine Dialectical materialism Marx adopted the Hegelian theory which came to be known as dialectical materialism. This view of history propounds a conflict between two opposing forces, namely thesis and antithesis, which is resolved by the forming of a new force called synthesis. He emphasised that the

present conditions prevailed owing to a class struggle between the capitalists and the workers; the former lived for private profit and the latter resisted exploitation. Thus according to Marx, society is nothing but a perpetually-moving balance of antithetical forces: social conflict is the fountain of history because it is the creator of everything social. Religious ideology The marxist class doctrine equally applies to all believers who think of other religious groups as blasphemous. Thus they advocate extermination or subjugation of all those who disagree with them. What in Marxist ideology is class-struggle, in religious terminology appears as sectarian hatred and active denial of tolerance to infidels. Religious sectarianism and economic class-consciousness are the enemies of harmony which is the fountain of moral conscience. The men who are driven by hatred are bound to be mean, malevolent and murderous and, thus lack respect for the rights of fellow-beings. It is the acknowledgement of other people's rights to a fair living which creates the sense of reciprocal existence, and its realisation can be brought about through harmony only. This is what social stability requires; strife strikes at its very roots. The purpose of society Society is a phenomenon of companionship. Therefore, it is the natural association of fellowbeings, and is engendered by the hope of peace and prosperity. The basic association of man and woman is a search for security and happiness through harmony. As this association expands into a family, the parents pray and strive for harmony amongst their children for the same reason. The natural desire for harmony remains unabated at national and international levels, yet this dream has shown no sign of realization over the millenia; instead it has become a nightmare Why? Because man has not as yet realised that philanthropy i.e. love of mankind through voluntary and active mutual help is the consummation of human conscience which is the fountain of godliness. It is only the deeds of a moral man that may guarantee eternity because men forced to be good are not really good for lacking free will. Of course, morality is a subjective doctrine but in action, it becomes objective because an actor can be judged in relation to other people only. Again, it is not always possible to act correctly because of man's basic tendency to err, suspect, falter, misjudge, and misunderstand. Thus man needs objective rules of judgement seeking to determine, in relation to others, what is morally considered just or unjust and right or wrong. The set of such objective rules is called "law". Ingredients of law However, to qualify as law, these rules ought to be minimal and must not inhibit the moral conscience of the citizens. Secondly, law cannot change the nature of things, that is, it cannot declare the right as wrong and vice versa. Thirdly, the purpose of the law is to promote justice at the expense of injustice for creating harmony. Lastly, the law ought to be an extension of morality and not a substitute for it. After all, it is the moral excellence, that is, the operation of man's free will that gives him the human dignity. Compulsion being the enemy of free will, destroys the dignity of free choice and action, reducing the human stature to that of a mammal. Is it all that law is? No. It is a very vast subject. Having discussed it at length in "Taxation and Liberty", I shall describe it here in an outline only. To remove any misunderstanding. I ought to add the following: 1. I have stated that individuality is an end in itself. It refers to the ultimate end, that is, capability of an individual becoming a soul. It should be noted that conversion from physical to spiritual is a social process, and thus denotes the significance of society. 2. Men are not born equal owing to their varying tendencies and potentials. Yet they are morally equal because they are entitled to equal opportunities in exercising their free will improving their lot and demanding natural justice.

CHAPTER NINETEEN LAW Significance of law The nature and all its phenomena are manifestations of the underlying principle or the law. Nothing can come into being or sustain itself without submitting itself to the authority of law. Again, the natural law may not be eternal but it is lasting. For example, water is the manifestation of the underlying physical law H2O, that is, water cannot come into existence or sustain itself unless two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen combine together. Like everything else law of water (H2O) is subject to change but it will last for a very long time until water is replaced by something else. Maybe it is more appropriate to say that the natural law does not change; it simply becomes inapplicable. It is because H2O is the only way of bringing water into being. As long as water is required, this law will remain operative but when water no longer remains a necessity, this law will become inoperative. Natural law is a systematic and binding force. That electric charges will be negative and positive, are a part of a spontaneous plan which seeks realization through union (electrovalence), and thus acts as the agent of evolution. Therefore, basically, law has a constructive role. If it were not true, formation of stars and planets and their regulated conduct would not be possible. However, it becomes destructive when it is misused. For example, positive and negative charges attract but similar charges repel; attraction is constructive but repulsion is destructive. Significance of free will However, natural law wields complete command over inorganic things only. Its application to organisms becomes partial. This is especially true in relation to man. For instance, the physical integrity and working of my organs, despite being subject to the same physical laws as any other molecular structure such as water or wind, obey the command of my free will and the natural law cannot tell them what to do. Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that the main difference between the inorganic and organic is that the former do not possess free will but the latter are endowed with it. Thus life starts with the emergence of free will. It follows that man is man when he can act according to his own volition, and his way of life is not forced on him. This is the essence of individuality. It looks to me that free will is the most precious diamond that every thief wants to steal; it is the most tasty flesh that every carnivore aspires to dig his teeth into and this is the most beautiful damsel that everybody loves to seduce. Man's free will is the emblem of his freedom but the law of opposites demands that this human virtue must be balanced with the vice of servitude so that he should learn to appreciate the extreme magnificence of this value and devote his entire life to its defence. Urge of dominance and free will As free will is man's highest virtue, the urge of dominance is his lowest vice. Dominance is nothing but usurping other people's liberties for depriving them of their free will with a view to telling them to choose from what is prescribed for them. I described the predator of free will as a "gubernator" in my book "Taxation and Liberty". Briefly, a gubernator is the person infested with the craze of dominating people for determining their way of life through sheer brute force or ravishing stratagems of religious, economic or social colouring. Human potential At birth a human baby is altricial, that is, it is so helpless that it has to be fed and provided with every care yet it has the potential of greatness. This piece of flesh is capable of becoming a part of God but its way of achieving this goal is hindered by innumerable hurdles which are horrisonant, horrendous and hideous. Divine law and man

Religion is the greatest of all the barriers. The dawn of free will attracts a whole host of messengers and messiahs the same way as the beauty of flowers attracts bees, a lighted lamp attracts moths or tropical forest attracts rain. Some of them call themselves God or the incarnation of God, some of them style themselves as the Son of God and others assume the title of messenger and claim that they have been sent by God with His message which urgently seeks to regulate their lives with the Divine Law. They insist that man's salvation depends upon God's pleasure: if people please the Almighty, He will bless them with heaven and if they displease Him, He will throw them into a flaming hell. All scriptures show that God is desperate for man's submission and His delight and dejection solely depend upon man's attitude towards Him. If God is so readily prone to fits of persecution and pacification, then He certainly lacks perseity, i.e. independent existence Such an unstable being cannot be God. Again, as free will is man's greatest virtue, by suppressing it with His own law which is unchangeable and immortal, God ridicules His own principles of creation. Is it logical to elect someone as governor and expect of him to serve like a menial? Finally, if God wanted to subject man to a divine code, He would not have given man free will. Since man is not man without free will, there exists a direct and sharp antithesis between man and the divine law. It is no good saying that God wants to guide man for his own good because the God whose own delight and dejection depend upon man's conduct, is an interested party. Man to be man, must be free to choose his own laws. This is how the truth is; the so-called divine law is just an innovation of the gubernators who want to be worshipped by the fellowbeings and command their lives even from the grave by laying down what their followers should shun and what they should stick to. What a compulsion this urge of dominance is! It is certainly man's lowest instinct. It is amazing how a man, who like any other man, eats, drinks, sleeps, needs sex, becomes ill, and feels sad or glad according to circumstances, claims to be God and promises eternity to those who obey his code which he delivers as the divine law! We should look into the nature of divine law with reference to Judaism. Divine law and Jews It appears that long before the Greek who invented the concept of rational law, Moses, the great Jewish leader, formally presented the idea of divine law. For eternally binding the Jews over to his will, he laid down some 625 laws in the name of Yahwe who was projected as their originator. Despite the fact that they are over 3000 years old and do not conform to the spirit of our time, they are still binding on the Jews with the original vigour and fervour; they are immortal, and cannot be modified or replaced. Therefore, Jews have to live at the same cultural level to conform to these laws as they did thirty centuries ago! The great Moses succeeded in convincing the Jews that sovereignty lies in the Torah or the divine law and not in him, though he was capable of writing these laws for having the courtly Egyptian background, well versed in nomography. Though Jews claim that their law is based on the principle of partnership between God and man, it is not borne out by the Pentateuch. In fact, Jewish law is founded on servitude: God is the master and man is the slave; the former is the object of worship and the latter is the worshipper. Yahwe is a jealous God and the rise and fall and mirth and misery of the Jews depend upon His whim. This is the reason that man has all the duties and no intrinsic rights. Any right that man may have, are contingent on the pleasure of God. Philosopy of "no right and all duty" The philosophy "no right and all duty" which has been pursued in our time to enhance the cause of dictatorship, suited the Jews who had rendered most servile services to the Pharaohs as abject slaves. The Jewish God whose instruments of suppression such as court, soldiers and secular might could not be seen, was more acceptable than Pharaoh for being the lesser terror. Yahwe's image represented only the threat of punishment whereas Pharaoh's persecution was real, and they knew exactly what it meant. Therefore, this situation carried a glimmer of hope and freedom, which meant a good deal to the people whose every bone had been creaking under the most agonising burden of slavery. They were quite happy to enter a covenant or contract with Yahwe to keep His commandments and numerous other laws to escape the Egyptian bondage suffused with despair and hard labour. It resulted in a theocracy which, in theory, is the impersonal government of God based on His immortal and unchangeable laws but in fact, it is run by the theocrats whose interpretations, even when totally opposed to the spirit and wording of the scriptures, constitute the divine law. This government of God is said to have

lasted from the date of Exodus in the 13th Century B.C. to 1037 B.C. when Saul was annointed as the King of Israel. Rabbi was the chief beneficiary of theocracy. He ruled his flock with a very hard stick indeed, but as stick and carrot go together even in a repressive regime, slowlY and gradually, he instilled the Jewish mind with the elation of racial Superiority which eventually deprived them of their faculty of social adjustment. This is the reason that they have stood aloof and isolated in every society and attracted all sorts of abuse and opprobrium irrespective of deserving it. The holocaust of the twentieth century is a repetition of the horrors at a higher scale which they have incessantly faced throughout centuries. The divine law is the fountain of this infamy, and as long as they keep practicing it, they will continue to suffer. Even when a theocrat is elected, he is not answerable to people. He secures the rank of infallibility and no matter what he does, becomes a matter between him and God whose laws he apparently promulgates and enforces, though actually, he aggrandises himself. Pope attained this position for centuries and could propose and depose monarchs throughout the Christendom. For four centuries he roasted mankind in the hell of crusades to glorify the laws of God! Purpose of divine law The entire purpose of the divine law is to deprive man of his free will through a process of brainwashing carried out by an imaginary system of pain and pleasure, called hell and heaven. Marxist law Divine law is not the only source of autocracy. Secular law can be equally dictatorial when it is used as the tool of realising a particular ideology. Take Marxism for instance, its appeal is based on a similar doctrine of greed and deception as used by certain religions through promises of a paradise. It advocates the creation of a permanent situation when "to each according to his needs" becomes the rule of life without any reference to his economic contributions. Such a state of affairs may apply to a community of monks but has no relevance to real life. The audacity of this doctrine is stilted by the Marxist concept of value which treats labour as the sole factor of production, and declares profit as the capitalistic exploitation. Thus he activates his theory of social strife to perpetuate a state of insanity infested with class-hatred. Morality has no place in a Marxist society because it cannot be regulated without the severest grip of the law. The Marxist state is the one that is deterministic and where law assumes the role of morality! Severity of law is the fountain of dictatorship and despotism. A severe law, in fact, is not a law; it is a wolf in lamb's clothing; it is a transvestite, i.e. a perverted man dressed up as a woman. Such a "law" does not concern itself with justice or fairness but serves as a means to an end. A Marxist state is a dictatorship of the proletariats and is held together by severe laws the same way as body of a victim is bound to the cross by cruel and convulsive nails. It is amazing how Marxists claim that law is needed to eliminate the capitalists but when classless society has been ushered in, law itself withers away! In fact, far more severe laws are required to keep the society classless, against human nature which is based on diversity and requires that people will be tall and short, pretty and ugly, intelligent and dull, healthy and sick, old and young, rich and poor . . . This truth is fully borne out by what is happening in the Soviet Union these days. The moment the severity of law has been eased, though slightly, the Marxist state has begun to crumble. Why? Because the Russian way of life is more regulated by law and less by morality. Sociological interpretations of law Sociological interpretations of law also deserve mention. Bentham thought that the purpose of law is to maximise individual happiness and minimise pain. But how? Say, through a welfare state which seeks to redistribute wealth under the pretext of relieving discomforts of poverty. People resent parting with their hard-earned wealth under the force of rapacious tax laws which serve as the tool of this purpose. Such laws are extremely harsh and dishonest. On the one hand, they discourage wealth-producers to engage in rewarding entrepreneurial projects and force them to become tax-dodgers, thus dissipating their moral strength, and on the other hand, they rear a wolfish class of civil servants whose ravenous habits and insatiable hunger for tax-gathering excel the imaginary monsters reputed for their malpractice, malacia and malevolence. This type of law may maximise happiness of the greatest numbers through plunder for a few decades but thereafter the "free for all" attitudes lead to the destruction of economic and moral foundations of the society, minimising their pleasures.

Rule of duty Leon Duguit held that social solidarity and interdependence is the most important fact of society. To achieve this aim, the human activity should be completely directed towards it. Therefore, people owe duties to promote this purpose, and no one has any right except the right to do one's duty within the social organism. Free will and responsibility This collectivistic approach is based on the total denial of individuality. Thus it is dictatorial and unnnatural. Man's conduct is natural only when it is based on free will. However, it is negation of free will when a purpose is deliberately chosen to achieve an evil end or promote mischief. At animalic level free will may mean selfish individual choice but at human stage free will denotes choosing with responsibility based on moral conscience. Once a person has acted sincerely and honestly, there is nothing more that he can do. Again, it is mischievious to claim that man has no rights but duties only. The truth is, as I shall discuss later, right precedes duty: no right, no duty. Rudolf Von Jhering thought that law was determined by purpose. He laughed at the "jurisprudence of concepts" which seek mechanical application of rules at the expense of social purposes. To him, the immediate purpose of law is the protection and coordination of interests. Thus the ultimate good of society depends upon securing of individual interests. No, law is not determined by purpose because it is not like flour which may be shaped as cake or pastry to gratify the taste of a buyer. Since it is law which determines the identity of everything, its role is fundamental and not superficial. Neither can it be the coordinator and protector of interests which vary so much from person to person and class to class that they become contradictory, repulsive and inimical. Law has its intrinsic value. There are many more theorists, and schools of law which could be mentioned but I think that I have devoted sufficient space to explain problems of legality. Legal philosophy Law is not a set of arbitrary rules. Before I can describe what law is, I must state that law is the concern of jurisprudence or the legal philosophy which covers many issues such as the nature of law, its purpose, the means to achieve that purpose, its growth and modification, its relationship with morality, the methods of bringing it about and the conduct of the legislator, interpreter and enforcer. In a book like this, it is not possible to cover the whole range of jurisprudential issues. Therefore, I shall restrict this discussion to the following points: a. Morality and Law; b. Nature of Law; and c. Purpose of Law Morality and law a. Morality means behaviour based on one's choice, free from compulsion or deliberate instigation. A moral deed is always rooted, directly or indirectly, in the distinction of good and bad, right and wrong, true and false. This fact is borne out by the languages of the primitive cultures which have words to this effect. Intention is usually a part of morality though most of our behaviour is subject to the unconscious, or force of habits, that is, we do things without deliberate planning. For example, we drive without being conscious of the motor car controls and even the destination. Instinctive behaviour

Behaviour is expressive of the way we do things, and "the way" implies those factors which motivate or inhibit us to act, as well as the level of action. At birth our behaviour is instinctive, that is, animates genetically inherit a code of behaviour according to their specific level, i.e. it is governed by the fact what species they belong to: a lion's cubs behave differently from lambs. The fact that many of the activities of a species are peculiar to itself and are sufficiently constant shows that animals are endowed with an innate code which guides their lives: the preycatching methods of wolves, web-spinning activities of spiders and burrowing habits of marine worms, are some examples of the mechanical or fixed behaviour. However, it is only the basic behaviour which is subject to the innate code. Its obvious purpose is to enable the species to survive. Without such guidance the species is subject to a haphazard conduct which is another description of chaos and thus a guarantee of extinction. The purpose of the innate code or law is to ensure life through a systematic behaviour. However, a stereotyped behaviour though guarantees life, is against the evolutionary principle i.e. the tendency of selfimprovement. This is the reason that much of the instinctive behaviour is modifiable, and the ability to modify one's behaviour increases in proportion to the extension of the evolutionary ladder. The greater ability to modify behaviour gives a species higher adaptability which may enable it to escape the pressures of natural selection. Law and instinctive behaviour Environment exercises a deep influence on life: even in the womb or egg it is as much exposed to environmental changes as it is after birth or hatching. Obviously, at this stage, it is wrong to label such behaviour as morality because it is more dictated by the innate code and less by free will i.e. the individual choice of action. However, it does show paramountcy of law at the primitive level. It equally applies to man. Since instinctive behaviour is not guided by conscience, it is ignorance-prone and leads to customary law which is more mechanical and less rational; its value depends upon the quality of customs it perpetuates. Nature of customary law Customs which assume the role of customary law are plural in essence because they spring from society, and not private or individual living. They indicate social attitudes relative to one another, emphasising mutual rights and duties based on general expectations. Of course, these customs may be influenced by the geographical conditions of the land, social circumstances such as poverty and plentitude, political traditions, religious doctrines, and so on. Customary laws are spontaneous; they accrete from long association which is based on understanding and not on a written constitution or an intellectual debate. Thus customary law becomes sacrosanct, incapable of modification and irrational. It is regressive and retards the progress of its practitioners. Its hallucinatory effects force people to follow a mechanical behaviour-pattern adopted by their ancestors over the centuries. People cease to be governed by considerations of right and wrong, and their veracity and falsehood come to be based on the mere fact that they have been held so by their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers. Caste system of the Indian subcontinent is an example in point. Such behaviour is soimewhat mechanised and is more representative of legality than morality. A customary law can be harsher than a formal law. The Indian customary law of Sati which required live cremation of the Hindu widows, points to this fact. Distinctive factors of law and morality From the above discussion, emerge the following points: 1. Law is a reality and expression of nature. The instinctive behaviour shows that man is born with an innate code which is the initial guarantee of survival. Therefore, law cannot wither away. 2. Law promotes mechanical behaviour. Its paramountcy is more relative to the primitive social conditions and less to an advanced society. Thus, the society smothered with the abundance of law is not socially advanced though technically and industrially it may have the capacity to reach the moon and beyond. The basic moral rule Moral law is not written, yet it is grounded in human nature because we know it is good to speak the truth, keep promises, defend honour and liberty, seek justice, help the helpless,

attend to the poor and the needy. On the contrary, we know it is bad to lie, steal, murder, rape, mislead, torture, trangress and tantalise. It is our instinct of survival which teaches us what is good or bad, or at least what is desirable and what is undesirable and thus we come to know the basic moral rule: "Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself". Moral law as natural law Since moral law springs from within one's self, it can be equated with natural law. Though we have the ability to know the moral or natural law, instinctively, we lack the strength to practice it owing to the operation of the ego which initially believes that one's self is the centre of the universe, and therefore, all that promotes self-interest is fine. In fact, this is a denial of other people's rights and one's own social obligations. As the mist of this self-deception is evaporated by the harsh rays of reality, the ego begins to learn that living is a mutual affair and the dream of happiness cannot be realised without recognising one's own obligations to other members of the society. However, the dawn of this realisation does not prove effective for enforcing people's rights and obligations voluntarily. Why? Because morality is basically an internal affair and cannot be completely subjected to external standards. Therefore, we cannot measure the sincerity of one's motives. Secondly, the standards of morality vary considerably with different people leading to hypocrisy. Thirdly, it is natural for man to err through misunderstanding, misinterpretation, inadvertence or sheer wickedness. In a society which may consist of thousands or millions of people, the chances of misdemeanours are bound to multiply considerably creating chaotic conditions, inimical to social harmony. Therefore, we need objective standards of fairness enforceable by a body of rules known as the law. It clearly shows that there is no antagonism between morality and law when the latter seeks to enforce the purpose of the former. When law contradicts morality, then its existence becomes questionable. Again, assuming that we can find an infallible set of laws, it will still be nothing more than something written on paper in golden ink because its excellence and degradation depend upon the moral plateau of those who make, interpret and enforce law. Therefore, we can conclude that: 1. Morality is the natural law for mankind but not forceful enough to regulate human conduct on its own. It is because man is not a robot but a free agent and thus liable to error and misconduct. Moral law needs reinforcement from the formal law. 2. Moral law is subjective but formal law is objective and thus a code of written rules enforceable by coercion. 3. One does not cancel out the other. There is a natural reciprocity between the two and their relationship is akin to that of the mind and the body. Nature of law b. Having discussed the relationship between morality and law, now we ought to ponder over the nature of law. Since law seeks to realise the moral desiderata such as justice, peace, security, rules of law cannot be laid down arbitrarily. If it were so, law would degenerate into a tool of oppression for being the means of securing the end. Unfortunately, this is the international reality and practice of law today. It has happened because the state has become the manifestation of the gubernatorial will, that is, it seeks to enforce the will of the dominant who possess the burning desire to rule by hook or by crook, and through a golden mask of hypocrisy and misinterpretation equate their own will with the will of the people! Existing version of law What is then the nature of law? It is not possible to define it immediately. I may first describe its existing version: What is meant by law is the positive law, that is, law as it is, and not as it ought to be. As a general rule, making of law is considered a Derogative of the legislator though in common law countries a bold judge through his power of interpretation, may change the meaning of the existing law, by making it more severe or may even create an alternative law. Though diluting

the spirit of harsh law is not unknown, judges being an integral part of the government, usually stiffen the laws passed by their political masters. The most unfortunate part of law-making is its servitude to the purpose of the law-maker, who without an exception is a politician or his appointee, and thus mainly interested in his own power and prestige. This type of law-making though pays a lot of lip-reverence to the underlying principles of nomography, actually contradicts them in practice because respect for law-making and realisation of self-interest are not friendly fellows but naturally opposed to each other. A good example of this fact is Britain where legislation is guided by the political interests of the party-in-power and not by the national needs. Just look at their tax laws: they hoisted the flag of impositions as high as it was possible; Income Tax rose to 98~o, and it was in addition to numerous other taxes including back door taxation such as back duty. Knowing full well that Britain is a nation of traders, and traders do not undertake high ventures without anticipation of profit, they made profit a dirty word, thus strangling the entrepreneurial zeal of the nation which had made Britain great. Small wonder that now Britain has become a debtor nation and about to lose her identity in the European Economic Community. This is an example of the hidden antagonism between law-making for self-interest and national need. Yet politicians preach that ordinary folks should respect the rule of law though they themselves have no reverence for it. The law of convenience that enables politicians to realise their dreams at the expense of lawfulness is not law but command of the ruler to the ruled; the latter must obey it or perish. Ingredients of legality To give law the form of legality, jurists have suggested that it must have at least five ingredients: firstly, it must conform to the basic set of jurisprudential rules instead of being subject to the whim of the law-makers. Secondly, it must be promulgated for everyone to know that such and such law exists to regulate certain things. Thirdly, law must be couched in a language which ordinary people can understand, i.e. it must be clear and free from ambiguity. Fourthly, law must be prospective in operation, that is, law must not seek legitimising the illegitimate precedents of the past; it is a characteristic of the divine law: Pope legitimised bastardy and foreign aggressions; it was also a trait of the Nazi law-making. A retrospective law is a devilish phenomenon. Fifthly, the government and all its agencies must show respect for the law by upholding the dignity of the enacted rules. In addition to these five conditions of enactment, the interpretative attitudes of judges and enforcing powers of civil servants, are equally significant in deciding what is being labelled as "law" is really law and not a capricious command of the powerful to the powerless. Having written extensively on this subject in "Taxation and Liberty", I don't think it necessary to prolong this discussion. Reality of law Now, I may express my own views on the subject. I shall state them briefly because I have already dealt with them fully in "Taxation and Liberty". I am describing them here only because without their mention, no matter how skeletal this discussion will look nonesensical. Like customary law, the substantive law also seeks to define the mutual rights and obligations of a person in relation to others. As customs come into being spontaniously, law is naturally embedded in the nature of man. Therefore, to be genuine, law is not law unless it conforms to human nature. What is human nature? I have defined it as the "tendency of self-improvement" though I have occasionally referred to it as the "urge of self-improvement" to denote the individual intensity in this respect. Since humanity is founded on the principle of free will, selfimprovement must be based on personal choice and not dictation. Thus self-improvement in regard to myself, is what I think is improvement, and not what I am forced to believe in. Life and free will Life beams with free will. The moons and stars despite their sparkling majesty are inferior to a sparrow because every bit of their motion is determined, but a sparrow being endowed with free will, has the choice to fly or rest. It means that life is all about personal choice. When one can exercise free will, one is really alive but when free will is checked one's life becomes a process of breathing through servility. Free will and responsibility

In one's imagination one can choose what one desires but in real life free will becomes restricted and this restriction is imposed by moral sense which determines one's social relations with other persons. It is based on the principle: "Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself". It fosters the feeling of reciprocity, which on the one hand, leads to social cohesion, and on the other, turns free will into a mechanism of choosing with responsibility. Thus sadistic deeds cannot rank as extensions of the free will, but qualify as acts of ignorance and insanity. As long as restriction comes from within, a person remains free but when it is imposed from without, he becomes less than free. Again, free will implies the ability to choose and not the ability to achieve. Wishing to hire an elephant for carrying two tonnes of cement is an act of free will but wishing to be physically as strong as an elephant to carry two tonnes of cement is not free will, but a fantasy. Free will and ego The role of free will in relation to ego is that of an advisor. Whether or not it will accept the advice, depends upon its sense of survival, desire of fulfillment and cultural development. The physical stability of a person is yet another factor: brain's choice of action cannot be carried out by sickly tissues and organs. This is the reason that a sick or senile person behaves like a child, and therefore, cannot consider the choice offered by free will. Determinism Perhaps, the most misunderstood point in this context is the role of determinism. To believe that one's actions, station in life, sickness and health, wife and children, friends and foes, etc., all are predestined, demonstrates that one lacks sense of responsibility, and the moral strength that goes with it. Determinism refers to the organisation of an entity and not its exact potential which may be subject to tremendous variations. I could have been born as a monkey but it was determined for me to come into being as a man. I cannot fly because man has no wings but I have the choice to invent an aircraft and fly to the moon and beyond. Again, the combination of neurons as a brain is an act of determinism but its choice of thinking, feeling and acting is almost unlimited. It clearly shows that determinism leads to free will, and the situations when determinism acts as a brake on free will, imply necessary safeguards against chaos and disorganization. For instance, a human baby has no choice of birth: the parents can be black or white; society can be progressive or regressive; religion can be theistic or atheistic. Again, one's physical environment and genetic endowments are not a matter of choice but predestined. If everyone was to be born according to one's choice, everyone would choose the best state of birth and thus life would become a process of uniformity and exactitude. This would expunge the principle of diversity. As we all know, diversity or variation is the essence of evolution and the spice of life; the existence itself would not be possible without it. Thus what we refer to as determinism is not really determinism but the principle of organization which inevitably leads to diversity. For example, man is an organization of cells which is a form of determinism, yet no two persons are exactly identical, and civilization itself is the exposition of human taste for diversification. It means that determinism is the fountain of diversity or free will because choice (free will) has no meaning unless there are alternatives to choose from, and this is exactly what diversity is. It explains the reality of determinism. Protection of Individuality In view of the significance of this point, I must repeat that diversity is life, and life is diversity but diversity has no value without free will. If I cannot choose between various things they have no meaning to me. In fact, the right to choose implies man's fundamental right to differ and be different. This happens to be the basis of individuality which becomes coextensive with free will. Thus, it is the nature of law to protect individuality by promoting free will. It achieves this end by laying down rules of conduct which clearly state the mutual rights and obligations of people, as well as duties of the state towards them. Natural issues

Once again, free will establishes man's right to differ and be different. In fact this right is embedded in man's nature, and is further reinforced by the existence of natural issues. What is a natural issue? Among other things, "issue" means "point in dispute", and "dispute" means "to make subject of argument, to call in question". Study of psychology shows that man is disputatious by nature. This is the reason that no ethical value can be clearly defined, or hold universally accepted meaning. Assuming such a meaning does exist, it is always subject to variation and opposite interpretations. It is because of man's disputatious nature that every argument has a counterargument. Thus, "to argue" is an extension of "to differ", which is grounded in free will. This is why that life is a series of contradictions such as beliefs and disbeliefs, attractions and aversions, persuasions and dissuations, inclinations and disinclinations, hopes and disappointments, assurances and uncertainties. This array of opposites is rooted in human nature which motivates behaviour from different points of view and in contradictory circumstances. Natural law Law becomes natural law when it protects and promotes the entity of something to which it applies. The physical law of the universe is called natural law because it protects and promotes the entity of everything through the principle of precision and flexibility. Thus, the law that reflects the disputatious tendency of man in its constitution and protects and promotes free will by giving everybody the right to differ and be different, ranks as natural law for man. In other words, natural law is the law which conforms to the nature of a species and works in complete harmony The law that confronts the nature of the species to mould it against its will, is not the law of it but a system of coercion which is bound to paralyse its entity instead of promoting and protecting it. Thus, the law for a fox is not the natural law for a lion because it does not take into consideration the natural characteristics of the lion. At lower level, man is motivated by selfish considerations but as the tendency Of selfimprovement takes effect, his ego rises in stature through attainment of Cultural potency, and he develops a moral sense which demarcates his relationship with fellow-beings voluntarily, i.e. by choice. It is a fact that our behaviour is less affected by the law and more by our moral sense. Not many people know the dimensions and complexities of the law to be able to practice it but most of us know what is right and what is wrong. Thus our life is governed by the moral law, and if the positive law (the state law) conforms to the moral law, it qualifies as the natural law, otherwise it is just a coercive system of rules designed to enforce the will of the dominant. What is a Natural Issue? To rank as natural law, the positive law must take account of natural issues which are manifestations of free will. A natural issue is the point about which people honestly dispute. For example, "desire" is a natural issue because people have always argued whether desires should be gratified or renounced; religion is also a natural issue because people believe in a certain religion to the exclusion of others; democracy also qualifies as an issue because people have held commendatory and condemnatory opinions about it. Thus a natural issue Is the naturally disputed point of major social, religious, economic or international importance and capable of becoming a source of intense discord and strife. The modern conflict between capitalism and communism (marxism) results from the economic issue, that is, who should own wealth individuals or the state (erroneously identified with society). Again, an issue is natural when it spontaneously arouses different emotions and contradictory opinions. Its source is not bigotry and ignorance but people's innate tendency to see, feel and think differently. Without this in-built psychological differential, free will is bound to become inoperative because if everyone saw, felt and thought exactly the same way, everyone would act similarly. Thus mankind will rank as a race of robots for lack of diversity. Room for uniformity in real life is very limited, indeed. The law must take into consideration the existence of natural issues and prescribe the means to solve disputes and mitigate their effects. Each issue has peculiarities of its own. Having discussed many of them in "Taxation and Liberty", I shall skip their repetition here. Change of Law

It is obvious that the law which takes account of natural issues, is grounded in rational principles of the underlying science of law-making known as jurisprudence and cannot be changed at will by the law-makers. It is especially so when the positive law ranks as natural law. One cannot imagine natural lay; changing under ordinary circumstances. It changes only to cope with a catastrophe or when conditions have changed so grossly that they cannot be given a new order without a change in the law. Constitutional principles The ability to make and change the law at will is called ``legalism,' i.e. the dictatorship of law. To curb this practice, law must be rooted in the constitutional principles of law-making. Constitutional principles are like the original rules ol a club or partnership. If the club or partnership wants to enact further rules, that must conform to the spirit of the original ones. Again, if any of the original i.e. constitutional, rules Is to be abrogated, it cannot be done by the sheer authority of the chairman; it must involve the entire membership which is also required to observe definite procedures. A national constitution is rooted in the history, customs and general manners of its people. It expresses the national temperament and social values which are determined over a period of time by national accords and discords, emanating from natural issues peculiar to the society. Unless laws conform to the national peculiarities, they are a form of legalism, and a threat to civil liberties. The English or Common Law which gives opportunity to a true judge to condemn an unconstitutional piece of legislation, represents the once free spirit of the British people. Illegal law The law, by its nature is the protector and promoter of a nation's liberty, and is rooted in the national temperament and social values. Standard of reference is always the people in relation to their traditions, cultural attitudes and historical precedents, and not the judicial decisions. The law which can be changed to suit administrative convenience, legitimise the illegitimacies of the past or to secure an ideological dream at the expense of moral and national values, lacks legality and does not deserve respect of the law-abiding people. Purpose of law c. Now we come to the last point i.e. the purpose of law. Let me say rightaway that law has an intrinsic purpose, that is, maintenance of peace and security through dispensation of natural justice i.e. justice for all, the poor and the rich the low and the high, the black and the white, the Christian and the Moslem The biased law is not law but the tool of the dominants' desire. Therefore, law cannot have an extraneous purpose such as the introduction of an ideology, e.g. socialism, Islam or Judaism. Law is the stabilising factor between individual and individual, the same way as bond (the pattern of laying) is between brick and brick. While during an emergency, which is a period of short duration, everything is subject to change, and the law is no exception, under normal circumstances the law cannot be subordinated to an extraneous purpose. Solution of economic disparities is not a problem of the law but of the state. How? I shall answer this question in another chapter. Here it suffices to say that the law that is the protagonist of a particular ideology becomes the antagonist of all the doctrines that people may hold to the contrary. Thus it is sectarian and divisive and cannot serve its true purpose which is harmony and happiness. It is an ambassador of strife and misery, and cannot qualify as natural law. The greatest right Law is the guardian of people's rights, and the greatest individual right is the right to be free. It means that man has the right to think, speak and act as he likes provided he does not harm others. Nobody's opinion should be repressed just because it offends someone else's dogma. Harm must mean actual harm and not a hypothetical one. The right to be free is the most significant social element for being the exponent of free will, which is the fountain of life. If the state is doctrinarian i.e. addicted to a dogma such as Marxism, socialism or a religious concept, it cannot allow people the freedom of speech and action and is inclined to pass sectarian laws directly or indirectly to supress people's free will. Dogmatic laws are regressive because they force citizens to do what they don't like. The fall of the Soviet Union owing to Marxism and the decline of Britain through socialism which raised taxation to 98%, are some of the examples. Care of the society, as I shall explain later, is the

fundamental duty of the state and not a superimposed social dogma, and care means care of everybody, the poor and the rich, the high and the low. This is what "equality at law" means, and this is what the law must practice. Law and Liberty Accepting authority of the law means giving an undertaking to the state that one will discard certain ways of acting and adopt the prescribed mode of behaviour. This submission apparently restricts individual freedom, but this is not the case. The voluntary loss of freedom is, in fact, a sound investment in liberty. As it is not possible for an apprentice to become a craftsman without devoting several years of hardwork to his trade, or for a capitalist to make profit without staking his assets and energies at his business venture, it is not likely for a citizen to preserve his ideal of liberty without sacrificing a bit of his freedom, initially. This initial loss of liberty is like the seed which a farmer loses into the field that he ploughs with the hope of reaping a harvest many times over. If the law does not promote the operation of free will, it is a wolf in lamb's clothing, a whore dressed up as a bride or a predator looking as a priest. With the freedom of belief, speech and action, goes the freedom from fear of arbitrary arrest, freedom from fear of mob rule, freedom from fear of losing life and limb and freedom from fear of molestation by the government itself in the form of police and civil servants. This type of freedom is possible only when the law is rational and equitable, and not the tool of dominance in the hands of rulers who want to present their atrocities as acts of humanity and their fiascos as feats of patriotism. Freedom from hunger, illness and ignorance Very closely connected with these freedoms is the freedom from fear of hunger, the freedom from fear of helplessness brought about by illness or age and the freedom from fear of ignorance engendered by lack of means to educate oneself. Zany though it may seem, these three freedoms are not the basic concern of the law, but of the state. How? I shall explain this point at a later stage though I must mention that the law does have a role to play in it but it is of secondary nature. Inimical to all these freedoms is the injustice which arises not only from the deliberately vicious acts of fellow-beings but through misunderstanding, misinterpretation, lack of communication and trust, or quite accidently. In this context, it is most important that the government sets an example of fairness the government that raises taxation to 98% is a thief and cannot hide its act of pillage under the golden cloak of welfare. Its image of Robinhoodism turns into Ganghis Khan because by unjust laws it gives diabolical powers to the tax officials who resort to deceit, deviation and dishonesty through exaggerated assessments for depredating the taxpayers. What is Law? A partisan government is not capable of governing people fairly because it passes laws which patronise one section of the population and penalise the other. It possesses a split personality because it favours certain groups to frighten the others for dividing them into fanatical sections who love class hatred more than anything else. Once a goverment is elected, it must discard its bigoted views and serve the community as a whole. Therefore, the law must ensure that no political party is elected on a divisive and unjust manifesto. Thus law can't be anything but a set of judicious principles which seeks to establish order by enhancing social harmony through dispensation of natural justice. And it must be realised that natural justice is neutral justice: it does not take into consideration the conditions connected with colour or creed, poverty or plentitude, lofty or low birth. Essence of Law Harmony is the essence of the law because this is the key to Godhead. People used to discord, division and disharmony as the way of life, develop distasteful tempers and habits leading to conditions not conducive to the birth of soul. Right and duty

When considering the purpose of law, it is improper to ignore the relationship between rights and duties. Unfortunately, jurists have given overwhelming preponderance to duty over right. I have no doubt about the mischievousness of the assertion that people have no rights except the right to do duty. The truth is certainly the other way around. Why? It is because free will or the right to choose is the foundation of humanity. Without the sense of choice, man becomes a very low animal or more accurately an inanimate object because only the lifeless things lack the power to choose. On this basis alone, right precedes duty because free will or the right to choose stands at the root of humanity itself. Secondly, though duty is a moral concept, it is usually projected as a command of the powerful to the powerless. A command can be just or unjust, vicious or righteous. Man surely has the right to choose between a good and a bad command. Thus the concept of duty depends upon the right to choose. Thirdly, it is right which creates duty. When a baby is born, it is born with rights only, net the right to be fed, clothed, sheltered and protected. If parents have done their Job well, the baby when it grows up, feels obliged towards its parents, and oves them. Of course, parents develop their rights through performance of their duties, yet right precedes duty because the parents, as children, had their rights first. Finally, duty cannot be laid down by law or through fear. Such a duty is not really a duty but a command or an act of blackmail. Duty is duty only when Is ased on the exercise of free will as devotion or reciprocity: it must come from within as a fair return for something received, performed, cherished or anticipated. Its fountain is reverence or expectation, and not fear. However, there is one exception: an individual's rights precede duties but the state has no right except the right to do duty. It is its sense of dutifulness and the actual performance of duties which give it certain rights. Tolerance The most important function of the law is to ensure the rule of free will, that is, people's right to differ but they must differ in a civilised manner so that everyone should have some respect for other people's views or at least tolerate them. It means that everyone has the right to be a Christian, Moslem, Hindu or an atheist but this right carries the integral duty of tolerance towards others. This principle must be enshrined into the body of law, otherwise it cannot promote the cause of justice and freedom. I think that I have said enough about jurisprudence or legal philosophy except that morality though concerns action, opinion plays a great part in it. Therefore, moral law is unwritten but to the contrary, the positive law is a written code of enacted rules. Therefore, there must be an authoritative body to make, promulgate and enforce the law. Such a body is called the state. We should now examine its constitution and role.

CHAPTER TWENTY POLITICS What is state? It is difficult to define it. Political scientists, however, agree that it refers to a certain territory, population and a government which holds supreme power over all internal affairs and thus controls the fate of the people within its jurisdiction. They also believe that the state has a purpose which is the "promotion of the common good or general welfare". The state is a part of politics which concerns the science of government especially the issue of sovereignty - the right to rule, power structure, the constitution of political parties, their behaviour in relation to morality and general methods of achieving the stated goals. In fact, the role of the state has become so wide that it covers the whole life of people through prescription. Sovereignty

I shall, however, confine this discussion to the issue of sovereignty in its relation to people and the state. Whom does the sovereignty, the supreme power, belong? The people or the state? I do not know why such a silly question has to be raised when the answer is so obvious: I have repeatedly stated that life begins with the emergence of free will. Therefore, it is the nature of every human to be free, and he can be free only when he retains all the power that ensures his freedom. Therefore, sovereignty belongs to the people because they cannot be free without it. Yet in practice, the opposite is true because it is the state that holds and wields the supreme power. Therefore, the question that I have just raised is not silly after all. In theory, the state is a play of golden words but in practice, it is the manifestation of the Gubernatorial Will because it is primarily there to gratify the dominance urge of those who hold power, the ideals of welfare and national aggrandizement are nothing but skilful ploys for increasing the powers of the dominant. Thus the state and government become synonymous because the entity of the state comes to depend upon the conduct of its operators. Sovereignty is the greatest addiction that there is. Since power corrupts, the addiction emerges as the abuse of power, because use of power, on the contrary, s constructive and entails hard work which negates the pleasures of addiction. It is why the justification of a government has been denied on ethical grounds. Maybe, it is for this reason, Friedrich Engels stated: "With the disappearance of classes the state too will disappear". Yet people submit themselves to the rule of power-hungry men. Shift of sovereignty from people, the lawful claimants, to the members of the gubernatorial class, the usurpers, is a major event. Why does this happen? It has been said that the rulers possess the coercive power to subject people to the yoke of their authority This is an over-simplified cause, and is only partially true. People accept commands of the state for several reasons: Causes of government 1. Togetherness is a part of human nature. Therefore, individuals are inclined to become members of groups which form society. The grouping needs cohesion which may basically be supplied by customary practices but they prove inadequate for this purpose. This social infirmity is exploited by the power-seeker who knows the art of converting other people's weakness into his own strength. He takes over the society as the government by force or trickery and his word becomes the law which drives people like cattle. 2. Alternatively, a gubernator may exploit people's inferiority complex which drains their selfconfidence and they find it difficult to stand on their own feet. Amongst the exploiters are gods, gurus, messiahs and messengers who claim that God has sent them with the scriptures that reveal the divine law which people must obey. These divine codes are nothing but the representations of their own gubernatorial ambitions which seek to deprive mankind of free will. This is what led to establishment of the most autocratic theocracies under the influence of Christianity and Islam. 3. The spirit of age as determined by the philosophy of the period has equally strengthened the hand of the state. One has only to look at certain theories to reach this conclusion: Organic theory a. The organic theory describes the state as an organism and the citizens as organs. It holds that every organ has a particular function which is performed best in the service of the organism to justify the purpose of its own existence. As an eye performs its natural function by guiding the organism, an individual whose whole life is dominated by the ideal of state, acts naturally and purposefully when he places himself at its disposal completely. An individual has no value of his own, and can be eliminated in the interest of the state. The marxist doctrine though economic in nature, receives its deterministic social attitudes from the organic theory. The supporters of this theory draw their inspiration from the social insects which live in colonies and perform different tasks according to the differences in their structures and functions. For example, the queen lays eggs and the workers undertake other chores such as tending the nest

and procuring food. These enthusiasts cannot see any difference between an insect colony and a human society. Like the members of the former, the members of the latter are expected to act mechanically to suit the purpose of the community. The individual members of the society are considered like the cells or organs of an organism, and thus not allowed the human virtues such as free will, conscience or individuality. Instead Of Suggesting a higher role for man to enhance his magnitude, these theorists want him to live like ants, bees, wasps and termites. The whole idea behind this type of theorization is to enable the power-seekers to rule ordinary folks with impunity. It is amazing how these theories have kept mankind under a similar sway as infatuation holds a demented lover, or cocaine rocks its helpless addicts. Theory of general will b. The theory of general will as propounded by Jean Jacques Rousseau, and further developed by Hegel and his followers, explains this point. It argues that a moral rule is a moral rule only when it is self-imposed, and therefore, the problem of political authority is mainly of selfgovernment. Thus the law is binding on us only when we have ourselves made it. The tone of this theory clearly alludes towards a democratic government which involves the participation of every adult. But this is not the case. By interpreting the ethical aspect of man, the theory concludes that as "the good" is the same for all rational men, the real selves of all individuals will be identical, and thus the state can be presumed to have a single will i.e. the general will. It means that the state has a will which is over and above the wills of all the people it governs and possesses a unity of self which is even higher than that of an organism. Thus the state is supreme in relation to the people. Hegel and his followers raised it to an object of deification by describing it as "the march of God upon earth". This monistic viewpoint of Rousseau and the Hegelians, which treated the state as the single supreme association, was challenged by the pluralists who thought of the state as a complex of voluntary associations, and thus sought to dilute its sovereignty and over-reverence. Despite all these efforts the "monistic" theory, long before the times of Rousseau and Hegel, has reigned supreme. All theocracies laid down unquestionable laws demanding total submission to God, the real ruler The Bible spoke of Yahwe as the jealous God and the Koran declared that the kingdom belonged to Allah who does not tolerate the participation of a peer in His government. All the rulers on this earth were despotic; the fascist dictatorships of the twentieth century were also grounded in the monistic philosophy of the state. Worse still, Marxism which advocated pluralism and preached disintegration of the state when the classless society emerged, perpetrated the worst type of a totalitarian state. Traits of Power The truth is that the state represents the Gubernatorial Will, that is, the lust for power that permeates the entire person of the dominant. While discussing the anatomy of power in ``Taxation and Liberty", I came to the conclusion that t is the tendency of power to be absolute, self-augmenting and ostentatious. The state being the symbol of power, naturally contains these three elements, namely absolutism, self-augmentation and ostentation. It is obvious that an entity which has these vices as its main features, is more concerned with its own preservation and elevation than the welfare of its people. Its promises do not contain sincerity but the magic of make-believe, which induces people to turn their backs on reality for living happily as dreamers, and its deeds carry the aura of a mirage whiCh' in politics, is the art of making things appear exactly opposite to what they really are. However, there is a remedy for every ailment. Like other forces such as electricity' power can be harnessed to impart it a humane and beneficient character. To achieve this end I propounded the theory of Marginal Unity of People's Power in '`Taxation and Liberty". I shall restate it here briefly to explain the political power-structure However, before doing so, I ought to illustrate its background: Gubernator The state, as described earlier, is the manifestation of the Gubernatorial Will What is a gubernator? It means a "governor" but I used this word in an extended sense which denotes a person who has a burning passion to govern and is eager to dominate through any means such as trickery, sophistication or brute force Though he knows the difference between right and wrong, in practice, right is what serves his purpose and wrong is what frustrates him. He wants people to bow, bend and crawl before him. He hates accountability and loves absolutism

Hyprocirsy is the chief trait and tool of the gubernator: he has the ability to run with the hare and the hound simultaneously; he is capable of crying when he should be laughing and vice versa. A gubernator has the same relationship with the masses as a spider has with flies: through his telary skills, he weaves such invisible and alluring webs that ordinary folks walk into them unknowingly, and sometimes eagerly. Urge of dominance The gubernator owes his dominant nature to the urge of dominance which I have already described in this book. This urge forces its possessor to assert his authority over the rest by humiliating them and weakening their means of defence which guarantee dignity, honour and freedom. The urge of dominance makes power the most enjoyable thing. As a general rule, it prefers the sadistic delights to genuine pleasures of life. The elite Population consists of 150lo elite and 85% masses. Though the gubernator belongs to the elite group, everyone of the elite is not a gubernator. Possibly, 5% of them qualify as the gubernators for possessing the immense desire of attaining maximum power. The rest of the elite are the people endowed with greater intelligence and capabilities and thus occupying a higher position in the social hierarchy. The masses In direct contrast to the gubernatorial class stand the masses; they are usually happy-go-lucky people who enjoy life without delving into its complexities; they possess a fairly high degree of intelligence which remains dormant for lack of use because they take things at their stated values; thus their faculties operate at moblevel which is not the individual but average level; this makes them docile, credulous and manipulable. On the other hand, they are rigid when it comes to observing customs and traditions. These opposite attributes of docility and rigidity enable the gubernator to exploit them through a carrot or stick, depending upon his convenience. Gubernatorial will The gubernator is mad about power. In fact, power to him is what blood is to an organism, heat is to fire and beauty is to a flower. This is the foundation of his personality and he cannot exist without it. Thus, when I refer to the gubernatorial will, I mean the most fervent desire of the gubernator to amass, assert and abuse power. Why abuse power? The reason is simple; use of power implies rule with a sense of duty and restraint which can be a headache because it brings no direct benefit to the gubernator and becomes a source of displeasure whereas the whole idea of power is to maximise personal pleasure which springs more from its abuse and less from its use. It is the corruptive influence of power which is enjoyable owing to its sadistic delights. It is not to say that pious and dutiful rulers are non-existent; they do exist but they are rare. It is their rarity which exalts them to the status of a god and thus excludes them from the list of gubernators. Now, perhaps, it is clear what I mean when I say that "state is the manifestation of the gubernatorial will". Instinctive will Opposed to the gubernatorial will is the instinctive will. What is instinctive will? A human baby is guided by its instincts right from its birth. Its search for mother's nipples to avoid starvation is an example of instinctive behaviour which is not all mechanical but partially volitional, that is, free will or personal choice plays a part in it. Thus, at least at the infant stage free will and instinctive behaviour are synonymous because without the agreement of choice and action, survival will not be possible. In fact, instinctive behaviour does not end with the passage of infancy or childhood; its certain aspects last from cradle to cremation. Reactions of the muscles which consist of push and pull,

are the foundation of all our actions. This pattern is deterministic because every push is automatically followed by a pull and vice versa. This determinism is the foundation of instinctive behaviour because if things were not determined the way they are, they could not act automatically to provide the necessary guidance for survival. This is exactly what the instinctive behaviour is. It does not contradict free will because it helps survival which also appears to be the initial aim of free will because we usually choose what prolongs our survival and pleases us. Idealistic goals belong to the realm of ethics, and emerge at a much later stage of an individual's life. Liberty Of courSe, instinctive behaviour is subject to modification but all of it does not yield to the environmental vicissitudes; some instincts stay in the background to influence fundamental choices which also seem to be connected with the moral development of an individual. As dominance is the instinctive behaviour for a gubernator, liberty is the instinctive behaviour for an ordinary person (belonging to the masses). What is liberty? Believe it or not, liberty is the ultimate choice or goal of free will because nothing excels it in nobility, dignity and magnitude; independence, that is, freedom to choose and act, is its integral part. Again, the concept of liberty rests on sound morality owing to the element of mutuality: it means that I can be free only if I respect your right to freedom: if I harm your liberties, you will harm mine. Thus, a truly free man is the person who is interested not only in his own freedom but also the freedom of other people. Again, liberty is not an acquired characteristic. It is an innate trait. Thus it is instinctive, and also the main motivating force of behaviour. This is the reason that nobody willingly wants to be a slave or a second-class citizen. The desire to smash the restrictive barriers is so intense that liberty ranks as the instinctive will. Clash of wills Liberty is the antithesis of dominance. Entire human civilization is an expression of the continual strife between the gubernatorial will of the dominant and the instinctive will of the masses. According to the Hegelian principle of history, the friction between the opposites i.e. thesis and antithesis, leads to synthesis - the end product which is something new or different from the contending factors. But this interpretation does not apply to the struggle between dominance and liberty. There is no amalgam or compromise between the two. Like the natural opposites, e.g. negative and positive electric charges, they are antagonists: one has got to be ascendant over the other. History shows that so far the gubernatorial will has prevailed over the instinctive will. Why? Because the former is not only callous, calculating and catapultic but also the master of hanky-panky, hypocrisy and humbuggery. On the contrary, the latter is docile, dithering and defensive and its virtues of love, loyalty and liveliness can be easily manipulated to make a libertarian carry the cross of servitude. The relationship between the two is the same as exists between a predator and prey. The predator is ferocious and forceful enough to stand on his own but the defence of his victims lies in the communal unity. A natural example of this fact is provided by a tiger and a herd of buffaloes. The former will pounce upon a lonely buffalo but when they join together and line up to express their charging zeal, the beast leaves them alone. Unfortunately, the masses are always divided, either through ideologies or varying secular interests, and thus easily fall victim to the gubernatorial will which thrives on the usurpation of liberties. Since every human baby is born with a free will, and the desire to be free is the greatest of all choices, sovereignty naturally belongs to the people because they cannot maintain freedom without retaining the reins of power. However, it is usually the state which holds sovereignty on the pretext of being people'S representative though, in fact, it is an association of the powerseekers and thus a manifestation of the gubernatorial will. This is the reason that a gubernator' and in this context, the state, attracts the appellations of "hanky-panky, hypocrisy and humbuggery". Marginal utility of people's power This background discussion now enables me to state the theory of marginal utility of people's power referred to earlier in this chapter:

What is marginal utility? It is an economic concept. In economics, utility means the power of a thing to satisfy a want, irrespective of its usefulness or moral desirability It stresses that the utility of additional units of a commodity diminishes with an increase in its supply. If I am thirsty, the first glass of lemonade shall have the maximum quenching power, the second glass shall be less satisfying and the third glass may even lead to disutility, that is, it may make me ill. The principle of marginal utility of power in relation to people's sovereignty however, is exactly opposite in its sense and application to the economic concept of marginal utility which holds that an increase in the supply of a commodity leads to reduction in its satisfying power, and, therefore, the last unit becomes the least satisfying. On the contrary, the doctrine of marginal utility of people's power advocates that in the field of politics, it is the last unit of people's power which is the most satisfying because the last unit of people's power is the unit which effectively operates against all gubernatorial tactics and usurpative attitudes to protect civil liberties. Of course, it is not always easy to tell when this point has been reached but it can be deduced from the quality of statutory laws, judicial decisions powers of the state officers and their attitude towards people. The last unit of people's power is like the last straw which decides whether a camel shall remain operative or not. It is the nature of the state to amass power at the expense of people's liberties. Losing the last effective unit of people's power to the state does not denote loss of people's reverence for liberty but a condition of humiliation and disgrace. It cannot remain permanent because the instinctive will of people, as a natural law gradually becomes active like the fierce volcanic activity under the calm surface of the sea. However, the loss of the last effective unit renders the remaining units of people's power ineffective because its collapse precipitates the domino effect causing rapid fall of the remaining units. It is like the pillar which carries the entire weight of the building: the destiny of the edifice is tied with the safety of the pillar. Thus the dimunition of every successive unit acts as disutility to people because it correspondingly strengthens the state which will use its inflated authority to deflate the dignity of the masses and cause them discomfort. As one vote may decide the fate of a democracy or as a pound ceases to be a pound by the loss of one penny, people's sovereignty may turn into servitude by the loss of one unit of power. Since the loss of the last effective unit of power indicates the start of the erosion of people's sovereignty, its normative value must constitute the maximum satisfaction to people. It warns them to defend their liberty, the most precious human asset. If they stand up and fight for their rights, there is a good chance for them to stay free. The law of nature is displayed by electricity which shows that a current flows from the region of higher potential energy to the region of a loner potential energy. When state representatives are kept under check, they occur people's wishes but when the masses follow them blindly, they dictate them. Of course, the theory of marginal utility of people's power cannot be measured or calculated mathematically. Then, is there a political theory which lends itself to this type of precision? However, its value lies in practice and not in its imaginary flight. There are two reasons for this assertion: 1. It stresses the inherent friction between dominance and liberty to establish that freedom is the fruit of constant vigilance and struggle against the gubernatorial passion of ruling at all costs. This concept makes it abundantly clear that nothing is predetermined politically: the poles of dominance and liberty are equal and opposite. Whichever pole is ascendant, determines the magnitude of society in terms of rights and repression. Strife between the two is eternal but the luck of the contestants depends upon the quality of their struggle. When the state is allpowerful, the masses are driven like cattle and expected to swallow all sorts of nettle, but when power belongs to the people, the state or gubernator becomes an agent of service, suavity and civilization. 2. This theory is grounded in moral sense because a free society is possible only when people's relations with one another are governed less by law and more by the dictates of morality, law represents coercive force of the state but morality refers to free will which means that people care about the rights of their fellowbeings and make responsible choices. Of course, governance of a society is not a game; it is the discharge of the greatest responsibility, and, therefore, the state must have sufficient powers to cope with all difficult situations, yet these powers should be minimal because this is the nature of power to be autocratic, self-augmenting and ostentatious. This is what makes power corruptive, an absolute government is bound to be evil though it may cover its ugliness with the golden mask of patriotism or welfare.

Democracy Man cannot be forced to be free. The freedom based on compulsion is a form of servility because it contains an element of dominance. Therefore, concept of liberty is based on selfdiscipline and moral integrity of the individual, thus making the working of social relationships fairly easy. This situation is bound to reduce the coercive role of law, and must confine it to the background. In a free society, the state augments its authority by the respectability of its commands which appeal to people's sense of fairness and urgency. The concept of marginal utility of people's power assumes that people need the least coercion because they have sufficient moral strength to conduct themselves properly. They live by their moral traditions and not by the legal dictates. Thus the lesson of the theory of marginal utility of power is quite clear: people must learn to govern themselves through a system of equal power-sharing the equality must be in terms of rights, and opportunity to prosper and rise higher according to ones individual endowment This doctrine is called democracy but it is not all honey, and for this reason has been arraigned by wisemen. Wealth distribution in the name of economic equality is its real enemy because it turns it into a taxocracy which enables the poor to rob the rich legally and turns the government into a bunch of political thugs who act as Robin Hoods for taxgathering through organised bribery. Of course, democracy is founded on numerical strength but it must not be allowed to become its sole basis. Democracy cannot count as the self-rule unless it is grounded in moral force. Thus numerical strength of democracy must be infused in moral sense which teaches an individual to respect the rights of fellow-beings. A truly free Society reflects the moral strength of its members. Does it mean that law withers away in a truly free society? Not at all. The law provides objective standards of judgement which are absolutely essential to weigh up the conduct of individuals in relation to one another. There will always be civil disputes; people will always sin through misunderstanding, misinterpretation or sheer malevolence. The moral society is the one whose virtue is ascendant over vice, and not non-existent. Therefore, we need law but its application must be minimal because maximum law means the maximum application of force which is inimical to liberty. It is only the maximization of moral force which can lead to the minimization of law. Though in reality, morality and law are compatible in practice, they are given polarity by the conflicting interest of dominance and liberty. Since weakening of morality leads to the stregthening of law which is practically a command of the powerful to the powerless, and thus constitutes the real source of state-power, one is inclined to enquire into the causes which enable the state to augment its power through the mechanism of legality at the expense of morality. There is really no mystery about it. It is the abuse of the stated purpose of the state that enables it to become autocratic. For example, there is no nobler purpose for the state than being a welfare state but the concept of welfare is inflated to such an extent that it begins to cover all aspects of life and the state intrusion Into the privacy of an individual begins to cover all aspects of life and rank as the general rule against the principle of liberty. This enormously enlarged commitment requires extremely large sums of money and the state becomes a Mafia organization except for its name. Thus taxation acts as the chief tool of inflating the state power. This fact is not restricted to a welfare state but to all sorts of states because they all thrive on their power to tax people at will. I shall examine the nature of taxation briefly in the next chapter as an extension of poetics. The readers interested in the in-depth study of the subject ought to refer to my book: "Taxation and Liberty". CHAPTER TWENTY ONE TAXATION Taxation is the largest single source of evil. Why? Because it reverses the paternal role of the state into a rapacious one. Rulers love power but it costs money to secure and maintain it. The more money they have, the merrier they feel. As a result, legislators, judges and civil servants use such corrupt practices which are beyond the ingenuity of Lucifer. All this is done in the name of law, duty and welfare. These attitudes turn the state into a Mafia Organisation whose vice ranks as virtue provided it maximises tax-collection. This is what makes tax-gathering the worst method of financing the state.

State, the Taxpayer Paternal role is the only true role for the state. As tax-gathering turns the state into a Mafia Organisation, it ceases to be the proper way of financing the state affairs. Again, the state can be truly paternal only if it relieves people from the yoke of taxation. In other words, it is not for the people to pay taxes to the state, it is for the state to pay taxes to the people. Yes, it is not for the people to pay taxes to the state; it is for the state to pay taxes to the people. Why? Because taxation, especially the abject-taxation, has the most dehumanising effect on mankind. How? To answer this question, I shall analyse the reality of taxation with reference to various aspects of life. The basic premise I may start with the premise that taxation and liberty exist in inverse ratio: the higher the incidence of taxation the lower the magnitude of liberty and vice versa. Peck order and Len behaviour The type of people whom I have labelled as members of the gubernatorial class Suffer from the burning passion to dominate the masses. They pick on others not because they have done them any wrong. In fact, it is an expression of the law of the jungle known as "might is right". The evil nature of the dominance-urge is exhibited by the dominance-hierarchies found in domestic fowl, birds baboons, bumble bees, crabs etc. Take chickens, for instance. They demonstrate what is called the "peck order". If you watch them play, it will not go unnoticed that the bird "A" pecks the weaker bird "B" and "B" pecks the still weaker bird "C". Under such conditions, it is not necessary for "C" to be always pecked by other chickens. If it becomes strong, it will peck other birds including "B" and "A". This aggressive behaviour does not require an external cause; it springs from the dominance-urge which seems to be a remnant of the most primitive conditions of life. An even better understanding of this concept is provided by the "lek behaviour" which refers to a communal area where two or more males of a species fight ferociously to establish their dominance for securing priority to sex, food and water. This is what dominance is all about - the mania of self-preference to the total exclusion of others. Wheel of History In the previous chapter I stated that civilisation is an annotation of the continual strife between the Gubernatorial Will (of the elite) and the Instinctive Will (of the masses). Now, I may restate the same truth differently and add that the wheel of history is turned by the friction between the tax-gatherer and the taxpayers. Have I changed my mind? Not at all. In this context "gubernator" does not mean anybody who holds a high position in the administrative hierarchy such as a minister, judge or top civil servant, but the real governor and the actual members of the tax-gathering fraternity. Taxation versus liberty The reason for the restatement is simple: the gubernator uses taxation as the tool of dominance. Why? Because wealth or the worldly possessions of a person have the same significance to the liberty of a person as power of attraction has to a magnet, wings to the flying ability of a bird or roar to a lion. It is difficult to subjugate a wealthy person because he can find means to fight the aggressor the only way to crush him is by paralysing his source of defence which is his financial ability. Again, an ordinary worker works hard to secure a certain amount of freedom from hunger and illness; he may improve his skill through education or apprenticeship, or he may work much longer hours. The purpose of this drudgery is to earn more money for extra security by way of buying a house or saving for old age, and even providing oneself with leisure for enjoying life. Here, the real point is not earning extra money but keeping it. It is obvious that if a person can keep what he earns or spend it the way he likes, he becomes independent. And we know that independence is another word for liberty. As there is a basic co-relationship between wealth and liberty, the most effective way of usurping one's liberty is through usurpation of one's wealth. Since dominance is all about usurping other people's liberties, the gubernator uses taxation as the tool of dominance with the same instinctive fervour as a dog pounces upon a cat or a cat

chases a rat. Thus the real strife comes to exist between taxation and liberty because dominance and taxation become synonymous. It clearly shows that the magnitude of liberty depends upon the corresponding retention of one's wealth. Taxation and Plunder To explain this point further, I must add that the initial purpose of military campaigns of the conquerors was more than a search for prestige or economic benefits. It sought gratification of the dominance-urge by plundering the vanquished. Plunder is a form of tax-gathering. If you don't believe me, look at modern Britain where Income Tax rate rose to be 98% And this was m addition to the many other enormous taxes. If this is not plunder, then what is it? After the preliminary depredation, the victor would subject the vanquished to an annual payment of tribute. The safety of the conquered depended upon payment of this imperial imposition. If he did not, the conqueror returned with a vengeance to give the defaulter a blood bath. This punishment was not indicative of financial loss to the emperor but a symbol of frustration which hurts the urge of dominance most rudely. After all, submission which gratifies the dominanceurge is confirmed by the promise to pay tax or tribute. No tax, no submission, no gratification of the dominance-urge. Once the dominant has established his right to collect taxes, the economic benefits and prestige follow automatically. This trend is equally visible in the relationship between the state and citizens who are called taxpayers. Non-payment of the levies is deemed a crime against the state though, in fact, it amounts to an act of defiance against those who run the affairs of the state, because the state is representative of the Gubernatonal Will. Taxation and Robbery There is no difference between taxation and robbery. When a thug extorts money out of you under the threat of violence, it is called "robbery" but when the state wrings wealth out of a citizen under the threat of legal violence through a "judicial" process enforceable by police and jail wardens, it Is described as taxation. In fact, taxation is worse than robbery. If you empty your wallet to the robber, this is usually the end of the matter because he may not come back for more. But it is entirely different with the state. Once you have paid one tax demand, it is likely to be followed by yet another. Satisfaction value of taxation Why does taxation gratify the urge of dominance more than anything else? It is because the tougher the barrier of resistance a dominant breaks down, the more elated he feels. It is an open secret that people have tremendous love and reverence for their wealth because of the security and dignity it offers. Therefore, they hate parting with it. Now, it Is obvious that what people don't want or care about has no satisfaction value to the urge of dominance because it involves no resistance or breaking down of the barrier. Since dispossessing people of their wealth involves a real struggle, taxation has the greatest satisfaction value to the gubernator. The tendency of the gubernator to express his dominance through the mechanism of taxation, and the tendency of the masses to evade payment of taxes through all sorts of ruses including armed conflict, create an eternal abrasion between the tax-gatherer and the taxpayers and thus moves the wheel of history because in the main, history is a process of a conquest and submission, which turns on the polarity of tax-gathering and tax-evasion. Even the major social events such as the Magna Carta, the American, French and Russian Revolutions emanate from the friction between tax-gatherers and taxpayers. Alexander the Great Alexander the Great provides a good example of this fact. Of course, historians have invented many stories for his conquest of the Persian Empire; one of them being that he wanted to avenge the Greek honour. He was a Macedonian, therefore, avenging the Greek honour was less important to him compared to the desire of amassing the dazzling Persian treasures of gold and diamonds. Before he started bus campaign, he was a debtor to the tune of 500 gold talents. At Susa (the Persian capital) alone, his pillage came to 50,000 gold talents, a staggering amount both by the old and modern standards. Through pillage, he grew so rich that he arranged a funeral ceremony for his deceased friend Hephaestion costing 10,000 talents This rite which was

performed in the autumn of 324, was so expensive that it has not so far been excelled by any person or nation. The majesty of this tax lord can be gauged by the fact that his ordinary dinner parties involved an expenditure of £400 every day. To realise the worth of this sum in terms of time, think of Edward the Black Prince of England who received only thirty shillings a day for his expenses, and that was around 1367. What would be the value of £400 seventeen centuries earlier? To evaluate the magnitude of dominance-urge, we should know that Alexander the Great believed in the institution of universal monarchy; he did not think that there was enough room for two kings on Earth at the same time. This is the reason that he claimed that he was God. This is the last boundary of dominance because there is nothing beyond Godhead. Thus he demanded deification i.e. the right to be treated and worshipped as God. His wish was carried out throughout his Empire. Alexander the Great achieved the ultimate desire through his power of tax-gathering. He was not the only one to become divine through the right to levy and collect taxes; the Pharaohs of Egypt had attained this position long before him by saddling their subjects with the heaviest burden of taxes as well as through a process of plundering their Asian colonies. All Roman Emperors were apotheosised i.e. proclaimed gods, at death, and this honour emanated from their ability to reduce foreigners to the status of tributaries. Divinity and Taxation Divinity is the apogee of the dominance-urge. This is the stage where a gubernator wants to appear as a symposium of most brilliant virtues Irrespective of what he really is. He wants to be treated as divine so that people should obey his laws as a matter of reverence and obedience to him long after he Is gone. It shows that the urge of dominance does not perish with the gubernator's death because he wants to command people even from his grave! Strange as it may seem, Divinity or Godhead Is grounded in the right to levy and collect taxes. Religion and Taxation Since divinity belongs to the realm of religion, and this is what this book is all about, I should explain the concept of taxation and divinity with reference to religion: Jewish tax philosophy Jewish claim to tax-collection was based on the pretext that God wanted then. to take over foreign lands through a system of taxation based on genocide. Chapter 31 of Numbers and Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy clearly state that the Jewish tax philosophy consists of the following: 1. Give a city the option to become Jewish tributaries i.e. taxpayers who should serve their Jewish masters, and if they don't, 2. Murder all the men and take over everything as spoils, including women, infants, cattle etc. The Book of Joshua lays down that in relation to foreigners, genocide is an integral part of taxgathering: all the cities such as Al, Makkedah, Hebron, Jericho, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Debir etc., that Joshua conquered, he utterly destroyed them including the infants (Josh 10, 28-42). 3. While the two rules referred to above explain the Jewish tax philosophy in the exotic lands, its internal canons of taxation discriminate between the Children of Israel and the non-Jews. Some of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites had managed to escape the Jewish campaign of genocide. Solomon levied the tribute of bondservice on their children (I Kings 9: 20-22). It implies that a function of taxation is to keep Israel a racist state by discriminating between the Children of Israel and those who are not Israelites even if they were born in Israel. They are required to pay taxes as a bondserv~ce and not in cash or kind. This is what Jews themselves were required to do m EgsP

Widsom of Solomon We hear a good deal about the wisdom of Solomon yet his tax policies led to the destruction of Israel and its people. On the one hand, the tax treatment of the non-Jews contributed to their disloyalty, and on the other, the Jews themselves were unhappy with the state because they were made to carry an excessive burden of taxation to build the Temple, Solomon's palace, Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. Solomon's Life-style Maybe Solomon's own house was far more expensive to build and run because it heaved with the fragrance of seven hundred wives and three hundred choicest concubines whose beauty and delicacy stood far above the imagination of a poet, skill of a painter, and adroitness of a sculptor. These one thousand beguiling females equipped with the erotic charm far more lethal than the thunderbolt of Zeus, must have demanded a very high standard of living compatible with their royal station. With jewels, pearls, rubies, amethysts, and costly apparel went not only a host of maids, servants, cooks and cleaners, but also an army of chamberlains who managed the royal bedchambers. Besides these costs of gaiety, were the expenses of royal grandeur associated with the gratification of dominance-urge which required the most expensive maintenance of the cities which Solomon needed for keeping his slaves, chariots and horsemen. In addition, he carried out extensive building works throughout his dominion. Christian tax philosophy Jesus had no particular love for the tax-gatherer. In fact, he thought of them as psychologically diseased people prone to sin and perversion. This is the reason that the publicans or taxcollectors of his time were hostile to him. 1. Matthew 9: 10-12 clearly states that: People of that time, as of all times, thought it odd that a good man like Jesus should share the eating table with such a debased person as a taxcollector. 2. Jesus ate or mixed with the tax-gatherers because he believed that they were morally perverted and spiritually diseased people and thus needed him for his healing powers. Why does the Bible treat tax-collectors as evil people? It is because they are inclined to overassess people. John told them not to make improper demands on people (St. Luke 3: 1213). John the Baptist John the Baptist has very aptly pointed out the taxman's disease: it is the impulse to overcollect coupled with the authority to plunder, and is akin to the sharp beak and talons of a falcon powered by the tremendous ability to fly which makes it a bird of prey. Not only in the past but in modern times, every state has set up special departments variously known as Investigative Bureaux or Enquiry Branch to hound people on the pretext of tax-evasion, whereas the truth is that such tax officers are nothing but glorified thieves who specialise in over-assessing taxpayers and then shooting them down with their diabolical powers through the due process of law,'. In ``Taxation and Liberty", I examined in detail this due process of law in a chapter headed: "Gubernatorial Law" which reveals the evil nature of tax laws and the highhandedness of those who adjudicate and enforce them. Reality of overassessment Over-collection or overassessment is an act of state-theft because it makes undue tax demands on the taxpayer. This is exactly what is meant when John says: "exact no more than that which is appointed you". The Bible guides not only as to the methods of tax collection but also lays down the principle of tax-fixing. Sadly, it has become the most forgotten Christian rule but it is there in St. Luke 20: 21-25:

When Jesus was asked about the legality of paying taxes to Caesar, he remarked that as Caesar is the lawful ruler, render him what is his, and to God what belongs to Him. The fact that the questioners were being crafty and wanted to trap Jesus, clearly establishes that he looked down upon the tax-gatherers for their malpractices, and they were hostile to him. Since the coin of the realm bore the image of Caesar, it proved that he was the lawful ruler, and thus entitled to taxes according to the custom of his time because the administration of government costs money. However, he could not claim the lot because God was yet another claimant, thus the government's share of taxation was restricted. However, a government cannot claim taxes just for being the government. The Bible is quite explicit about what makes this entitlement legal. Biblical Canons of Taxation Romans 13: 3-7 states that a ruler is God's minister for doing good work and deterring the evil. Therefore, render him the due tribute and customs. Here are the Biblical canons of taxation: 1. The basic function of government is to fight the evil and establish the good. Unless a government is righteous in deeds, it is not a Christian government and thus not entitled to taxes. 2. A Biblical tax demand is not a command of the ruler to the ruled; it is payment of a due, that is, something owed as a return for the services rendered. Thus legality of tax demand is intrinsically connected with the performance of government s duties. 3. Since a Christian tax is a due and not a command, it is not an arbitrary imposition but subject to certain objective measures. Therefore, it anticipates a regular, reasonable and respectable machinery for calculating the size and nature of taxation. 4, It follows that not only the determination of actual taxes is subject to regulations but their collection, and any disputes arising from collection and enforcement are also the problem for a judicial machinery which will be guided by the rule of righteousness and not by the needs of convenient legality. Papal violation of Christian canons of taxation If it were not for the gross violation of these Biblical canons of taxation, Christianity might have become the vehicle of righteousness in the world affairs. What did go wrong with Christianity? Simply stated, the excessive power which Matthew 16: 18-19 bestowed on popes the successors of Peter, the rock, on which the Christian Church was founded. Thus, a Christian's entry into heaven or hell came to depend upon Pope's pleasure. Pope, the representative of Peter, claimed to be invested with all these powers, and a lot more. As the papal grip over Christianity strengthened gradually, up went the papal claim to divinity. Popes asserted that they had greater power even than the Christ Himself, and people began to believe in their infallibility, that is, the Holy Father cannot do anything wrong in relation to the faithful, because whatever he may do, is a matter between him and God. This became the basic principle of the faith and it controlled the entire psychological mechanism of every Christian. They all looked to him for secular and spiritual guidance, and disobedience to him meant disobedience to God. A noble, prince, king or even an emperor held his power subject to the pleasure of the Pope. Pope, the Secular Prince with divine powers Had popes stuck to their spiritual authority, matters might not have deteriorated as much as they did. The rot started with popes becoming secular princes in their own right when in 755, Pepin the Short, laid the foundation of the papal state by giving the Church all those territories

that he had won from the Lombards. Stephen II was the first Pope to become a mundane ruler. However, temporal powers of popes soared high when at Reims in October 816, Stephen IV crowned Louis I the Pious, and his wife, as Emperor and Empress because this event gave the pope the exclusive right of anointing a Christian monarch, thus making papacy not only the medium of king-making, but also laying down the principle that the ruler anointed by the pope was his lieutenant and the secular arm. The reality of papal power revealed itself when St. Nicholas I (The Great) claimed the right to legislate for the entire Christendom and asserted to be the supreme judge with final authority to settle all doctrinal disputes. During 1050-60, the Roman curia took on royal splendour and Lateran palace, that is, the papal residence was reconstituted; the chancery, the treasury and the judicial tribunals - along with an army of officials, were given a new outlook which favourably compared with the elegance, grandeur and sublimation of any royal court - Christian or pagan. Papal expenditure rose and means had to be found to meet it. The Spanish prelate Alvaro Pelayo wrote On The Lamentation Of The Church, that, whenever he entered any of the ecclesiastic chambers, he found brokers and clergy engaged in weighing and counting heaps of money which were large and plentiful. Pope, the feudal landlord Where did this money come from? Originally, the Pope had enhanced his moral authority during the 6th Century by acting as protector of the civil population of Rome against extortion by the tax collector and abuse of power by the government. An act of 554 by lustinian acknowledged this fact. But now the defender become the aggressor because his needs resembled less the former and more the latter. The loving rule of St. Peter was converted to the loathesome function of a feudal lord. Acting as his representative, the Pope entered into contracts which gave protection to his vassals in return for military services o money payments. By the beginning of the 13th Century, the Pope became the largest feudal lord in Europe: Sicily, Sweden, Denmark, Arragon, Poland, England and Ireland were parts of his feudal empire. Papal impositions Over centuries, papal attitudes like everything else had been subject to the law of change. But as an overall picture of their monetary measures, it is correct to say that their exactions were far more severe than their royal competitors. When Henry II of England heard a complaint against the malpractices of the Archdeacon of York, he said sorrowfully that archdeacons and rural deans extorted a lot more money every year from his subjects than what he himself received in revenue. A reference to the Avignon Popes gives an idea of the papal rapacity. Each time a bishop or abbot was inaugurated, he had to remit an inaugural fee to the Curia. This sum was colossal because it amounted to one third of his estimated income for the year, besides, he had to pay considerable sums of money as gratuities to those who had acted as his intermediaries in recommending his nomination. Though elevation to the dignity of an archbishop carried a mark of blessing, it also proved an ambassador of financial blight because he had to pay heavily for the archiepiscopal palluium which constituted the insignia of his office. What a price for a circular band of white wool it was! Clergies at all levels prayed for the long life of the pontiff, but not out of love or sincerity but because his death hit them financially: the election of the new pope involved every ecclesiastical benefice in the payment of a holy tax more suited to the infidels: it was called annates and equalled the full revenue for one year though thereafter it dropped to a tenth of the annual income. However, in an emergency, such payments became automatically payable, and were frequent because political activities of popes had given emergency the status of normality. Death duty seems a papal invention because at the death of an ecclesiastical dignitary such as an abbot, bishop, archbishop or cardinal, all his property reverted to the Church. During the vacancy of such posts all revenues went to the pope who deliberately prolonged the interval for gaining the maximum financial benefit. Worse still, the new appointee was held responsible for all the financial dues that might not have been paid by his predecessors Papal justice was a specimen of holy extortion: people had to employ lawyers to plead for them and they demanded heavy remuneration because pleading in the papal court involved hefty licence fees. Every judgement carried a hidden charge by way of gratification because the winner had to grease the palm of the Curia officers for admitting and directing his case. It cost money even for obtaining permission to be ordained. The Christian monarchs whose own salvation depended upon the favourable attitude of the Pope, wondered at his salutary ways and practiced them with impunity. The Christendom breathed in a sinister environment: the pope could not admonish them but could pardon them for a gift of money. This was the major cause of the feudal tax rapacity and low morality.

Papal extravagance The lifestyle of these holy men was surprising and sordid. For example, Pope Clement VI had a retinue of some four hundred persons whose deportment was the envy of the royal households; they all were laden with diamonds, rubies and furs, and acted as knights, squires, chaplains, chamberlains, musicians, poets, chefs etc. Though their salaries were very high, yet they were low compared to their extremely exaggerated tastes which, in addition to pretty nuns, secretaries and maids, required an establishment of jesters, falcons and dogs. Cardinals, who happened to be the princes of the Church, vied with one another in displaying their splendour whose kink was killed by a kaleidoscopic hypocrisy. Papal character Pope was the spiritual master of the Christendom, and the spiritual piety required a sense of humility, crowned with frugality, sincerity and probity. Of course, these are the virtues of devoutness but there is a contradiction between piety and mastery. Masters cannot be humble because they belong to the gubernatorial class, and therefore, they must be assertive and dominant. Thus, Pope was a secular ruler who suffered as much from the urge of dominance as any mundane suzerain and wanted to extend his domain of influence. As taxation Is the tool of dominance, popes needed a pretext to impose and collect taxes. So, they thought of crusades, the holy war against the Moslems which raged for centuries. It is amazing how every Christian became a beast of tax-burden and lived and died for paying the holy impositions to eradicate the infidels for securing a seat m the Heavens! I have given the details of these taxes and methods of Collection in "Taxation and Liberty,,. Here, it should suffice to highlight the character of a few popes though some of them were really fine men. Pope Sixtus IV Status IV (1471-84) was very fond of Pietro and Girolamo. He called them his hoes. But it was also believed that they were his lovers, and rightly or wrongly, e was reputed to be a sodomite. Pope Innocent VIII Innocent VIII (1484-92) had at least one son and one daughter though the real number of his children was thought to be considerably more than this. Of course, the Romans were broadminded enough to tolerate weaknesses of the human flesh despite the Christian doctrine of celebacy. However, the whispers turned into a roaring laughter when the marriages of his children and grandchildren were celebrated in the Vatican. The Pope's son, Franceschetto Cibo, was a well-known scoundrel. Using his father's authority, which always came to his rescue, he made it a habit to force his way into private homes for deflowering virgins; ecclesiastical courts deliberately imposed big fines so that he could have the lion's share. He was a compulsive gambler, one night he lost 14,000 ducats or nearly $250,000 to Cardinal Raffaelle Riario and complained to the Pope that the Cardinal had cheated him. The Pope intervened but to no avail because the Cardinal had already spent the money on his palace. Pope Julius II Guiliano delta Rovere secured papacy as Julius 11(1503-13) through conspiracy and bribes on 31st October, 1503, but his coronation was postponed until November 26 on the advice of astrologers who predicted a propitious junction of stars for that day. Julius II had three illegitimate daughters. He was a stern man and felt happier during war than in peace. Though a sexagenarian, he was a warrior; he was usually clad in a military uniform and it was rare to see him dressed up in papal robes. A man of tremendous courage and physical strength, he was immune to the rigours of fatigue. Even during illness, he mounted campaigns to the utter surprise of his enemies. He loved to erect camps, besiege towns, and train guns at his opponents. This apostle of Christian love was the most foul-mouthed person of his age because his tongue knew no bounds of rudeness. One wonders at this divine emblem of mercy because he rode in front of his troops fully dressed as a warrior, with a sword dangling at his side. He found the art of mixing divinity with a military necessity: before encountering the

enemy, he would issue a bull of excommunication against them and offer a plenary indulgence to any man who should kill any of them! Election of Pope Alexander VI One of the most difficult tasks for any person who claims to be a human Is to surpass Rodrigo Borgia in perversion, indignity and inhumanity. Known as Alexander VI, he was the most interesting pope of the Renaissance period. Having become a cardinal at 25 and head of the entire Curia as the Vice-chancellor at 26, he became the richest cardinal by the time of his coronation in 1492. The force of wealth removed all the hurdles from his way to the pontificate. Many God-fearing cardinals who specialised in preaching grace, were quite happy to have their palms greased by Rodrigo. After all, if God's grace is good enough for other Christians the grace of a future Pope, who is God's lieutenant on earth, should be equally good for the cardinals, faced with the most difficult task of providing the Lord with a deputy to guide His Church. All the riches and the promises of high offices that Rodrigo showered on the cardinals to steady their wandering and unstable minds for securing their votes, should not count as bribes but grace, because they resulted in a holiness as great as the pontificate. Caesar Borgia The Holy Father had not only several mistresses but also practiced incestuous relationship with his pretty daughter Lucrezia, who was also entangled in a love triangle with her two brothers. His son Caesar Borgia was so wicked, unprincipled, sly, dishonest and ruthless, that he deserved to become the hero of Machiavelli's "Prince", the most corrupting and debasing treatise on political morality of rulers. There is a strange but true anecdote connected with the birth of Caesar. Sixtus IV in a bull of August 16, 1482, declared Caesar as the son of Rodrigo (Alexander VI, the then bishop and vice-chancellor). Alexander wanted to make him a cardinal but as bastards were excluded from cardinalate by the canon law, he (Alexander) issued the bull of September 19th, 1493, declaring Caesar the legitimate child of Vanozza and L'Arignano! It is amazing how Sixtus IV allowed Rodrigo to retain his high ecclesiastical office despite his nerve-raking immorality and how Alexander could tell such a daring lie in a papal bull. Not only that, Alexander VI was equally involved in all the evil activities of Caesar, his beloved son, who was the Devil-incarnate. Alexander VI and tax-gathering He invented novel schemes for collecting taxes; he appropriated the estates of the dead cardinals. When sufficient number of pilgrims failed to turn up for the jubilee of 1500, he issued a bull on March 4 of that year announcing what payments the faithful ought to make for securing papal blessings without coming to Rome; giving dispensations from certain Christian obligations and allowing divorces, became a part of the invisible papal taxation; even people indulging in incestuous relationships, and the clergy practicing simony could have their sins pardoned for suitable sums of money. Alexander started forging extra high offices for selling them to the highest bidders without any reference to their eligibility: on September 28, 1500, he created twelve new cardinals and exacted the sum of 120,000 ducats from them; he also named additional nine cardinals and extorted even greater amounts from them; this year also witnessed the burgeoning of extorted nihilo eighty new offices in the Curia, each yielding 760 ducats. Yet another stratagem for widening the tax net consisted of arresting the wealthy ecclesiasts such as bishops, archbishops and cardinals on trumped up charges; they had to pay high fines for avoiding the disgrace of going to prison and losing their lucrative offices Jews who believed that they had the divine right to hoodwink the Gentile for depriving them of their worldly possessions, were in turn given a holy dose of the papal medicine which charged them with heresy. It was a serious offence; Jews were frequently arrested on this charge and were required to prove their orthodoxy by making heavy payments to the papal treasury. Taxation by poisoning

Cardinals were wealthy, for sucking blood of the faithful and were healthy for eating juicy steaks of the animals they hunted with Satanic fervour. During the last years of Alexander VI's reign, the cardinals lost their appetite for wealth and even pretty damsels whom they regularly seduced as a prevention against the pains of celebacy. They thought that the good Lord approved of their doings because He was dependent upon them for preaching, and keeping His name alive. They might have been correct in this assumption but the good Lord could not afford to sadden His Chief Vicar, the Pope, to gladden these second-rate creatures. He sided with the Pontiff and approved of the unusual papal scheme which can only be described as "taxation by poisoning". He made use of a slow-acting poison known as Cantarella; it was based on arsenic, and as a powder could be dropped into a drink or food to engineer precocious and leisurely death which escaped the highest skills of human detection. Many a cardinal had got used to the uncivil habit of keeping the good Lord waiting for too long through a plan of longevity requiring extensive use of wines and brandy, puddings and roast meat and the choicest sex, preferably the defloration of beautiful virgins. These holy men despite enjoying life-spans of eighty and ninety still refused to seek a rendezvous with their creator. Alexander started inviting them to banquets and administering the Cantarella which favoured both the good Lord and Alexander because the former was able to enforce a rendezvous on them and the latter took over all their possessions, according to the canon law which clearly stated that the property of the deceased ecclesiast would revert to the Church unless the Pontiff decided otherwise. Some of them, having become wary of the papal conduct, resorted to the subtlety of securing dispensation by making large gifts of money to the Pope! Pope John XXIII John XXIII was yet another star in the firmament of inglory; he seduced over two hundred nuns, virgins and secretaries. Even young widows were not Immune from his sexual tyranny. His tax rapacity became proverbial: he taxed usury, gambling and prostitution! It is amazing how the organised priesthood of Christendom defied its own canons of taxation. But why? It is because popes also being secular princes, were perpetually engaged in wars for maintaining and enhancing their dominance. The need for money was further multiplied by their lifestyle which was extremely sumptuous though sordid in essence. It was only the abject taxation which could facilitate such colossal sums. People paid less for fear of physical torture and more for fear of eternal hell whose leaping flames could be kept at bay by the divine powers of the pope! One wonders about the potency of faith and its lethal effects on human character and dignity. Papal hold over Christian monarchs Man is an engine operated by faith. It is not that the Christian faithful were unaware of the papal character. The Holy Father had become so holy that even the gross misconduct formed an integral part of his holiness. The Christian monarchs whom popes fought openly or through intrigue, despite knowing the truth about the Pontiff, kissed his feet through the force of faith and for political Convenience because they could not rule their truly Christian subjects without showing reverence to their Holy Father. It is not surprising that the Emperor Charles IV in 1368, came to Rome in a humble manner for leading the Pope's horse from Sant' Angelo to St. Peter's and served him at Mass. Charles VIII of France who intended to depose Alexander VI and went a long way to execute his plan of deposition, ended up offering three genuflections to the Pope who graciously stopped him from kissing the papal feet. Henry 11 of England, had to do penance at Canterbury for the murder of Archbishop Becket: the English king humbly submitted himself to the lashings that the sturdy monks inflicted upon him as a part of the divine forgiveness. Henry IV of Germany incurred excommunication, and as a price of apostolic mercy, he had to strip off all his regalia, wear woollen clothes and stand bare-footed for three days before the gate of the castle at Canossa in 1077. It was then and only then that the burning humility of his sighs and tears broke through the frigid barrier of papal compassion which took him back into communion and restored his kingdom. Fredrick Barbarossa, the Holy Roman Emperor was required to kiss publicly the feet of Pope Alexander 111 for the sin of not acknowledging him as Christs' vicar: just kneeling was not sufficient to secure papal forgiveness. What a fine example of the dominance-urge it is! Islamic taxation Contrary to the Judaic and Christian traditions, Islam does not have an organised priesthood. Instead, its appeal is in promising freedom from fear of death, economic misery and sex

starvation. The solution to these three solicitudes is sought through the doctrine of taxation which is based on a Divine political philosophy: Islam divides mankind into two nations: those who believe in Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad, and those who do not. The former, i.e. the Moslems are Allah's friends and the loved ones, but the latter or non-Moslems are Allah's enemies and the most despicable beings. Just confession of faith is not enough to be a Moslem. He must live as a Mujahid i.e. the divine crusader whose only purpose of life is to smash non-Moslems by converting them into tributaries: "Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day . . . until they pay tribute out of hand and have been vanquished". (Repentance: 25). Islamic taxation and division of mankind These verses clearly divide mankind into two permanent groups - Moslems as the tax-gatherers and non-Moslems as the tributaries. This barrier is fundamental: 'Muhammad is Codes Messenger, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful, one to another . . ." (Victory: 25). A Moslem cannot be ruled by a non-Moslem One basic characteristic of a true Moslem is that he does not submit to the tu e of a non-Moslem because this is sure to reverse their roles in the field of "O Prophet, fear God, and obey not the unbelievers and the hypocrites" (The Confederates: 5). Divine promise of spoils The Moslems themselves are required to bear the least burden of taxation. Their obligations for contributing to the welfare of fellow citizens are moral and their legal obligation is restricted to the Tithe. Some Moslem scholars believe that the tithe is also a moral tax. It is the non-Moslems who must pay taxes and their tax obligations are unlimited: the Mujahedeen (the Moslem crusaders) are entitled to have the conquered as slaves and their wives, sisters and daughters as their concubines. It is for this reason that Allah promises: "With God are spoils plentiful" (Women: 95). Ability to extract tribute from non-Moslems is the proof of Islamic faith. However, Allah is not prepared to fight their battles. A Moslem has to be a. least twice as good as a non-Moslem. Otherwise, how is he going to exact tribute from the infidels? "O Prophet, persuade the believers to fight . . . if there be a hundred of you, patient men, they will overcome two hundred: if there be of you a thousand, they will overcome two thousand by the will of God; God is with the patient" (The Spoils: 65). Since nobody likes to part with his possessions, Allah lays it down: "It is not for any prophet to take prisoners until he carries out vast slaughter in the land" (The Spoils: 65). Legality of loot and murder It is to persuade the believer that they need not have any conscience about the carnage of the non-Moslems. To make sure that human thoughts of compassion and mercy for one's fellowbeings do not hinder the faithful to pursue their struggle for spoils, Allah declares: "Eat of what you have taken as booty, such as is lawful and good;"

This legalises acts of loot and murder. Yet Allah claims to be compassionate and the Creator of all beings despite commanding His followers to plunder and kill those who do not believe in Him! To encourage them still further, the Koran says: "God has promised you many spoils to take;" (Victory: 20). Laws of distributing the loot Possession and distribution of spoils is subject to some basic rules: 1. "The spoils belong to God and Messenger" (The Spoils: 1). 2. "Know that, whatever booty you take, the fifth of it is Gods, and the Messenger's" (The Spoils: 40). (Of course, "Messenger's" does not imply the personal property of the Prophet but his share of the loot as the state for spending it on the needy, orphans, those vho lost their loved ones in the battle, wayfarers etc.). To make tax-gathering the basic way of life for every Moslem, the Koran declares: "Laid down for you is fighting, though you may hate it. Yet it may happen that you will hate a thing which is better for you; and it is possible that you will love a thing which is worse for you; God knows, and you know not" (The Law: 210). To enhance the fondness for war, the Koran decrees that the believer who is killed in a battle against the non-Moslems, dies not: "And say not of those slain in God's way, 'They are dead', rather they are living, but you know not" (The Cow: 145). Taxation as panacea Islam relieves the three solicitudes of death, economic misery and sex starvation through Jehad or holy war, that is, turning the non-Moslems into tributaries through determined fighting. How? 1. If a Mujahid, i.e. the Moslem fighter, is killed in the battlefield, he goes straight into the paradise where no fewer than seventy two houries, the most delicate women with wide eyes and swelling breasts, await him. In addition, there are pearl-like youths and an abundance of choice food, wines and fruits. He is destined to live forever in the surroundings which defy the imagination of any poet or artist. 2. If he lives, he gets an abundant share in the spoils which remove his fear of economic misery. As women of the conquered people become his property, he can have as many of them as concubines as he likes. Having sex with them is neither a sin nor a crime. He cannot be sexstarved. Plunder, the fountain of Islamic glory Now let us look at history to see how the political aspect of taxation contributed towards the spread of Islam. The Prophet and predatory raids There was an old Arab tradition of plundering caravans pursuing their legitimate commercial interests. It was called Ghazwa - pi. ghazwat, and has been translated into English as razzia meaning a plundering raid. The Prophet Muhammad authorised the continuance of this tradition. In fact, he himself led three such raffias during 623. Owing to the betrayal by hypocrites, they

all failed but eventually in January 624, the Moslems successfully attacked a caravan near Mecca, coming from Yemen. Battle of Badr In March 624, the Prophet marched at the head of 315 men to waylay a rich Meccan caravan returning from Syria. It was led by Abu Sufyan, the head of the Ummayah Clan, and because of its financial significance, was supported by a force of 800 men commanded by Abu Jahl,the chief of the Makhzum Clan. Though Abu Sufyan thought it prudent to escape the Prophet through a devious route, Abu Jahl decided to teach him a lesson. The opponents, on March 15, 624, had a head-on collision near a place called Badr. Compared to the 14 Moslems who went to paradise, 45 Meccans ended up in hell, and another 70 were taken as prisoners. The loot was divided according to the Koranic law, that is four-fifths went to the raiders (or in Islamic language, the Mujahedeen who fight for the glory of Allah) and one fifth to the Prophet to discharge his public duties. The share of the martyrs went to their dependents, and the martyrs themselves entered an eternal life to enjoy the company of houries attended by youths. Development of doctrine of plunder Now, robbing the caravans was moulded into a basic doctrine of Islam which was at once both religious and political. Its religious connotations assured martyrdom and paradise, and successful depredation led to riches and political dominance. Taxation, as already stated, is a form of robbery. The rapine guaranteed comfort and suzeranity in this life, and death in search of rapine promised even greater advantages of paradise. Battle of Uhud The Prophet led larger forces to plunder hostile nomadic tribes. He was also aware of the fact that the the Meccans would want not only to avenge their defeat at Badr but also take necessary steps to stop him pillaging their lawful caravans. He was right. He met a much greater Meccan force of 3000 by the hill of Uhud. This was an indecisive battle though the Meccans held the upper hand. However the military leadership of the Prophet was impeccable. The Moslems suffered because they disobeyed the Prophet's instructions not to abandon their positions. As different tribes of Arabia started embracing Islam one after another, the Prophet sincerely enforced the Koranic law which states that Moslems are kind and brotherly to one another but harsh and hostile to the non-Moslems. It was impossible for Moslems to plunder Moslems. Therefore, he directed their holy zeal of tax-gathering against infidels. His greatest razzia occurred at the end of 630 when he took 30,000 of his followers to the Syrian border. It was a month's journey. Without doubt, this military excursion had a doctrinal and instructive value aiming at teaching faithfuls the benefits of disciplined tax-gathering and political manoeuvering. During this razzia he made agreements which became models for his followers in dealing with the vanquished people. The precedent of plundering the non-Moslems was seriously taken up by his followers when they invaded Syria after his death. Plunder as piety All conquerors have been motivated by their tax-gathering zeal but it was never based on a sense of piety: its fountain was always dominance but in the case of Islam depriving the nonMoslems of their possessions, converting their women into concubines and reducing them to the status of tributaries, was an act of righteousness adored by Allah. Women were a special attraction to the Arabs whose female population was not large enough owing to an evil custom which required a father to kill his daughter if he wanted to avoid the stigma of being a father-inlaw. When the prophet raided Khaiber to plunder the Jews, he beheaded their chieftain Kinana and took over his seventeen year old fiancee Safiya for a wife. Taxation and spread of Islam During his ten years in Medina, the Prophet had planned no fewer than sixty five campaigns and razzias to train his followers in the art of tax-gathering which he declared was sacred and pious. At the death of Muhammad, Arabia had acquired the status of a state and all Moslems were bound to it by the payment of a religious tax called Zuka or Tithe. Some Arab tribes which had embraced Islam only loosely, refused to pay this tax and thus became the subject of apostasy.

In fact, it was an act of rebellion as deliberate non-payment of legitimate taxes will be in any state. When the Caliph, Abu Bakr, the successor of the Prophet, insisted on payment of the tax, they marched on Medina but were defeated by the Caliph's hastily-improvised army. NonMoslem historians claim that it was an act of forcing Islam on people. No, it was an act of suppressing the rebellion. There is no evidence that the Prophet ever forced anyone to believe in his prophethood. He had laid down the law: "there is no compulsion in religion", and he observed it sincerely. It is equally unimaginable that his immediate successors, who believed in him with the utmost fervour, would compel people to become Moslems. The Islamic military excursions into foreign lands were not meant for converting people to the new faith. Their true purpose was to turn people into tributaries for directing the zealous energies of the faithful to a better use. This policy really worked. The Bedouins, who found it hard to put up with the pangs of hunger, readily accepted Islam to reap a rich harvest of taxation by carrying the flag of Islam in the name of Allah. It is not surprising that early in 633, Khalid, a formidable Arab general, was invited by a nomad frontier tribe to lead them in raiding a neighbouring community on the other side of the Iraqi frontier. Khalid accepted the invitation and with a total force of 3,000 men invaded the Persian soil. However, the real conquest of Persia started in 624 when Muthanna, the general, wrote to Omar the Great, the Second Caliph that Persia was engulfed by chaos and could be easily conquered. The final battle was fought at Kadisiya. The Persians fought with their usual velour. Their courage, tenacity and fearless spirit asserted itself with a vigour rare in history, yet the Arabs showed no sign of retreat, fatigue or despair. The piety of tax-gathering spurred them with greater enthusiasm the more resistance the Persians demonstrated. On the fourth day of this fierce battle, Allah decided to support the faithfuls for suppressing the Persian infidels. All of a sudden, there appeared the most vehement sandstorm in the direction of the Persian stalwarts blinding them with an unknown fury. The Arab warriors fulminated with their most sacred slogan ``AIIah O Akbar" (God is Great); the skies echoed with its roar and the Arab sword flashed mercilessly mowing down the Persian heads. Rustam, the proud Persian Commander was killed and his soldiers dispersed, enabling the conquerors to enter Ctesiphon which had allured the Arab tax-gatherers with its mighty arch, marble hall, jewelled throne and splendid carpets. It took the vast Arab force ten days to carry the loot. When Yezdegird gathered another army of 150,000 to avenge the Persian honour, be met a disaster at Nahavand which the Arabs call the "Victory of Victories": 100,000 Persian soldiers fell victim to the Arab sword, sealing the fate of the Persian glory forever. What were the Arabs after? They were chasing the largest treasure on earth; even more luminous and more dazzling than the Byzantinian hoards of gold and diamonds. It consisted of nearly five hundred million dollars - a staggering sum at that time. Of even greater interest to the Arabs were the Persian women whose beauty had been the source of verve for poets, painters and sculptors. Their large, dark shooting eyes had never failed to pierce the most stubborn hearts. The Persian verse based on courtly love had raised to fictitious proportions the already-stunning facts about their delicacy, deportment and dalliance. The Arabs would rather have them than the houries. And so they did. They did not even bother to marry them. They were part of the booty which Islam had declared sacred and legitimate. Why waste time in conducting the un-Islamic rites? After all, the Persians were infidels and deserved no respect. On the contrary, Alexander the Great, was a pagan, yet he forbade seduction of the Persian women when he conquered this land of the gallants, centuries earlier. He arranged the greatest nuptial ceremony on earth by marrying 10,000 Greek soldiers to 10,000 Persian damsels. Alexander obviously believed that the Persian wealth formed legitimate possession of the conqueror but the Persian women did not. Alexander, despite being a pagan, knew the difference between human dignity and lustre of precious stones. The Prophet's ingenuity Tax-gathering or booty as a symbol of righteousness and divine love, was the mark of the Prophet's ingenuity. Contrary to the opinion of the hostile historians, who say that the purpose of these wars was to spread Islam, there is sufficient evidence to show that the conquered people were discouraged from embracing the new faith to maximise collection of Jaziya, i.e. the Poll Tax. This doctrine served the Arabs very well for five hundred years but as other warrior races of Asia accepted Muhammadanism, they realised its dominance-value and showed an intense desire to practice it. During the days of the Prophet, it was easy to direct the combative energies of the faithful against the infidels for enforcing the Koranic law:

"And whose slays a believer wilfully, his reward is Gehenna (hell). Therein living forever, and God will be wrath with him and will curse him, and prepare for him a mighty torture" (Women: 95). Rebound of the booty doctrine Pillage is not sacred but putrid. It involves violating human rights of possession, life and limb. As the number of Moslem nations multiplied over a period of time, the respect for booty soared but the reverence for the Koranic law slumped. However, insult to the Islamic principles was not direct or open. There grew the art of hypocrisy for proving the believer as the infidel, and vice versa, by misinterpreting the Koran for twisting contemporary events to justify murder of fellow Moslems for the sheer joy of collecting booty. What had once served as the foundation of Arab glory, became their bane as the wheel of time gathered momentum. God and taxation As stated earlier, taxation is the tool of dominance. He who can establish the right to levy and collect taxes, acquires the right to dominate for exposing people to his commands, rational or irrational. Even God or Allah, as I have demonstrated, depends upon taxation to make humans carry the yoke of His authority. This is a form of Divine Taxation though wrapped in philosophical sophistication to give it supernatural credibility. British taxation When talking about taxation, one cannot ignore Britain which, once, gained saintly status by seeking to regulate taxation for the first time in history. The Magna Carta represents the English insight into this subject. Taxation is despotic by its nature, and is especially so when a suzerain such as the state or a dictator lays taxes by command without giving any reason or promise of return performance for it. When the rate of taxation soars upward of, say 10% it begins to assume the character of pillage. The British Income Tax which rose to 98~o is not only an example of inhuman rapacity, but also of first degree treason against the nation because it destroys the moral fibre and the entrepreneurial spirit, thus precipitating an economic and moral crisis which leads to social and political fall. This fact is abundantly proven by the British decline. Having told this story in "Taxation and Liberty", I hardly need repeat it here. There is no room for taxation, especially the abject taxation, in any civilised society. It is too big a source of evil to have any social validity. However, emergency may be an exception. Taxgatherers are a shrewd, sly and sophisticated lot. They do not always use brute force for collecting taxes but employ such ruses that provoke people to get entangled in the lethal net of abject taxation as a piece of cheese coaxes a mouse to walk into the trap. Law is one of such ruses and thus serves as the tool of taxation; fear of chaos goads people to accept the authority of the law. Members of the gubernatorial class exploit this fear to spread their net of dominance around them. To express this fact, I included a long chapter in "Taxation and Liberty" and headed it "Gubernatorial Law" to expose the evils of convenient legality. Law is a potent tool of dominance; it treats the taxpayer as a crook and thief, inclined to evade payment of taxes. Therefore, he is presumed to be guilty irrespective of his personal integrity and honesty. For making it easy to plunder him, he is denied civil rights as a taxpayer, but on the contrary, diabolical powers are given to the tax officials who begin to specialise in overassessing people for robbing them legally. As a consequence, this tax rapacity has given birth to what is called Back Duty. This phrase refers to the taxes which should have been paid in the past but have been evaded. In fact, it is indicative of the fact that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely because these "tax-evasions" represent the manufacturing skills of the tax inspectors who want to maximise tax collection for advancing their own careers. Over-assessment by a tax-inspector is an act of theft by the state, yet the law protects the state-thieves at the expense of the taxpayer who is usually "guilty of innocence". In Britain, during 1987 recovery of the "evaded taxes" amounted to £750 million but in 1989, the figure jumped to £2.4 billion! Possibly, the Back Duty is the only expanding industry left in this country. One ought to applaud the Devil for his ingenuity.

To avoid the rebellion that direct force is likely to provoke in tax collection the dominant usually use the indirect force of socio-economic doctrines which perpetrate harsh systems and make people carry the slavish burden of abject taxation of their own volition. I shall discuss this topic in the next chapter under the heading of "Economics". Usually, taxation is considered a part of economics whereas the truth is the other way around: economics is a branch of taxation.

CHAPTER TWENTY TWO ECONOMICS Economics as a system is the tool of taxation which seeks to impose gubernatorial hegemony without appearing as an instrument of dominance. Apparently, it is an extraordinary statement but, in fact, it is not. However, before I explain it, I must state what is meant by economics. Unfortunately, nobody has so far put forward a satisfactory definition of this subject since the days of Adam Smith, the father of economics. Scope of Economics Ordinarily, economics refers to the forces which determine prices of goods and services as well as prices of the resources required to produce them. The process of production needs an organization which systematizes the sequences of men, machines and land to make them productive and creates a functioning market punctuated by a regular rhythm of buyers and sellers seeking satisfaction of their needs. Prices cannot remain absolute and come to be interrelated, thus forming a market mechanism which not only indicates the interrelationship of prices but actually emerges as a social system which begins to govern the way of life based on such questions whether people are free to charge what they like, or should prices be controlled? As prices are linked with wages and profits, should people have the discretion to use their incomes the way they like or is it for the Big Brother to specify whether they should spend their incomes on vodka or a house-purchase? Again, the level of prices creates the problems of inflation and unemployment, giving the dominant (the state) the commanding role to regulate the social rhythm of society by imposition of taxes, monetary restraints and many other restrictions such as minimum wages, rent controls, tariffs, budgetary measures, and so on. Economics as the Material Religion In modern times, economics has gained the status of a Material Religion which controls human way of life through a mixture of viciousness and vivacity with the same vigour and vehemence as did the divine religions such as Christianity and Islam. The social division of the world into two camps - Socialist and Capitalist' each equipped with lethal weapons and the readiness to use them, presents a threat of annihilation, far beyond the means and imagination of the Crusaders. The economic activity is mainly directed to one end i.e. production of wealth to satisfy needs (wants) but though air, sunlight etc are agents of satisfaction, they do not constitute wealth in the economic sense because of their abundance. Economic goods or wealth imply scarcity, and entail effort or sacrifice in their supply. It requires a process of production based on the factors of labour, land capital and enterprise. However, people do not produce for the sheer love of it they produce to consume which entails distribution. Theory of distribution The theory of distribution, in the first place, attempts to determine the prices of the factors of production, and secondly, it tries to resolve the problem of distributive shares, that is, proportionate distribution of national income among the factors of production. As production and distribution are integrally related they form concern of a single theory called "neoclassical theory" which states that incomes are earned in the production of goods and services, the value of the productive agent indicates its contribution to the total product, and the value of the final output depends upon the marginal productivity of the productive factors which are themselves subject to the law of supply and demand.

The Neoclassical theory advocates the marginalist viewpoint. But there are many other theories which argue quite differently about the allocation of rewards to the factors of production. For example, Marxist theory states that economic wealth is created by labour only, making distribution the major source of strife, and permanent class division the cornerstone of human culture. Economics, as tool of taxation The gubernatorial urge of dominance has brought economics within the magic circle of politics through the mechanism of distribution which has become the greatest single source of mischief because distribution is not distribution but redistribution, thus making economics a tool of taxation which seeks to implement the gubernatorial ambitions by plundering people. The state, which represents the gubernatorial will, acts as a Robin Hood by pillaging the rich as the ambassador of care and compassion though its real purpose is to bribe the masses for securing their votes to gain power. All its acts resemble misdeeds of the Mafia, yet it ranks as the fountain of legitimate authority, and the model of respectability. It is like achieving the impossible, yet it has been done. How? Economics and equity The unachievable becomes achievable when the end is made to justify the means. The statedepredation is legitimised on the basis of "equity"; it ceases to mean moral justice because it is projected as the principle which seeks to equalise everybody irrespective of one's talent and devotion to hard work with a view to eradicating all economic differences as applicable to the wise and fool, the righteous and vicious, the patron and scrounger. To achieve this end, people are incessantly given overdoses of social egalitarianism to make them forget all their social responsibilities which require a sense of justice based on the tenet of "first deserve and then desire". Thus ordinary folks, who suffer pangs of hunger and ignorance are easily misled to believe that economics is all about equal sharing of the national product irrespective of personal contribution. This sharing is affected by the following means: 1. Equality of sharing is proclaimed as the Divine Command i.e. a person claims to be the vicar of God and declares that he has been sent by the Almighty to establish a regime which must enable all men to hold property and women m common ownership. 2. Equality is proclaimed as the way of life based on an economic dogma, enforceable by law. 3. Welfare theories are employed in the name of social justice to secure equality through redistribution of wealth. Now, let us look at these bases of equal sharing, one by one: 1a. Equality as Divine Command (Mazdakite Communism) Iran, the fountain of many religions, produced Mazdak in the late 5th Century A D. What he preached was an offshoot of the Manichaean dualism resembling Gnosticism. To these tenets which had been known to the Persians since the times of Zarathustra, Mazdak added his own principles: the community of property and wives. He proclaimed himself to be the Messenger of God who had sent him to preach that all men were born equal; they all should hold everything equally and nobody had the right to possess anything exclusively especially in the field of property and marriage. He declared that the institutions of property and marriage were artificial and ill-conceived, and therefore, all goods and women should belong to the communal ownership. King Kavadh I The inherent fascination of this doctrine attracted the have-nots and the sexually starved men in their droves. Even the King Kavadh I (488-496 and 499-531) embraced this faith out of political convenience. Neither he lacked women because his harems contained hundreds of most beautiful concubines nor did he wish other people to have a share in his property. It was a ruse for destroying the power of his nobles who had persistently tried to unseat him. He wanted to weaken them by exposing their wealth to popular plunder in the name of equality. This rising class of communists led by the Prophet Mazdak, was happy to spare Kavadh I's property and

women as long as they could seize the property and women of his opponents, the nobles. These holy looters happened to be the members of various guilds. In the name of brotherhood, they pounced upon the most beautiful and delicate mistresses of the nobles which they themselves had plundered when depriving the weaker nations of their liberties. With these lovely creatures went diamonds and rubies which adorned them, and also the lofty palaces that housed them The nobles, used to pillaging others for "remedying" their faults, did not fancy this medicine for themselves, and rose against their king. They deposed Kavadh and imprisoned him in a dungeon, and raised his brother Djamasp to the royal dignity. Kavadh, however, had the good fortune of escaping his captors and regaining his crown with the help of the Ephthalites. This apparent royal protector of communism, having secured his position, turned on the Prophet Mazdak and his thousands of followers. He not only beheaded Mazdak but also carried out carnage of his disciples. Power of Iranian economic guilds Why did Kavadh I indulge in the massacre of his own people? It is because the labour force of his kingdom had become very strong through an effective economic organization. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the decrees of the council of state were no longer held valid unless they were signed by the heads of the major guilds along with the princes and prelates. In modern language, t was an act of union-bashing. The "Veiled Prophet" The natural principle of social organization is hierarchical and not egalitarian; this is the reason that people don't want to be equal but pine to surpass others Despite this fact, the precept of equality has a great fascination for the man-in the street who is usually happy with the routine life and doesn't like being bossed and pushed around. Perhaps this is the reason that the ghost of equality reappeared in Persia during 772 with the birth of Hashim al Muqanna - the "Veiled Prophet" of Khurasan. He declared that he was God incarnate and the purpose of his appearing in human form was to restore the communism of Mazdak to glorify the tenet of equality. He grew so powerful that he defeated several royal armies and ruled northern Persia for fourteen years. However, his luck ran out in 786 when he was captured and killed. Strange though it may seem, the Persian communists carried Surkh Alam, that is, the Red Flag, to demonstrate their identity. Though Muqanna fell, the Red Flag kept fluttering. In 838, Babik al Khurrani repeated history by declaring his prophethood to renew and enforce the principle of equality in the name of God. The band of his followers is known as Muhammira, i.e. the Reds. Their fanatic zeal showed superiority of courage and disdain of death in every battle against the enemies of equality. They seized Azerbaijan and held it for twenty two years. It is said that he slew no fewer than 255,500 imperial soldiers before he could be taken captive. At the behest of the Caliph Mutasim, Babik's own executioner cut off his limbs one by one. The Ismailites - Ibn Qaddah The communal appeal of property and women was hard to resist. Most communists who had survived the ravages of time were attracted to Abdullah Ibn Qaddah who made himself the leader of the Ismailites, a sect of Shi'ites. He sent missionaries throughout Islamdom to preach the doctrine of the "Severers", and his appeal lay in the initiation rites which the novices had to perform for entering the sect. Every entrant had to take an absolute oath of secrecy and pledge to obey the Grandmaster of the Order (Dai-d-Duat). The instructions bore similarity with the Greek methods known as esoteric and exoteric, and the convert had to believe that after passing through nine stages of initiation, the veil of ignorance which separates man from God, would disappear, and taleem or the Occult Doctrine, i.e. "God is All", revealed to him. The members of the sect confided in one another and nobody else, and thus formed a society within a society 1 to protect their religious, political and commercial interests. Survivors of the old communist movement sought membership of this sect because it promised advent of a Mahdi or Redeemer who would lay the foundation of a society based on the principle of equality, brotherly love and justice. Qarmat Eventually this confraternity grew so strong that it founded the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and North Africa. After the death of Abdullah ibn Qaddah in 874, Hamdan Ibn Al-Ashrath, an Iraqi peasant, also known as Qarmat, became the leader of this movement. It was a strange form of

mystical religion: it adopted an allegorical interpretation of the Koran based on free thinking, advocated a communism of property and women, preached universal equality and sought organization of workmen into guilds. Communal ownership of property and women as well as allegorical interpretation of the Koran against its wording are utterly un-lslamic, yet they called themselves the true Moslems. These Qaramita (the Carmathians), as they came to be known, established an independent state on the west coast of the Persian Gulf and started raiding and pillaging the centres of Islam such as Syria up to the gates of Damascus, sacked Basra and Kufa, and then in 930 plundered Mecca itself, the pivot of Islam. They slew no fewer than 30,000 Moslems, loaded a large train of camels and asses with the richest booty that Allah had allowed His followers to amass in this holy city by murdering and looting the unbelievers. The impiety of these so-called Moslems knew no bounds; they even carried off the veil of Kaaba and the Blackstone! Eventually the excesses of this communistic movement created a large body of dissenters who did not mind sharing other people's property and women but their own. Though this sect was weakened by the increasing number of deserters and their retaliatory measures, it was never finally laid to rest. Instead, in the next century, it reappeared as the Ismails of Alamut, the hashish-inspired assassins. The Assassins Hasan Ibn Al-Sabbah, the Ismaili leader, seized the fortress of Alamut ("Eagle's Nest") about 1090. This stronghold in northern Persia lay some 10,000 feet above the sea level. From this geographically safe den of savagery, he declared a Holy War (Jehad) against the opponents and persecutors of the Ismaili faith which was declared to be the true Islam but, in fact, descended from the Persian Mazdakites, the Sasanian communists. Nobody could join this sect unless he undertook to be a Mujahid, i.e. Crusader against the antagonists of the Ismaili faith. Applying the Koranic principle of salvation, Al-Sabbah assured his followers that those who were willing to plunder and murder the unbelievers and thus add to the numbers of their widows and orphans, would go to paradise where most beautiful women (houries) awaited to carry out their commands of whatever nature. To make sure that nobody could doubt his word, he built a paradise on earth. The fascination of this fact has been a source of verve to many poets, painters and novelists. What was it really all about? 1. The modern Masons are considered an offshoot of this sect for these reasons. Assassin's paradise As-Sabbah, copying the Koranic description of paradise, built a huge garden behind the walls of the castle. He had also heard of the splendour of the Babylonian gardens whose fabulous beauty has charmed the human mind throughout centuries. What he created was not only a symposium of architectural grandeur and horticultural magic, but an emerald meadow containing small streams of milk and honey, or at least this is what they looked like. Ever-blooming and fructifying trees of all colours and shapes that had been imported from the east and west, and meticulously arranged in mind-boggling patterns, cast their dancing shadows on the most attractive and delicate women in their prime, to give them the appearance of multicoloured butterflies. Even more devastating were their deportment and manners of speech which had been imparted to them with a great deal of pain and patience. Above all, these nymphs possessed skill of dalliance, the ultimate of artistic imagination. If we were to believe the eastern poets, the Devil would gladly repent to qualify for just one of these dazzling dollies simmering with youth, zest and carnal inspiration. In fact, this paradise was the training centre for loot and murder. There is no crime that was not taught in this biggest brothel on earth where women and property equally belonged to all faithfuls who had the good fortune of being there though only for a short while. The more ruthless, atrocious and idiotic a follower, the greater his chances of entering the communistic paradise because the purpose of this hoax was to create a blind faith in the divine powers of their Master. Method of entering paradise The method of admission into the paradise was absolutely stunning. Before entering, the candidate was served with especially tasty hashish in a golden goblet. The more he drank of this nectar, the more he wanted of it; the moment he fell under the unfailing attack of stupefaction, he was carried inside the paradise. As the grip of torpor eased, he found himself surrounded by exquisite beauties equipped with the art of ravishment, and happily willing to catharise his

repressed instincts with their erotic sorcery. He was allowed an orgy of wine and women for about five days after which he was again drugged with hashish and carried out of the paradise. As he recovered his senses, the whole earth felt like a blazing hell and he wanted to return to the paradise at any cost. This is when the crunch came: he was told that the paradise was meant for the faithful who obeyed the Master truly and absolutely. He was promised that if he took the oath of allegiance sincerely and honestly and thought nothing of this secular life in carrying out the command of the Master, he would receive the blessing of re-entering the paradise much sooner than he thought. After taking an oath of loyalty, the candidate ranked as a Fidai - the one who would live and die to obey the commands of his master. This Sasanian communism in the guise of Islam, was a secret fraternity with many grades of initiation, and a Grandmaster. Its purpose was to promote the cause of its own members at the expense of nonmembers. As Sabbah, during his thirty five years of reign, waged a campaign of murder against the anticommunists (opponents of Ismailis) to such an extent that monarchs in both the east and west trembled in their beds. It was eventually the murderous hand of Hulagu, the Mongol, who captured Almut and other Assassins' centres and eliminated these lovers of equality who always wanted to be more than equal themselves. Ismaili leader, the Agha Khan, who has enthusiastic adherents in Persia, Syria, India and Africa, is said to be a scion of this Ismaili sect, and his followers, who are usually rich businessmen, annually pay him a tenth of their revenues for his powers to accommodate them in paradise! Equality as economic dogma Now, we come to the second part of this enquiry, that is, how equality is demanded on the grounds of an economic dogma enforceable by law. Theory of needs 2a. Marxism provides a good annotation of this fact. Marx was quite right in assuming that man has needs which he must fulfill to survive. It requires means of production to satisfy needs and the satisfaction of these needs opens the door to further needs. Thus human activity becomes a struggle with nature which must provide man with the means of satisfying his needs; these needs are not confined to eating, drinking and protection against the cold and hot, but also entail development of man's intellectual and artistic abilities. Through this struggle, he realises: "all that is known as history is nothing but the process of creating man through human labour, the becoming of nature for man. Man has thus evident and irrefutable proof of his own creation by himself". While the theory of needs cannot be disputed, the basic thesis is vitiated by his overemphasis on the role of labour, which mostly means physical labour and discounts the true value of intellectual labour such as the work of a philosopher, scientist, politician, administrator, inventor, etc. Again, as man creates himself with his own labour, there is no God. It is "an opium for people". This is the reason that Marx believed in the disappearance of religion as society progressed. Therefore, he seeks to substitute moral values with materialism. He further stresses that in a capital society which thrives on exploitation of labour, man cannot be free. He becomes an alienated being, and this alienation is caused by the fact that his product, which is the result of his labour, is estranged from him. Thus, usurped labour (product) denies the fullness of concrete man. Therefore, man becomes alien to himself. When this precept is carried to its logical conclusion' private property becomes "the product of alienated labour". Theory of surplus value Basing his thesis on the analysis of economic conditions of the 19th century England' he asserts that the wealth of a capitalist society is acquired through "an enormous accumulation of commodities". To draw attention to this viewpoint, he states how a capitalist ploughs back his profit (which is the usurpation of labour's rights) and how this repeated movement transforms itself into capital This transformation, according to Marx, is facilitated by the fact that the capitalist owns the means of production, including the labour power of the worker. Thus he

forges the theory of Surplus Value which briefly stated, is the difference between the wages that a capitalist pays to the worker and what he ought to pay him As capital is nothing but accumulated labour over a period of time, the economic concepts such as rent, interest, profit, have no legitimate identity of their own because they all come from labour. Though Marx's critics usually say unkind things about him, I shall confine this discussion to facts because I believe that he was a great man and meant well but his vision was distorted by his own circumstances: a. Marx lived in extreme poverty and painful misery, especially from 1850 to 1864. Creditors chased him frequently and his children learnt to lie: "Mr Marx is not upstairs". It was in 1850 that he was evicted along with his four small children, and their belongings were seized. This event proved to be very tragic because it caused the death of some of his children, notably his son Guido and daughter Franziska for whose burial his wife ran frantically to borrow money for a coffin. He spent six most miserable years as a tenant of two rooms in Soho where the Marx family subsisted on bread and potatoes. Unfortunately, like most philosophers, he was not very keen on earning his living. Instead of accepting some of the blame for his sorrows, he imputed his pains of life entirely to the rich, and thought of his son Guido's death: "a sacrifice to bourgeoise misery". This contributed to his extreme hatred for capitalism, and absolute patronage of labour. Biblical rule of equality b. Though his father Heinrich Marx was baptised in the Evangelical Established Church, and Karl himself was baptised at the age of six as a protestant, he was a man of Jewish descent which is likely to leave an indelible mark on one's character owing to the doctrinaire upbringing which change of faith may not eradicate. Being a learned man, he was obviously familiar with the Biblical teachings as both a Jew and a Christian. His idea of equality which sought distribution related to one's needs, and contribution to one's capacity, emerges from Exodus 16: 15-18 which relates to the conditions prevailing in the wilderness and requires every Jew to gather manna or bread - an omer per person, "according to his eating" or need. Those who flouted this rule, found that their gathering had been equalised by the Lord and everybody ended up with one omer irrespective of how much he or she collected. This rule of eating according to one's need, which was fixed by the Lord as one omer per person, was inviolable. But this law applied to the conditions of emergency which prevailed in the wilderness. Karl Marx remembered the rule of equality by divine command but forgot its relevance to abnormal conditions. It is strange that he advocated, man has needs which must be satisfied but failed to emphasise that needs vary from individual to individual, and those who contribute more, usually have greater needs and therefore cannot observe the rule of equality. Marxist gospel of materialism Because of these circumstances, Marx's opinions became extreme. Thus, instead Of qualifying as an economist, he ought to rank as a missionary who preached the gospel of materialism based on the following considerations: a. Family of man is based on brotherhood but individuality has no place in it. Thus, his rhetoric of freedom carries no clout at all. b. As the Lord had the right to determine individual needs of the Jews, the state is entitled to adopt deterministic policy towards the people to decide what they should love and what they should hate, what they should give up and what they should taste. Worse still, they must think of themselves as monks and nuns and live a communal life without any regard to individuality. Yet Marxism advocates materialism! This is a contradiction in itself. c. He believed that history is nothing but a class-struggle. Yet he stressed that in a true communist society, class-structure, along with law, will perish. According to his dialectical reasoning, strife between the opposites is permanent, and thus communism cannot keep itself alive without a struggle against capitalism.

Since a communist society is deterministic, it cannot survive without a strict application of law and a diabolical host of enforcers. It is nonsense to think that law will perish in a totalitarian society. d. In fact, Marxist communism is not much different from the Sasanian communism because it advocates violence by the proletariats against the capitalist for taking over their wealth, i.e. means of production. Its concept of equality is based on plunder of the rich but once the number of the wealthy has dwindled considerably, equality cannot be maintained. e. If there is wealth, there will be someone to possess it. In a Marxist society, individual capitalists cease to exist, but their place is taken over by the state capitalism which represents a far more hideous situation. f. The concept of ownership is the foundation of individual security and liberty. Depriving people of this right is an attempt to convert free men into slaves because it is only slaves who possess nothing. g. I cannot see how a system which treats labour as the sole source of value, can qualify as an economic system. Production is the goal of economic activity: no production, no consumption. Though labour as a human element, is the most significant factor, as a production agent it ranks next to the enterprise (entrepreneur). The relation of entrepreneur to the other agents of production such as labour, land and capital is the same as exists between a commander and soldiers. The latter may be great guys in themselves but their fate in terms of defeat and victory depends upon the magnitude of the commander's leadership. Whether a combination of labour, land and capital will be profitable or source of bankruptcy, depends upon the judgement and organizational ability of the entrepreneur. It is his skill which produces profit, and it goes without saying, no matter how skilled and trained the labour force, it cannot claim any reward in the absence of profit because there is nothing to lay a claim upon. In economics, profit is the master word which is more closely related to the entreprenurial skill than anything else. However, it does not mean that labour, land and capital are irrelevant in production. Of course, they are agents of production, but the magnitude of their productivity, as already stated, depends upon the organizational efficiency of the entrepreneur. Karl Marx made the fundamental mistake of overemphasizing the role of labour, thus turning his economic doctrine into a social cult which wishes ill to the entrepreneur, the chief producer of utilities. The sudden collapse of communist regimes in eastern Europe like a house of cards, is due to this reason. Further, he tried to make Marxism as the way of life enforceable by law. An economic doctrine is always discretionary, because to be productive, its application is subject to revision, retrial, and even reversion. Its purpose is to produce at the lowest possible cost to serve mankind and not to dictate the human way of life to give itself the power of a secular faith. Capitalistic communism 3a. Finally, we can now discuss the last pillar of economic equality whose propriety is asserted on the ground of common welfare. Of course, it is the welfare of people that really counts in the last analysis but one should remember that it is not only the poor who deserve justice, the capable, the hard working and the rich are also human and therefore, must be respected and rewarded according to their contributions to the national economy. On the contrary, the welfare theories are founded on the concept of redistribution of wealth which is a form of Robinhoodism, aimed at persecuting the rich to please the poor for gubernatorial considerations. In fact, it is nothing but Capitalistic Communism. This is a strange phrase. Allow me to explain it: Communism seeks to abolish the institution of private property and claims that all national assets are held by everybody in common. In fact, the theory of communal ownership is an illusion because in a communist society nobody owns anything: everything belongs to the state, though under the label of "People's Property". This type of social system divides citizens into two groups: the powerful, and the powerless. The first category commands all means of production including labour and thus controls every movement of workers who are degraded to the status of a factor of production .or being the supplier of labour. They carry the yoke of authority to such an extent that they are not allowed to go abroad on holidays without state permission and women may have to seek consent for having babies. Their wages are arbitrarily fixed by the government, and the worker whose production is worth £50 may be paid only £10 thus, state usurping the ``surplus value" like a capitalist. Worse still, money loses more or less all its value

because a worker is not allowed ownership of anything valuable such as a house or jewellery. Thus his money cannot work for him and he practically becomes subject to 100~o taxation. This is a symbol of slavery. This brief description shows that a modern communist regime reintroduces the old villeinage in the disguise of care, compassion and welfare. The relationship between the powerful and powerless turns out to be the same as between a rider and horse: the former commands and the latter obeys. Nature of welfare society A welfare society, though run on capitalistic lines, is no less extortionate and repressive than a committed communist state. Why? Because it may raise taxes as high as 98%. The net result is the same. People are allowed to earn as much as they like but they are not permitted to keep any more than a communist state may allow. In a communist country, people live in state houses, in a welfare society, half of them dwell in council houses, and homes of the other half are mortgaged to banks and building societies for lacking the means of buying them. A communist state relies on the severity of its secret police but a welfare society depends upon the excruciating skills of the tax-inspector whose money-extracting powers are far greater and more effective than the Devil's art of mischief-making, sin-creating and crime-disseminating. Brute force is the essence of a communist society, whereas a capitalist society survives on hypocrisy. The former may require a wrong-doer to face a firing squad but the latter exposes a taxpayer to the rapacity of tax-gatherers who plunder him in the name of law and social duty, and then leave him to die through chagrin, of his own free will! Again, a communist land is usually run by one party and people are not allowed choice. On the contrary, a capitalist state may offer a choice of several candidates belonging to many political parties but their choice is deliberately confused by the stunning party propaganda machine and people are made to vote as if they were hypnotised. A communist state owns all means of production directly, but a welfare society which claims to be capitalistic owns national means of production indirectly. How? Because through abject taxation it takes away 98% of the share of national income and profits. In fact, it does not concern itself with the headaches of keeping a cow; it simply claims ownership of the milk. What an ingenious political philosophy it is! May be, now it is clear what I mean by "Capitalistic Communism". Even more exacerbating aspect of the Capitalistic Communism, is its show of respectability It is as much based on a dogma as is, say, Marxism. Its basis is the welfare principle which is propounded through various jargons such as Ability-to-Pay or Least-Sacrifice theory. Ability-to-Pay Ability-to-pay has some validity during an emergency when everyone should do one's best to restore normal conditions. Otherwise, it is an attempt to enforce brutality in the name of beneficence, a ruse to practice cruelty in the disguise of compassion. It is wrong to compel people to live at the apex of their ability as a rule of life. Ease, leisure and relaxation constitute man's normal mode of living, whereas the behaviour ``to be at best" though desirable, implies Psychological tension, and even artifice. Let man be man under ordinary circumstances. If we do not accept this proposition, then a worker is likely to be in greater trouble than a capitalist because it means that we will have to devise a machine to assess the productive ability of every worker for forcing him to yield his top performance under all circumstances. It means that if he can weave two bolts of cloth a day compared to the fellow-weaver who can produce only one bolt, he must do so without expecting extra wage for the additional product because this is the social interpretation of Ability-to-Pay or bear. "Least-Sacrifice theory" Similarly, various kinds of "sacrifice theories" are just intellectual exercises and carry no mark of reality. Take for instance, the least sacrifice theory of A. C. Pigou, the leading pupil of Alfred Marshall. For justifying progressive taxation, he suggested: 1. Different people have about the same level of satisfaction, that is, both A and B have similar appetities and capacities of satisfaction. This hedonistic standard does not hold good when we

realise that one person may be happy to remain a soldier all his life whereas another is not satisfied until he becomes a General or the Commander-in-Chief. Does the same standard of satisfaction apply to a miser and a philanthropist, or a virile person and a eunuch? 2. The more ingenious part of this theory is based on the doctrine of Marginal Utility which states that the more of a thing the less its satisfying power. More precisely, it means that every additional unit of a commodity adds less and less to its satisfying power. After the last satisfying unit which also happens to be the least satisfying, a further addition in its quantity leads to disutility. To explain this jargon, let me say that I am thirsty. The first glass of milk shall have the most quenching power compared to the second and third, and the fourth may cause disutility, that is, act against its intended purpose of satisfying thirst and may harm me. From this, it is argued that utility of money like the utility of, say, bread, decreases with an increase in its supply. Since Marginal Utility refers to the satisfying power of the last unit of consumption, i.e. the last morsel of food in satisfying hunger, it is claimed that the utility of the last pound of a millionaire is nil compared to the utility of the last pound of a labourer. Therefore, robbing the rich is no robbery because it does not affect the utility of their money and thus causes them little or no sacrifice; on the contrary, it is socially held desirable because it increases the overall utility of the community when the plundered wealth of the well-off is redistributed. Thus, they believe that the last pound of an ordinary worker taken in taxation causes him a good deal of sacrifice. Analysis of marginal utility In economics, utility means the power of a thing to satisfy a want, irrespective of its usefulness or moral desirability. Therefore, satisfying power of a commodity is associated more with its multiety of uses than as a single commodity. Thus milk has much greater utility than, say bread: one can turn milk into cream, butter, cheese, curd and several other products. Its increased uses multiply its demand several times over, augmenting its utility correspondingly. Thus, bread which has a comparatively restricted use, is more subject to the law of Marginal Utility than milk. On this principle, the satisfying power of money is unlimited owing to its limitless uses - economic, political, social, religious, and so on. This is the reason we do not meet a person who is ill because he has too much wealth. In fact, the more money one possesses, the more one wants to have. Since it has no disutility, it is not subject to the rule of Marginal Utility. Again' the concept of Marginal Utility is associated not only with its multiety of uses but also its durability. Other things being equal, a strawberry has little utility compared to a diamond because the former may last only a couple of days or a week but the latter serves as a storehouse of value for ever. Thus, in terms of security and value, contrary to the normal concept of Marginal Utility, its satisfying power does not diminish but increases. One must realise that in terms of satisfaction' possession of a diamond over a period of time is like consumption. Its utility keeps increasing owing to its ever-soaring price. The satisfaction derived from the possession of a diamond is eternal compared to the satisfaction derived from the consumption of a strawberry which is ephemeral. Therefore, the theory of Marginal Utility provides no justification for depriving the wealthy of their wealth through a system of abject taxation, to make everybody equal. Economics as a tool of taxation I think that I have devoted sufficient space to explain the significance of economic equality as compliance to a divine command, as an ideological way of life, and as a welfare system. Equality is sought through communal ownership of the means of production or the redistribution of wealth. No matter, what method is used, the tool of execution is always taxation - the abject taxation. Ordinarily, the purpose of production is consumption which requires distribution. If distribution meant reward related to effort, economics could be thought of as the science of producing utilities (commodities) for satisfying needs, but distribution is used for political motives which are realised through abject taxation. Since abject taxation is the tool of dominance, economics begins to rank as an instrument of taxation. As this is an extraordinary statement, I may explain it further with reference to the role of taxation in modern economics. Maybe the reader remembers, I remarked that taxation is the greatest single source of evil; the feudal system was invented to facilitate easy tax collection. Greek and Roman democracies suffered demise owing to abject taxation; the Marxist system of Russia was held together

through an invisible method of 100~o taxation and the British lost their glory through abject taxation. Why? Because dominance is the gubernatorial dream which is realised through taxation. Since people do not like being dominated, members of the gubernatorial class use taxation with such a refined subtlety that it begins to look the most important prop of the society and thus curse begins to appear as cure, beastliness puts on the mantle of beauty and vice projects itself as virtue. Now, let me state the role of taxation in modern economics to justify the above remarks: Economic activity is all about making a living. However, some people make their living out of wages, some out of profits and others out of rents or interest. Therefore, anything that may raise the standard of living is loved by people; what particularly pleases them is the increased liberty which automatically accompanies the material amelioration. But this is something which is as annoying to the gubernator as presence of a lamb is to a wolf or of a rat is to a cat. It is because less liberty for people means more power for the gubernator. Therefore, he contrives to regulate economic activity which is the jugular vein of every man, woman and child. It is done through taxation but with extreme sophistication. The gubernatorial ruse in this respect though completely dishonest, deserves applause for its effectiveness: he turns democracy into taxocracy where people are born as taxpayers, live as taxpayers and die as taxpayers; people are legally presumed to be guilty of tax evasion and tax-gatherers are given diabolical powers to treat them like dirt for maximising revenue but in the name of law and duty. Yet through various ploys, people are encouraged to indulge in economic activities without being allowed the reward of their risk and drudgery. This most enigmatic operation is conducted through the mesmerising, alluring and coaxing process of taxation, and it is all done in the name of social justice! They clamour that liberty has no meaning without economic equality. Therefore, in the name of social justice, they want to make the unequal, equal without realising that it is foolish to contradict the laws of nature which promote diversity and not uniformity. The type of equality they demand is perversion of justice because it entails a good deal of brute force to deflect things from their natural course. How do you make a sparrow equal to an eagle? How can a monkey be given the status of man? How can satan be treated as a saint? Is it justice to treat a traitor as a patriot or a fool as a wiseman? Yet they have devised criteria of social justice in the field of taxation: Tax Classification The first principle is the "equity" test; it refers to impartiality of taxes in their application, and therefore, means equal taxes on persons in like circumstances and reasonably differentiated taxes on persons in unlike circumstances. To achieve this end, people are converted into taxpayers who are made to wear the straitjackets of classification according to wages, incomes, and gains for assuring them impartial treatment. Effective rate structure is an example of such classification: People may be subjected to progressive, proportional or regressive taxation. This differentiation refers to the ratio of tax liability to net income. Taxation is progressive when a person pays a greater percentage as his income rises; it is proportional when tax rate is constant, and it is regressive when percentage declines as income rises. In fact, the concept of equity in this context, as I have used all along, is coextensive with the economic equality because modern taxes are designed to reduce economic inequalities. Progressive taxation, thus, becomes the major tool for redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx, Pigou and others have suggested this remedy for levelling down the society. By such ruses, political rulers have transferred their burden of financing the society to taxpayers. It is like a sea-captain expecting passengers to steer the ship, a host expecting his guest to bring food for him or a Nazi expecting a Jewish beauty queen to fall in love with him. Why? As I will show in due course, it is the unalienable duty of the state to provide finance from its own sources for managing the governmental affairs, otherwise it cannot protect and enhance the liberties of the governed. Since taxation is as opposed to liberty as cold is to hot or bright to bleak, a patriotic governor cannot spread the net of taxation around people for his own convenience, under normal conditions. It is wrong that fiscal policies should govern not only the income and expenditure of the state but also manipulate the entire economy including savings, investments, trade, employment and inflation. Under such circumstances, monetary mechanism plays a secondary role to the fiscal policies which raise most of the revenue.

In a nutshell, economics is the tool of taxation because even in a free economy, the state encourages people to indulge in economic activity but deprives them of their material rewards through taxation. Thus all economic theories and practices come to have only one purpose, that is maximisation of taxation. Again, personal wealth is an insurance of independence but through abject taxation people become dependent on the state from education to health, and even sustenance. This is the true gubernatorial aim, and is best achieved when people produce the most through economic activity but keep the least through abject taxation. Economics and Humanity The subject of economics cannot be understood properly unless examined in its broader human context. It is not just study of man in relation to the comparatively scarce resources because resources can be increased directly or indirectly to meet the human demands. Take land, for example. Its supply has always been considered as fixed but its produce can be increased considerably. A century or two ago, the world population stood at about one billion but now it is touching the six billion mark, yet the cause of famines is political and not lack of food supply. Basis of Value It certainly does not mean that scarcity plays an unimportant part in fixing values. Unfortunately, its role has been exaggerated because nothing has any value without reference to mankind. Is gold or diamond worth anything without man? Do cake and pastry have any value to the pigs? Does whisky or champagne mean anything to the fish? Even the light and dark, sweet and bitter gain conceptual status in relation to man. Whatever is there in the universe, is relevant to man who has needs which require to be satisfied. If man has no needs, these things have no values. Thus, things basically, have values in relation to man only and their magnitude rises and falls according to the intensity of human needs which govern and may be governed by the laws of supply and demand. Human need is the real creator of values and the utility or satisfying power of commodities rank next to it. Even then utility draws its legitimacy from needs because in the absence of needs utilities serve no purpose. Significance of Needs Without needs, strange as it may seem, man is not man, and the greater magnitude of needs gives man a proportionately higher status as a being. This fact is well illustrated by the technological progress which seeks to satisfy increased human needs: Since the human race consists of billions of people, each having needs, there is naturally going to be a struggle for acquiring things to satisfy individual needs, and this struggle is not confined to scarcity; it relates both to the quantity and quality of needs. Quantitatively, scarcity matters but qualitatively its significance drops because satisfaction comes to be linked with a personas taste which may be refined or vulgar, having an impact on production, and the way of life. Morality and Economics Satisfaction of wants (needs) is essential to human life but the method o, satisfying them is more vital to the quality of human life. I can steal a loaf of bread to satisfy my hunger or I can pay for it to avoid starvation. However, when I steal, it is wrong but when I pay it is right. It means that method of satisfying a want has a direct bearing on the magnitude of humanity. This concept of right and wrong or moral sense which emanates from one's inner self, decides whether man is man or just the higher form of animal. Since eternity is a concern of man, and not of animals, morality is an integral part of economics though unfortunately, it has been banished from its domain. Free Economy, Law and Institutions The method of satisfying a want is of paramount concern to the development of humanity. Primarily, it is a subject of morality but even when it is divorced from the concept of economics, the free economy cannot be run without the force of law and social institutions. The law lays down what people can do legitimately by way of producing, trading, pricing, storing, speculating, and so on. People are deterred from wrong-doing by the fear of punishment. On the other hand, institutions grow up to protect certain rights and duties peculiar to the spirit of the age. Feudalism is an example of the past, and trade unionism is a significant instance of

modern times. Both law and institutions tend to be orthodox yet their reformatory and disciplinary influence cannot be denied. Laissez-faire Free economy cannot be allowed to deteriorate into laissez-faire which refers to the conditions where might becomes right. it certainly needs some regulation by the government which has the duty to look after the interest of all the people, and not of the business community only. Whereas it guarantees that those who contribute the most, must get the maximum rewards, it has also the duty to assure that the less fortunate secure their human rights which essentially depend upon the fulfillment of the basic needs. When I steal a loaf of bread to satisfy hunger, I commit an offence which equally involves the society. Why? Because bread is the basic human need. Since society is the extension of ego (individuality), it must provide for the basic needs of its members though satisfaction of higher needs is an individual's own responsibility. Why? Provision of basic sustenance is the law of nature in relation to living beings. Visualise the primitive man when agriculture did not exist. All his basic needs, necessary to support life, were provided by nature. Look at the human baby which is totally helpless at birth; all its basic needs are provided by the parents. Every egg contains nourishment for the survival of its offspring, and this fact equally applies at cellular level of existence. It hardly needs mentioning that air, cater, sunshine etc., the basic ingredients of life, are free gifts of nature. Even the basic steps of human progress are dependent upon the hidden treasures of nature such as coal, oil, iron (ore) etc. These free gifts of nature form the basic part of economic values but are always discounted. Before I continue this discussion, I ought to explain what value is. Concept of Value Value is one of the greatest words in economics. It refers to the power of exchange that one commodity has for another. Price indicates the value in exchange as measured in terms of money. Value guides the producer to adjust his supply to demand as expressed by the level of prices; it also guides the consumer because a low value encourages consumption and a high value depresses it. Even distribution is affected by value though its role is said to be less satisfactory in determining the shares of wages, profits, interest and rent. Unearned basic reward A productive process involves services of the factors of production and each factor requires a reward for the services rendered: labour must get wages, land is entitled to rent, capital needs interest and enterprise demands profit. Whenever, we do something we usually say: "Is it worth it?", thus meaning if the result is worth the effort or risk. Value is another description of worth. Under conditions of perfect competition, each factor will be rewarded according to its contribution. Here we are talking about individual reward as applicable to a factor of production; and we do not consider the unearned basic reward which each factor of production gets but seldom enters valuation. To explain this point, I may refer to my cotton shirt which I am wearing. A tiller somewhere ploughed the land which is a gift of nature; its growing power is also a gift of nature, and so is the supply of sunshine and moisture. Without these natural gifts, the farmer will not dream of ploughing the piece of land and sowing the cotton seeds. Of course, he works jolly hard and deserves a fair reward for himself but he is certainly not exclusively entitled to that portion of reward which accrues to him as a natural gift. Though he may own the land which is an accident, he has not created it. The land being a natural gift, belongs to everybody. Therefore, he owes a part of his reward to the community after receiving a fair value for his labour and other factors (assuming he is the owner who also supplies the capital and enterprise). Thus, the true individual value, that is, the value of each factor of production is the total value of the product minus the value of the gifts of nature (sunshine, moisture etc.). Since the value of the gifts of nature belongs to the community, I may refer to it as the Communal Value. What I have said above is not a fairy tale. Just imagine that the land that the farmer tilled was barren. All factors of production despite their best endeavours would have received no value in return. He would have to build a greenhouse to create the climatic effect which the nature had done for him free of charge This should illustrate the value of natural gifts.

Division of labour I am afraid that the story of my cotton shirt is not confined to agriculture but extends to the industrial world and beyond; the shirt I am wearing is the result of what is called division of labour. The cotton that the farmer grew passed through many operations such as ginning, weaving, dyeing, tailoring, retailing - not to speak of transportation and the ingenuity involved in inventing and running the modes of transportation. It simply shows that no one person can create all utilities, that is, produce all the goods he needs. Assuming that there were one or two persons in every 100 who could do so, what would happen to the rest? Their way of living would be hardly any better than those of monkeys and apes. Even those one or two per cent could perish owing to the most hateful jealousy of their fellow-beings. Economic interdependence Obviously, the division of labour is less an industrial contrivance and more a symbol of interdependence. This interdependence which is an individual's weakness, forms not only the communal strength but also serves as the fountain of civilisation by welding all humans into a variegated whole. In economic terms, the interdependence creates values which are way above the capacity of isolated individual efforts. Since interdependence is the source of specialization, leading to the creation of extra wealth, which carries an element of communal value owing to its social nature, the community has a right to share in it. This right springs from the fact that interdependence is a natural phenomenon like air and sunlight. This rule of valuation is compatible with the assumption that "provision of basic sustenance is the law of nature in relation to living things". Status of worker An entrepreneur plays the leading role in a process of production. He is the leader; labour, land and capital are the led. Therefore, he is entitled to the profit or the lion's share of the product. Without his ability to take risk, and organizational skill, the other agents of production are likely to remain unemployed, and unvalued. Once he has paid a fair share to the other factors he is legitimately entitled to keep the rest and enjoy its fruit. However, though industrially, he is the prime factor, socially, he is not. It is the labour or worker who commands this dignity. Why? Worker, the entrepreneur There are two reasons for it. Firstly, humanity, at least 85% of it is composed of workers - the people who live off the value of physical labour. Thus welfare of the wage-earners, ranks the highest in the social hierarchy without despising and robbing the rich. Is it really possible? Of course, it is. We can do so by making everybody well-off. How? The answer to this question forms the part of the second reason. Simply stated, it means raising the status of a worker to that of an entrepreneur, so that in addition to wages, he can also have the reward which is due to enterprise. It involves no violence or class struggle. In fact, it is a part of the harmony that is the precondition of eternity. We can achieve these conditions on the sound economic rule of competition. Allow me to develop this theme: Wage, unless related to productivity, is a symbol of either repression or robbery: when an employer pays a pittance to the worker instead of what he has earned, it is repression and when workers gang up against the employer for an excessive wage without regard to their productivity, it is robbery. This strife is the source of evil and leads to the lopsided development of personality whereas eternity demands harmonious evolution of one's potentialities. Economics, morality and after-life The fact that eternity depends upon one's character, and not grace or intercession, makes economics the most relevant and significant subject in this context; it is because man is an organism operated by needs, and economics concerns itself with satisfying them. This is the reason that economics has ranked as material religion of mankind throughout history. Not only various forms of communism have been respected and defended by their followers with utmost vigour but the attraction of the revealed religions such as Christianity and Islam has also been

sustained by their economic interpretations, especially, the concept of heaven where nobody suffers pangs of poverty, and lives a life of extreme material luxury. Man's material well-being exerts a major influence on his moral integrity. A reasonably well-off person neither needs stealing a loaf of bread to satisfy hunger nor is he liable to suffer pain of disease for lacking the means of securing remedy. Once a person is able to meet his basic material needs, he is in a position to indulge himself in moral and spiritual pursuits. This is the reason that law of nature seeks to provide free basic sustenance. It is a matter of common observation that the materially better off nations are godly despite being atheistic but materially worse off nations are profane despite their high-sounding slogans of divine love. The reason for such attitudes is simple: the poor have just enough time to struggle for a wage to fill their bellies; they do not have time to devote themselves to the Lord practically; all their devotion is verbal, and that is only in return for the Supposed promise of an economically trouble-free place called "paradise" after this life. Definition of economics In view of these facts, I am inclined to define economics as the science of improving manes material welfare in relation to the available resources, without adversely affecting human liberties. I have already stated that all factors of production are entitled to a fair return for the services rendered and nobody's reward, including that of the entrepreneur, can be restricted out of jealousy or other malevolent reasons. I do not have sufficient space at my disposal to discuss values associated with the roles of all the agents of production except labour. After all, this book is about eternity and does not deal with economics exclusively. Communal value This is the law of nature that basic sustenance shall be provided free to all living beings, and it is for this reason that every individual value (return in exchange for the services rendered) carries a concealed element of communal value emanating from the free gifts of nature. The communal value equally arises as an obligation to the community in return for the benefits that an individual naturally receives for being a member of the society. Therefore, a worker has a duty of goodwill towards his fellow-workers, and this is what forms the basis of workers brotherhood. However, a golden theory is not sufficient to discharge fraternal obligations. It is possible only when a worker gets a full wage for his effort. A half-starved worker can only contribute misery to his fellow-workers, no matter how much he cares about them. This gives special significance to: a. the concept of wage, and b. labour organisation Fair wage a. Economists have advanced many theories of wages such as Subsistence Theory, Wages Fund Theory, Residual Claimant Theory, Marginal Productivity Theory etc. to tackle the issue of wages. However, the real question is the nature of wages. What is a wage? Wage is the reward for labour that a worker puts into a unit of production. Of course, its efficiency can be improved or reduced by various factors such as type of machinery or automated methods of production. In other words, the same amount of labour can produce more or less according to the working conditions and may attract proportionately higher or lower reward for the same amount of effort. Assuming conditions of perfect competition, one may say that a worker has received the due wage, taking all relevant factors into consideration. Has he, really? A worker's body (including brain) is the fountain of his labour, but human body, like any other mechanical body such as a machine, depreciates as it operates. To make sure that it can be replaced when it is no longer capable of making an economic contribution, the entrepreneur creates a depreciation fund corresponding to the useful life span of the machine, usually a period of five years. Thus through amortisation he replaces the worn out assets.

Emaciation Factor Man is also subject to wear and tear, and I may call it Emaciation Factor which has not been acknowledged sufficiently. Of course, the ageing process cannot be reversed but inclemencies of old age can be softened. It is true that some workers are given pensions at the end of their service but their pensions are contributory Again. when such rewards are claimed to be non-contributory, the payments are actually parts of wages which have been cleverly reduced, and are released gradually over a long period of time. These remarks equally apply to the provident funds and gratuities. Take for Instance, state pensions which are cited as an emblem of the welfare state. They all are paid for by the workers themselves, and employers' contributions are essentially part of the reduced wages which should have been paid in the first place. The state bathes in the fake glory of "welfare" because it does not pay a shilling towards the whole process of care and compassion. It plays the predatory role of Robin Hood in the disguise of redistributing wealth whereas, in fact, it is an attempt to gratify the gubernatorial instincts of sadistic pleasures. Emaciation Factor refers to that part of wage which is over and above the actual wage and is payable on account of gradual emaciation of the worker. A peculiarity of the Emaciation Factor is, that it is beyond the realm of negotiations, normally conducted for firing wages and salaries. Wage negotiations always carry an element of repression or robbery depending upon the relative negotiating strength of employers and workers. Emaciation Factor is a purely human problem in relation to economic needs and should be recognised and tackled as such. Having said that, now I may refer back to the already discussed communal value which accrues from free natural gifts. Since they are a contribution by nature for the benefit of the masses, an entrepreneur has no right to pocket them. Workers must legitimately demand and get them. Now, we realise that a worker is entitled to two sets of payment which he has always been denied, namely: 1. payment for the natural gifts, and 2. recompense for the Emaciation Factor. Since they both are out of the domain of wages, they must have a natural claim on dividends which represent the result of the combined effort of the agents of production Now, the question is, how to determine the share of a worker in the dividends to satisfy his claim on these two counts. One can think of several bases of computation but they all will be a matter of opinion. I may, therefore, estimate them subjectively, and say 5% on each count, that is, 10~o of the net dividend. The aggregate of normal wage and 10% of the dividend is what I call a Fair Wage. This should also be beneficial to the employer whose investments and profits will be protected and augmented by the self-interests of the workers. Trade Unions b. Yet Fair Wage is not the full wage. This fact prompts me to touch upon the second part of this discussion i.e. labour organization, by which I mean the role of the trade unions in marshalling the labour and its aims. A trade union is both a saviour and a savage; its beneficence or malignance depends upon its goals and the way it achieves them. Tolpuddle Martyrs On the credit side, the trade union movement has nearly wiped out the traces of slavery which lingered on by way of discrimination based on income, property, social status and ancestry. It has helped to restore human dignity by widening franchise, enhancing scope of education, skill and liberties. Though its stupendous accomplishment has been the consciousness of universal brotherhood - raising standards of earnings and improving working conditions have been no mean achievements. The free, fierce and fabulous spirit of the Tolpuddle Martyrs who defied suppressors of the labour movement ranks as the industrial inspiration which has deflated oppression and elevated the cause of workers' rights since 1834. The English can be duly proud of those six Dorsetshire Labourers who set an example which was admirably followed throughout the world.

On the debit side, the Unions' hatred of the capitalist transported them from the land of reality to the realm of fantasy. In Russia, as capitalism collapsed the unions transformed themselves into "production agents", and thus became the instruments of economic administration without playing any important role in determining wages and working conditions. Their mania for dictatorship of the proletariats made them oblivious of their commitment to human rights and the entire working population of the Soviet Union fell victim to dictatorship of the KGB (state police). As I shall explain shortly, the true aim of a trade union is to raise the status of all its members to that of a capitalist by making them rich and libertarian, and not communists by brainwashing them with the meanest human vice called 'jealousy', which seeks to bring down the highest to the lowest level without ever elevating the lowest to the highest point. As England was the fountain of the Industrial Revolution, the British trade union movement can legitimately claim to be the mother of the Trade Unionism. The medieval craft guilds have only a faint resemblance with the trade union movement, which is committed to improving the lot of its members not only materially but also culturally and socially under the banner of international brotherhood; the former were composed of master craftsmen who also happened to be capitalists and employers. The British trade unions though deserve the honour of releasing British workers from the slavish conditions of the 19th Century, they equally deserve the infamy of converting this country from a world power into an insular island. Despite the fact that the union leaders have always enjoyed high salaries and prestigious conditions of living compared to those of their members, they have professed to be the champions of equality which they have tried to enforce with the double-edged sword of union power: 1. They have made indiscreet use of the legitimate industrial weapon called "strike" to extract the last penny out of their employers, thus, making industrial enterprise a rewardless venture which became the main source of disinvestment. 2. Worse still, they played into the hands of tax-gatherers. Their egalitarian zeal provoked them to raise Income Tax to 98°70 through political action. This tax was in addition to many other destructive taxes such as sales tax, inheritance tax and so on. Soul Tax The British trade unionist even surpassed the Russian Tsar Peter I who invented Soul Tax by creating artificial households to prevent tax evasion. The Soul Tax corresponded to a male peasant of working age thus reducing him to an item on the tax roll. Its management and collection was entrusted to the lords who actually treated them like serfs. Strange as it may seem, the Russians precipitated serfdom in the 17th Century when other European nations were struggling for individual freedom. Through his power of tax-collection, the lord became the agent of the state, and the worker lost his human dignity and ranked as the lordly chattel. Invisible Tax At the insistence of the trade unions or labour movement, as abject taxation reached its apex, the art of tax-collection rocketed in esteem. Politicians, legislators and judges all ganged up against the affluent to make laws which treated taxpayers as born crooks, swindlers and cheats who could be held guilty of tax-evasion by mere presumption of guilt. This encouraged the taxgatherers to invent the Invisible Tax commonly known as Back Duty. It is supposed to be the amount of tax which should have been paid in the past but was evaded. In fact, it is a figment of the tax-gatherers imagination. He has found methods of raising spurious assessments to collect extra revenue for the state and also advance his own cause. Even in genuine cases of tax-evasion, the evader's tax bill is inflated out of proportion by subtle methods of counting two and two as twenty two. In my book "Taxation and Liberty", I calculated that the British taxgatherers had murdered one million taxpayers since the Second World War, for collecting back duty but so great is the reverence for this Invisible Tax that nobody has taken any notice of it! Fallacy of unions Where have the unions gone wrong?

They have blundered in adopting capital-bashing as the goal of their movement and thus fallen victims to a perpetual class-war under the influence of Marxism. Yet they claim to believe in the unity and brotherhood of mankind! What is wrong with capitalism? Don't we all want to be rich? Is there anyone who wants his children to suffer the pangs of penury? Again, it is quite wrong to equate a capitalist with an extortionist. He is someone who is materially resourceful, industrially and commercially adroit, adventurous and activating. These qualities in themselves are adorable, and not deplorable. It is laissez-faire which stigmatises the virtues of capitalism and thus requires reformation and not elimination. Replacing capitalism with antilibertarian ideologies is the greatest human folly, and transferring it from individuals to the state for creating dictatorship of proleteriats' is the most serious crime against mankind; the sudden collapse of the communist regimes in eastern Europe is a congent proof of this fact: a worker needs affluence with freedom; he does not want to be a well-fed dog with a diamond carcanet around his neck. The only way to achieve this goal is by making him a capitalist. Since a labourer, usually, does not have the ability to realise this aim single-handed, it is the foremost duty of a trade union to seek fulfillment of this dream through its collective strength and organizational power. Full Wage With this background, I am now in a position to explain the concept of Full Wage, the final goal of the labour movement. Difference between Fair Wage and Full Wage Wage is a barter for a labourer's working ability. When it is paid, taking account of his productivity plus communal value, that is, compensation for the natural element and the Emaciation Factor, it is a fair wage. By doing so the entrepreneur has discharged his obligation to the worker but the trade union leadership has not. Why? Because irrespective of the wage level, a worker is subject to emaciation and the older he gets the less secure he becomes owing to his impaired working ability. As a labourer, he lives day to day and cannot save to secure his future against the hazards of old age. It is not that he is stupid; it is because being a labourer he is easy-going and lives in the present. This is his psychology, the essential ingredient of his nature. Yet he needs greater security as the stallion of life gallops on. It is the function of the trade unions to provide this security which is a part of their professed responsibility of improving the earning standards and working conditions of their members. This security can be made available by the provision of productive assets only, and this is not possible unless unions are prepared to adopt a capitalistic role. Thus difference between Fair Wage and Full Wage is represented by lack of the financial contribution towards its members that a trade union would have made were it an entrepreneurial organization. Until such time that trade unions start owning means of production to adopt the entrepreneurial role which gives them a legitimate right to appropriate all profits for the benefit of their members, they cannot provide the security which is more important to a worker than his weekly wage irrespective of its size. As this security is synonymous with the financial contribution emanating from the entrepreneurial role of unions, their claim of stewardship depends upon the provision of this security. Non-provision of this security means that they have not acted to the best of their ability. It is especially true because a trade union leader is capable of running an enterprise as efficiently as a capitalist. The mere fact that he is the chosen head of a body of workers, shows that he has the qualities of leadership. As a member of the union, he is trusted and respected by his fellow-members and thus likely to be more effective as a business manager. With funds of the union behind him and a greater guarantee of repayment - springing from the regular contributions of the members, he is in a position to raise business finance more easily than an ordinary businessman who is about to start an industrial or commercial venture. However, if a union leader does not have the business acumen himself, the union can hire professional managers like any enterprise. It is wrong to rob others. Bargaining power has the same value to a union leader as talons have to a falcon, a beak to a vulture or paws to a wolf. Being the head of a workers' organization, a union leader is expected to be rational, cultured and prudent, but in practice he is as much a predator as a robber or a wolf because instead of running his union on the principle of a productive concern, he waits for the employer or entrepreneur to make a profit and then snatches it with the brute force of restrictive practices and industrial strikes. It is like stealing someone else's milk rather than keeping one's own cow. It does not mean that strikes or restrictive practices are illegitimate tools of the union; they are undesirable and should be used in the last resort only. Function of unions

A worker is entitled to a full wage and the function of unions is to realise this ideal How can this be done? 1. To start with, the entrepreneurial goal must be the stated aim of a union. 2. Secondly, the law of the land must lay down that the entire union property belongs to its members according to their individual contributions. Again, the rights and obligations of worker to worker, worker to union and union to worker, must be distinctly stated. a. When a worker leaves his employment, the union must be legally bound to purchase his shares from him. If he wants to join another firm or factory, he must be required to buy a certain number of shares with cash or on credit. 3. The rights and obligations of workers to unions and unions to workers must be clearly stated. It means that the democratic decisions of the workers are binding on the union. It also implies that the verdicts of the union-executive are binding on the workers unless there is a written procedure which allows the workers to override the decisions of their leaders. 4. The mutual rights and obligations of the unions and employers must be laid down distinctly, and each side must be legally responsible for its actions. a. There must be a conciliatory machinery to solve industrial disputes. Arbitration should be carried out by outsiders and ought to be binding on all parties. 5. Obviously, a union enterprise cannot be set up like an ordinary concern. Its members will have to buy the shares of the existing factory or firm for which they work. They must have the legal right to buy a controlling share in the concern. However, the small employers must be immune to compulsory take-over bids by the workers. An employer, for example, must employ, say, one hundred workers before they are entitled to make a bid for the business. a. Ideally, the State must contribute to the union purchases over a period of time, that is, the State contributing pound for pound or in some other ratio for a limited period, and once the union has built up a certain stake, say 25°70, the workers providing the further finance themselves exclusively. b. Unions can borrow from banks like any businessman, each worker paying his share of the debt. There are many other ways of financing business projects. In this context, however' what is more important is the considerably widened scope of unions. 6 The main purpose of a union is to minimise fears of insecurity arising from unemployment' sickness and death, and to maximise the benefits of economic security by way of providing education, training and creative facilities. It means that the unions must build hospitals, schools, colleges, universities, technical stitutes, gymnasia and all those "goodies" which they expect from the taxpayer. a. It is the responsibility of the unions to secure conditions of full employment help their members with housing, pay unemployment and sickness benefits and offer them life-pensions on retirement. b. Of course, small unions may not be able to carry out these obligations on their own. They should have working arrangements with other unions at district, provincial and national levels. Again, it may not be possible for some unions to be entrepreneurial. They can serve their members by securing fair wage for them, and laying brotherly claims on their more successful cousins. What is this brotherly claim? It is none other than the communal value which accrues to a worker from "natural gifts" and "Emaciation factor". It's lowest value is 10%. The successful entrepreneurial unions must pay 10010 of their net profit to their less fortunate bretheren as a symbol of brotherly love to reduce hardship. Private entrepreneur.

I must state here that I do not preach the doctrine of abolishing individual enterprise in any legitimate form. No matter how strong the unions entrepreneurial success, there will always be non-union enterprises which the unions must respect as lawful competitors. Polarity is the law of nature; without it, organisation is bound to suffer deterioration, but the polarity must be genuine, that is constructive, and not destructive. Farming cooperatives 7. However, treatment of land ought to differ from an industrial concern because land is the gift of nature. Its private ownership creates dreadful problems of social discrimination and injustice. Again, through inheritance, it fragments into small holdings which become economically disasterous. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh furnish good examples of this fact. By land, I mean the agricultural land only and not industrial, commercial or housing land. It must belong to the community but under the custodianship of the state which must lease it to the farming cooperatives at nominal rents. All plant, machinery, stock, buildings etc. belong to the members of the cooperative individually and collectively. The cooperatives must be given legal security of tenure and must be constitutionally protected from the corruptive influence and bullying attitudes of the state of finials. The cooperatives must rank as farming unions with similar functions as industrial unions. Ecological conditions may demand the nationalization of land on environmental grounds before long. Previously, I stated that unions have played an effective role in abolishing the servile conditions of the 19th Century. On the other hand, the blame for creating modern totalitarian states such as the Russian and Chinese which reduce citizens to the life of serfs, also fall upon them. This happened because they played into the hands of the politicians by becoming their economic instrument: once a union assumes the status of an economic unit in its own right with major responsibilities towards its members, it is likely to resist political pressures, and maintain its members' standards of living and liberties. One must remember at all times that it is possible only when a union can guarantee Full Wage to its members by acting as an enterprising concern. That is, it keeps the profits of its labour through its Own enterprise, and not by robbing the other entrepreneurs. Trade union as a political blessing I am not an advocate of anarchy, yet I believe that power belongs to the people who delegate it to their political representatives. Since nobody wants to be ruled like a slave, people transfer just enough power to their elected rulers according to the already stated principle: "Marginal Utility of People's Power". However, a politician loves power a hundred times more than Romeo loved Juliet but he will not die for Juliet; he will kill her a hundred times to gain power. With this mania goes his superb ingenuity of administering poison as panacea, and vice versa. Equipped with a miraculous smile which seals the lips of every complainant, he has the power to make people feel certain when they must be dubious and feel mirthful when they ought to be miserable. Of course, a good politician is a god but godly politicians are rare. Most of them are predators of layman's liberties because less power for people means more power for the politicians. Since unions are responsible for the welfare of their members who are lay people, it is the fundamental duty of unions to act as breakwaters against the unruly waves of the politician's ambitions. In this context, a trade union ranks as the most reverential institution of the society because it plays the role of pluralism, that is, it clips the wings of the state eagle which restlessly soars higher and higher to reach the pinnacle of absolute power. Thus unions' entrepreneurial role provides security to the whole society by economic and administrative decentralization. Honouring a union leader This is, indeed, a great social achievement which makes a union leader the focal point of reverence and entitles him to a salary and honours commensurate with his great office; a union leader having a following of, say, one million members surely deserves a salary of one million pounds (sterling) per annum. Is an annual contribution of £1 per head really a big burden to carry? At retirement, he should be given a title by the state to acknowledge his value and services to the community, and the union must offer him a good pension. Redistribution of wealth

The state gains absolute power through its multeity of functions. That is, the greater responsibility it assumes, the more power it wants. Redistribution of wealth serves as its major and effective weapon. If the string of its duties stretches from birth to burial, it secures the commanding position to claim all or most of the national wealth. But when unions take over the function of looking after their members' then they need all their money, and the state cannot argue for redistributing wealth which is the most evil gubernatorial mechanism of transferring power from people to rulers. In fact, it is the principle of redistribution which turns economics into the maid of taxation. Who should pay taxes? I have already stated that it is not for people to pay taxes to the state; it is for the state to pay taxes to the people. Stated more simply, it means that under normal circumstances the state must find all its finance through its own efforts to run the business of government as well as meeting its obligations to the people Since this is an unusual statement, the reader is entitled to an explanation: Grants and aids What I have just said is compatible with history. At least, in the European countries, rulers used to appeal to their subjects for financial help in times of social and political emergencies. Response of the ruled when materlalised, was called "grant" or "aid". It shows two things: a. Tax was, originally, payable in a national emergency only, and b. it was not a command of the ruler to the ruled but an appeal for a favour. Taxocracy and Taxicution However modern taxation has assumed an entirely different role; it has become an imposition; taxes are collected under the threat of penalty and imprisonment without promise of any return performance by the state. This increased authority of tax-collection has corrupted the minds of the rulers and their agents; this fact is fully expressed by the laws of taxation and the way they are enforced under the label of duty and justice. The modern democracy has degenerated into a taxocracy where people are born as taxpayers, live as taxpayers and die as taxpayers, and the act of tax-gathering has become synonymous with taxicution, that is, the art of murdering lawfully and subtly those taxpayers who are not prepared to be robbed by the state-gangsters known as tax-inspectors. This is what turns a government into a Mafia organization. Having enumerated its evil methods and misdeeds in "Taxation and Liberty", I need not dwell on the satanic aspect of taxation here. Paternal role of rulers Throughout human history, the role of the ruler has always been held as paternal by the people. It means that the subjects expected fatherly care of their suzerain and wanted to be treated with affection and dignity. The concept of paternity touched its apex when people thought of their king as a god with divine powers. They bestowed this most reverential dignity on him in the strict belief that he would lead them to heaven where fear of hunger, disease and death did not exist. Altruism This concept of paternity is quite compatible with the birth of a human baby; it arrives into the world totally helpless; it neither possesses the sources of subsistence nor the ability to use them. It is always for the parents to struggle - and struggle hard to provide their baby with the best, even at the point of giving up their own comforts. Biologists have noted this point and they call it ``Altruism" which forms the foundation stone of humanity. Altruism is even more needed in the relationship of the ruler and the ruled. It is evident that the relationship between the ruler and the ruled as a tax-gatherer and taxpayer is unnatural and the most sordid. Thus a government has no right to levy taxes on its subjects under normal conditions; its legitimacy is governed by special or exceptional circumstances only.

Abolition of taxation Lovers of taxation have advanced a hundred-and-one reasons for taxation. The roost important is: how will government meet its social and administrative Obligations without tax revenue? The nature of this argument is puerile. Of course, government like everybody else, must have money to run its affairs, but why does it have to come from taxation? Everybody else earns his keep, and so should the state In fact, it is in a better position to do so but it does not, because governing is the greatest source of enjoyment when it is synonymous with commanding, when it becomes a laborious and tedious task, it loses its delights which emanate from turning, twisting and torturing others. Sadistic pleasure, which is another description of such delights, is an integral part of the gubernatorial authority and rests mainly on abject taxation and the most sordid methods of collection. Until such time that abject taxation such as Income Tax and Value Added Tax, are abolished government will continue to be more a tool of vice and less an instrument of virtue because freedom from financial worries gives people at the helm of the state too much time to devise and pursue schemes of self-aggrandisement and sadistic pleasures. Thus virtuous government is not possible without a keen will and the ability to earn money for financing itself. How can it be done? I made detailed suggestions in "Taxation and Liberty" to this effect but they were in the British context. Though they are equally applicable to all cultures, I may endeavour to say just a word or two about them: 1. First of all, the state must be governed by a written constitution which must lay down categorically, that taxation is unlawful except in an emergency. 2. When abnormal conditions prevail, their probable duration must be estimated and declared in no uncertain terms. For example, Income Tax was introduced in England during 1799 as a temporary War Tax to fight Napoleon. Now, after two centuries, it is still prevalent in Britain yet the tax-collector is audacious enough to call it an annual tax! It is automatically renewed every year. What an ingenuity it is! VAT Even indirect taxation is a source of evil in a virtuous society because it produces similar servile conditions as the direct taxation. Take Value Added Tax, for example. It was introduced in Britain on the pretext of simplicity. The fact is that it is not only complex but also an ambassador of slavery. Let me state the corruptive and tyrannical effect of taxation with reference to England: Trimoda Necessita In old England, there prevailed the custom of Trimoda Necessita which consisted of three compulsory services; one of them was bridge-building. As time went by rulers used this custom as the law to force all able-bodied people for rendering ree services to the King. As a result of the armed revolt in 1215, King John Conceded in clause 23 of the Magna Carta: 'No vill or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old are legally bound to do so". In modern times "who from of old are legally bound to do so" must mean "who are paid to do so" yet every businessman in Britain is compulsorily required to collect Value Added Tax free of charge whether he likes it or not. This is certainly the resurgence of old serfdom but in the name of public duty. VAT in Britian is an unconstitutional tax, yet people pay it to save their skins. Magna Carta and Amercements In a taxocracy i.e. the tax-ridden society where taxation sounds the most sacred word, taxes may not be imposed or demanded openly yet they are collected stealthily by the gubernatorial authority of the law and tax-collector. Previously, I mentioned Back Duty or the Invisible Tax. It is amazing how it is demanded and exaggerated through a string of penal devices beyond the imagination of Lucifer. The Magna Carta in clause 20, says:

"A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the offence, and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in accordance with its gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving his stock-in-trade; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way saving his means of livelihood .. and none of aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of good men of neighbourhood". This law is ridiculed with such an impunity in Britain that the law itself has become the major source of crime (and sin) through what is called "In-depth Investigation". 3. Even in an emergency, the government in its capacity as the executive, must have no power to levy taxes on people without the consent of the Second Chamber. Such a chamber introduces polarity in the system of government and ensures that power does not contract into one organ of the state. The constitution of the United States provides a fine example of this fact: the President i.e. the Executive has no power to levy taxes directly. The executive power is counterbalanced by the authority of the Congress which is further split into Senate and House of Representatives. 4. Taxation has a temporary validity under exceptional circumstances only. The tax-suggestions that I made in "Taxation and Liberty" formed part of an emergency but the message was misunderstood. I stand for the complete abolition of abject taxation such as Income Tax and VAT. However, as we live in a practical world, one has to realise that there may be room for indirect taxation depending upon the social and economic conditions of a society but even then it will be accepted as a necessary evil and the incidence of its mischief shall be controlled constitutionally with great vigour. Its rate cannot be more than 10% and must be collected at the point of sale and not as VAT. The good government is the one which lives of its own without imposing any taxes at all. The more a government relies on taxation, the more evil it becomes. 5. There is a pithy English maxim: "penny saved is penny earned''. To be able to conduct itself responsibly, the state must trim its expenditure. For example, offering sound education free of charge, is a duty of the state but giving grants for board and lodge is not. The state must reduce its functions and enable people to look after themselves; it is only the sick, the old and the needy who should form the focus of its care and compassion. Once the union entrepreneurial culture is established, the bulk of the state-responsibility is taken over by the workers themselves. a. Most of the money comes from trade, industry and the like. The state must undertake commercial enterprise like all other business concerns to make profit but its enterprise must be limited - say, no greater than one-third of the total national economy, and must be controlled constitutionally. Any appreciable increase in the state share of the economic activity is likely to lead to totalitarianism. One can say "why one-third, and why not half?" It is only a convenient guess work; 50% state ownership seems too high for the comfort of the libertarian. Once workers have accepted the responsibility of self-care, limited enterprise on the suggested lines must produce abundant revenue to manage the state affairs and its welfare obligations to the people. It can be said that as an efficient business seeks to expand, it means that stateenterprise should also be allowed to multiply itself. No, this is not what I have in my mind. The lay-bodies constitutionally set up for assessing the size of the state-enterprise, must force the state to sell its extra assets to individuals or corporate bodies. The state must give a part of the sale proceeds to its workers as shares in its undertakings, as well as grants to workers in the unionenterprises, and spend the rest on general welfare of the people. Such periodic sales of the extra state assets will enable the state to keep expanding without transgressing its allotted boundaries. Yet there is another difficulty in assessing the share of the state-enterprise i.e. how to determine when the exact limit has been reached. It may be calculated with reference to its contribution to the gross national product, its absorption of investment resources or the productive employment it has engendered. Since the state is deemed to act in the public interest, it has the right to choose certain industries exclusively on the grounds of profitability, social care, national interest and even convenience. However, exclusiveness does not imply monopoly profits: state-enterprise shall be subjected to the same standards of efficiency as applicable to private concerns, and such tests

shall be carried out by people's representatives especially elected for this purpose. The stateindustries shall enjoy neither legal immunities nor any preferential status compared to private enterprise. Chief obligation of the state Finally, why should state finance its governmental affairs from its own economic effort? The answer lies in the fact that liberty is the most sacred and the most precious thing of all. When people accept the governmental yoke of authority, they lose a part of their independence in return for something. What is this "something"? This "something" is relief from fear of injustice, fear of hunger, fear of disease fear of ignorance and fear of old age. People want the state to alleviate these fears and provide them with security. This is the noblest task for the state to accomplish, but cannot be done without sincerity. The government which solves this problem through progressive taxation is dishonest, a thief and a tyrant because taxation is not only a form of pillage but also the major source of political corruption. Since a noble aim requires noble means of accomplishment, a good government cannot pass the buck on to the taxpayers to discharge its responsibilities. It is not for the taxpayers to relieve hunger, disease and ignorance; this Is the basic obligation of the state which it must discharge with the utmost integrity. However, helping one's fellow-beings is the moral obligation of an individual, and no value is greater than philanthropy. Piety, the secret of eternity, is another description of love for mankind. An individual is at his best when he voluntarily spends his wealth to alleviate social misery. I think that in a book like this, one cannot devote any more space to the subject of taxation and economics. Whatever I have said is by way of suggestions and their validity depends upon experimentation. However, human society cannot be made righteous without abolishing taxation, especially the abject taxation because civilisation has come to rest on the strife between tax-gatherer and taxpayer. Again, class-struggle has also been made the basic doctrine of economics. Thus mutual friction and mistrust have become the social pillars. By turning worker into an entrepreneur and depriving the state of its taxing power one can hope to eliminate abrasion between worker and capitalist on the one hand, and tax-gatherer and taxpayer on the other. This is the only way to replace discord with harmony which forms the corner stone of spiritual development leading to Godhead. Significance of harmony Harmony is a must not only for a serene and rational social order which is absolutely essential for the formation of souls but is also the chief trait of a soul itself. This serves as the cohesive power of souls to unite themselves into Godhead; it is very much like the gravitational attraction which binds things together to create order in the universe. Spiritual life Is an integral part of physical existence, and this fact Is well illustrated by the mechanism of the human body which automatically creates the mind. This is exactly the relationship between a harmonious social order and the expected spiritual order, which is likely to arise out of the former. For better understanding of this point, I may add another chapter: `'Mysticism", which should throw more light on the subject.

CHAPTER TWENTY THREE MYSTICISM Mysticism is not only the culmination of the mysterious human desire to live forever but also the search for the ETERNAL, which happens to be the greatest mystery. If man looks into his self, he is sure to unlock this secret because he will find that the spring of eternity lies within his self, and nowhere else, and he has been vainly looking for God in deserts, plains, forests, mountains, churches, temples, mosques and shrines. Why? Because God, the Eternal, is nothing but the apex of man's glory. No man, no God is the basic thesis of true mysticism. It is usually believed that the ultimate goal of life is the union of soul with God. Such a union is possible only if God and soul are of the same essence. But this is not what is believed. God is thought of as the creator or procreator. If soul is a creation, it cannot rank equal with the

creator. If it is not a creation, then it is eternal in its own right and being totally different from God, must have a different essence. Therefore, union is not possible between the two: it takes place between the equal and similar only. The ultimate goal The ultimate goal of life is not the union of soul with God but the union of soul with other souls because Godhead, the only eternity, is the union of souls. As cells combine to form a human, souls unite to form Godhead. However, there is a difference; cells have many alternatives of formation - a plant, a monkey or a man, but souls can assemble into Godhead only because God is the final form; it represents the ultimate unity into which diversity must dissolve. Souls and Godhead There is no external force to arrange souls into Godhead; they have the inherent ability to compose themselves into divinity. As nothing is immune to the law of change, the eternity of Godhead is coextensive with the availability of souls whose birth depends upon the righteous conduct of mankind: it is only the good deeds which lead to the formation of souls; wickedness causes an individual's extinction at the point of his physical death. God does not have a creative or procreative role. His function is that of a guardian, and is limited to minimal interference necessary to produce righteous conditions for the formation of souls. Considering the vastness of the universe, chances of intelligent life on other planets are Considerably greater than we may think. This is what leads to the abundant production of souls, making Godhead, the circular reality and an everlasting truth. Significance of mysticism Production of souls is strictly a practical affair; grace and intercession play no part in it. As explained in the previous chapters, it is a sociological concern which determines whether most people will be good or evil. However, what I am about to say under the heading of mysticism is "extra-individual". It is the icing on the cake, and not the cake itself. One can be righteous without being a mystic' and qualify for Godhead. However, mysticism imparts similar zest to righteousness as sugar does to lemonade, salt to food and arrangement to flowers. In a nutshell mysticism is the active quest for God based on complete personal devotion which makes it a strictly individual affair. Origin of mysticism As, once upon a time, I was a sincere practitioner of mysticism, I feel that I am more competent to discuss this subject than any other. However, before advancing my personal views (not experiences) about this holiest of sciences, I should say a few words about its origin. Mysticism is an offshoot of Hinduism which arose out of nature-worship as is clear from the Hindu mythology: every natural phenomenon such as wind, rain, lightning, fire, seasons, dawn, dusk etc. had a god or goddess behind it to complete the cycle of nature, and deserved worshipping by the human beings. From nature-worship arose the Hindu attitude of philosophical contemplation about the origin of the universe. All major principles of mysticism owe their origin to the Hindu cogitation. The oases of rational wisdom are so numerous in the vast desert of Hindu myths and superstitions that one cannot ignore their beneficence to mankind. Particularly, to mysticism, they made the following contributions: 1. God and matter are both eternal. 2. The universe consists of illusory phenomena and God is the reality behind them. (This principle was adopted by the Greek philosophers such as Plato). 3. Since God is behind every phenomenon, everything is the same in origin, and proves the doctrine of "Unity in All".

4. Everything has Atman, an inner self or soul, and the ultimate object of every soul is to seek union with Brahman (God). 5. The way to seek union is through yoga, which is a combination of asceticism and personal devotion. 6. Words have inner meanings which are beyond the understanding of ordinary people who must have a guru (mentor) to lead the way to achieve this goal. 7. God is transcendent and the only reality; He is more easily sought through symbolism than abstract precepts. Influence of the Hindu mysticism has been immense on all major religions Even Buddhism, which came into being as a protest against Hinduism, seeks Nirvana (the State of Bliss) despite the fact that neither it believes in God nor in soul. Moslem mystics advocate the doctrine of Fana or self-annihilation and merging with God; Christians seek mystical union i.e. the faithful uniting with the Christ. Mysticism and Semitic religions In fact, mysticism is contrary to the fundamental principle of Christianity and Islam which believe in a creator God; all matter is created and the relationship between God and man is the same as between a master and slave who will be resurrected in his original body on the Day of Judgement to account for his deeds. Therefore, mystical principles: "Unity in All" and "Union of soul with God" are alien to these religions, yet, to a large extent, they have become the pillars of these faiths. Why? Concept of unity "Revealed" religions are based on bigotry, and hatred of non-believers. People are made to believe in them through brainwashing, bribe of paradise and threat of hell. It is against human nature, which despite many infirmities, seeks love, fairness and trust. Mysticism is the condition of being in love which is the fountain of growth and stability. The object of love is not money rank or prestige, but the fellow-man. This is what makes mysticism the practical annotation of "Unity in All". Love is unity and unity is love; without being the ambassador of love, mysticism cannot visualise and feel "one-in-all" and "all-in-one". It is this principle which makes a mystic a cosmopolitan who sincerely believes in the family of man. The fact that all religions despite being staunch holders of their dogmas, have stealthily adopted the mystical principles, clearly shows the relevance of mysticism to humanity and thus makes it the true faith of mankind. Core of mysticism One must realise that mystical love is not a heap of verbiage, magic of rhetoric or the golden art of tongue-lashing; it is an ever-burning lamp of concern yearning to illumine the dark labyrinth of human sorrow with rays of hope, happiness and hilarity. Sincerity is the cornerstone of mysticism; the urge to seek salvation through serving mankind and helping the less fortunate, is its driving force. A mystic is tolerant of the intolerant, a friend of the friendless and a helper of the helpless. He is harmonious in feeling and acting, and is the agent of harmony which purifies the social environment, conducive to the birth of souls. Without sincerity, mysticism is as unimaginable as growth of crops without sun and rain, wedding without a bride or bridegroom, or rainbow without colours. Internal fountain of eternity Mysticism is an intuitive affair. The primitive man believed in a Super Being but not through any rational analysis of his surroundings; his inadequacy and helplessness gave him the unconscious impetus to seek adequacy and independence, thus convincing him that there is a higher state of living reserved for the higher beings This is what suffused his mind with the idea of gods and goddesses who are greater entities and immune from the dread of disease and death. Man's search for eternity, thus springs from within himself, and external factors only serve to intensify this desire.

Man, the microcosm Whatever is outside, principally exists inside man. In fact, man's interior is far more complex and superior to the exterior world. It is because man is the most highly evolved being and, therefore, the best representation of the reality. Thus true exploration of the reality starts within man and not outside. This is the essence of mysticism, and this is the reason that man has been called the "microcosm,' and sages have repeatedly instructed the seekers of truth: "Look into thyself'' Therefore, the way of God is through the knowledge of one's self and not through science though it may help to understand the reality. Harmony of souls and Godhead What do you look for into yourself? You look for into yourself what you hold in common with the rest of your fellow-beings. One can claim that every person is different from others. I respect this view but the individual difference is not the difference of essence but difference of stress and intensity because in the last analysis we all (broadly speaking) want similar things to satisfy needs and desires which are fairly similar. This self-examination in relation to other people provides the clue to eternity, that is, if you respect the rights of your bretheren and help them in achieving their legitimate needs and desires as you do your own, you have identified yourself with the dignity of mankind and developed a sparkling love which is bound to assist a healthy growth of your personality - the guarantee of spiritual elevation. It is only this attitude which can lead to social harmony and cohesion. At this juncture, I must remind the reader what I have stated previously, that Godhead is a collective entity which arises from the harmony and cohesion of individual souls. This harmony which is the source of cohesion, is the personal trait of every soul. Thus the entity of Godhead depends upon the uniting ability of souls. In other words, the constitution of Godhead is not a forced one but spontaneous, emanating from the harmonious strength of the souls. It expresses the apex of morality or free will and shows that self-examination is a personal choice, and people cannot be coaxed or frightened into it by the attraction of heaven or repulsion of hell. Therefore, the lessons learnt from self-examination must be applied without any considerations of reward and punishment. Thus a mystic is above the positive law but bound by the higher rules of morality. Self -purification An equally important aspect of self-examination is purification of one's self. When you peep into the depth of yourself, you are bound to find that all is not well. What is healthy ought to remain untouched but what is ill must be remedied. After all, purpose of any examination is the assessment of one's soundness. If a person is not prepared to rectify the imbalance, it is futile to indulge in self-examination. The act of self-purification is directly connected with others. I may think that I am righteous and wise, but do other people have the same opinion of me? If they hold me in contempt, I have no right to think of myself otherwise. Why do people have a low opinion of me? What is the depth of their hatred? How do they come to the conclusions, as they do? Thus, what in psychology is called ``introspection", in mystical terms is an examination of one's self in relation to Others. However, it is not an exercise in changing other people's opinions through appearance and deceit but a process of self-reformation to be really good. Hypocrisy is the exact antithesis of mysticism This brings us back to the basic issue that mysticism is about one's relationship with one's fellow-beings, and the test of fellowship lies in one's practical affection for others and the actual good that one has done to them. Thus mysticism is not for a recluse or an ascete; it is an honour reserved for the dedicated, devout and divine and not for the devious, devilish and disconcerting. Brotherhood of man Again, this relationship is not restricted to individuals or even the society; its repercussions extend to the social and natural environment. Do one's actions add to the social values or debase them? How do one's attitudes affect the natural environment: do they inspire love of nature and its beauty or do they lead to its material exploitation? This point is very important because a mystic believes: "all is one and one is all", and the love for man falls short of its magnitude without an expression of regard for all; after all, everything is interconnected for having the same origin. This is the philosophy that lies behind the brotherhood of man, nullifying the distinctions of race, colour and creed.

Unity of origin Unity of origin is the underlying principle of the universe; the fact that this principle has been confirmed by the modern science, vouches for the veracity of mysticism. It means that particles, atoms, molecules, cells, trees, mountains, animals and people are not only inter-related but potentially one. At human level, this potential becomes intense. Throughout the range of evolution, chance and environmental factors play a considerable role, but at human stage, not only do these influences become less intense but, to a certain extent, give in to man's manipulative powers. Man's ability to invent, improve and modify seems to be unlimited. Take, for example, the ability to see. Normally, a person may see only a few yards or kilometres, but when he invents a telescope he can see millions of miles away and his microscope can make the invisible visible. Human potential This is an example of part realisation of man's physical potential but when we look into it more carefully, its spiritual aspect also emerges unmistakably. Take television, for instance. All of a sudden, you may see a dead singer performing on the screen. He sings and dances exactly the same way as he did, say, fifty years ago at a certain time. You cannot say that the artist is completely dead because a part of him in relation to his original performance still lives on. You may advance one hundred and one arguments to the contrary, but the fact remains that when that particular film is shown, he starts singing and dancing as he did fifty years ago; the beauty of it is that I can see and hear him. If he was completely dead, this would be impossible. When talking about movies, one ought to remember that years ago we did not possess the knowledge of sound-recording. The older pictures show motions only but the modern films reveal sounds and even colours. This advance in technology proves the greater possibilities of living. One can dismiss this discussion by calling it a recording but it will be wrong because recording is a development of the technique which keeps a part of the person alive, at least in relation to a point in time; recording is the technique for keeping the (recorded) sound alive. The body is dead but its sound is still alive. Can you deny this? A part of the artist, no matter how small, still lives on! Why? Because we have discovered the technique to do so. There is no magic or illusion in it. Had we developed a better technique, the more of the artist could have survived after his death. There is no way that one can reject this truth. In fact, it further proves that life-after-death is not a fairy tale but reality. All we have to do is to find out how we can live forever. Thus eternity is a part of developing the human potential. The right development of the human potential is the main concern of mysticism because the wrong development of this potential can turn man into the wildest beast. The carnages that have been carried out throughout history in the name of religion and national prestige, allude to this fact; modern stockpiles of lethal weapons, claims of tactical superiority, neglect of the helpless by the capable, pollution of the environment for economic gains, are some further examples of this truth. In a nutshell, man has the potential to be God or Devil: it all depends upon how he develops his potential. Unity of end Even if one does not believe in life-after-death, belief in eternity is the more appropriate way of developing one's potential for two reasons: firstly, it has a hope value which supplies a psychological cause for carving a life compatible with higher standards of humanity. Secondly, as argued earlier, there is no scientific proof that evolution ends with man. If evolution is to continue, then life-after-death is a must. However, life-after-death is not possible without the formation of soul, the germ of new and the best life, which solely depends upon higher morality. This new eternal life emanates from the rightly developed human potential. One very important point to remember is, that Godhead is not constituted by one soul; it is a union of countless souls each having the ability to live and act in perfect harmony. Therefore, Godhead is as much a collective affair as it is an individual one. This is why mysticism is based on philanthropy, the love and care of mankind because this is the only way that one can improve the chances of righteousness by minimising man's worries which are likely to lead him astray and thus reduce his chances of attaining eternity. And it is for this reason that in the previous chapters, I have attempted the outline of a social order seeking the realisation of a mystic's goal. This collective

aspect of Godhead demonstrates that man's unity of origin determines his unity of end. Mysticism is the only, and true religion of mankind. Abuse of mysticism Unfortunately, nothing has been subjected to greater abuse than mysticism. The abuse lies in: a. the extreme austerity and the cynical philosophy attributed to it, and b. the unmystical methods of achieving the mystical goals. a. To start with, all that is projected as mysticism may not be so but exactly the Opposite. Take Shamanism, for example. It is supposed to be a branch of mysticism because a shaman ("he who knows") is believed to be an ecstatic figure who has the power to heal the sick and communicate with the transcendent, he also has the authority to act as psychopomp, that is, escort of souls to the other world. A shaman is more an object of fear than respect; his power to communicate with spirits makes people believe that he is in a position to harm those who annoy him. This type of belief equips him with social and political prestige and ordinary folks pray to him for guidance during sickness and bad times. This type of analogy holds good with fake mysticism which is a lucrative spiritual business based on presence, deceit and trickery. The Indian subcontinent is the most flourishing ground for such hypocrisy. In Pakistan, a mystic is called "Sufi". Though sufism is the exact antithesis of Islam, a sun is considered a holyman with the powers to heal, tell future, communicate with the departed souls and arrange paradise for the sinners - of course, like the shaman, for a financial consideration. The suns are also courted by the politicians who want these religious mentors (Pirs) to guide their hordes of followers (Mureeds) to vote for them. Yoga With this spiritual fraud goes the cynical philosophy, originally propounded by some Hindu sages. They hold that soul is sacred and body is profane, and thus advocate the complete emaciation of the latter to free soul from its captivity. This was the belief held by Plato and his followers. This is the reason that Plotinus was "ashamed of being in the body". To secure release of soul from body, the so-called mystics prescribed mortification of the latter, against all biological principles. Take yoga, for instance. It is a philosophy in its own right based on Samkhya which holds that the world has come into being stage by stage through an evolutionary process. The person desiring release of soul must reverse his temporal process to dephenomenalise himself to the extent of discarding his body so that his soul can re-enter its original state of purity and consciousness. Yoga is a theistic philosophy but the achievement of its goal depends upon a very severe discipline. Altogether, it has eight stages. I should mention here a few to state its case: the first two, called Yama and Niyama, concern self-restraint to prepare the novice for purification by prescribing total sexual abstention and a strict dietry control. The third stage, Asana, deals with sitting and its various postures lasting a long time without physical distractions, and the fourth stage, Pranayama, teaches the technique of stabilising the rhythm of breathing to encourage complete respiratory relaxation. The last stage, Samadhi or "selfcollectedness,', means that the yogi (practitioner of yoga) is no longer aware of anything but his self, and is thus supposed to have achieved complete release from all the secular bonds. The yoga postures and breathing techniques used in the west are very mild and physically beneficial forms of its Indian model which leads to the destruction of its practitioner through paralysis of the body and destabilization of the mind Having lost his rational faculties, he finds a distinct departure in his manner of speaking and acting. Since he ceases to possess any appetite - sexual, social political or financial, people treat him as a saint, believing that he can grant them temporal wishes and pave the way for their spiritual betterment. Body and mind

The purpose of the body seems to be the creation of a fairly autonomous psychological system called "mind" without which man is no better than an inferior animal. It hardly needs stating that only a healthy body contains a healthy mind. The diseased, debilitated and decimated body warps and distorts the mind for not being able to provide it with proper nourishment. People become delirious for having a temperature; even a minor injury or hunger may upset one's thinking and behavioural manners. Body, the greatest shrine Not only the condition of the body affects its psychological performance but even physical appearance influences it through the prospects of acceptance or rejection. This is the reason that a deformed person feels spurned; an ugly woman feels less desirable and seeks the assistance of make-up to enhance her sex appeal. The things spiritual are closely connected with bodily attraction; the verve of a poet, painter and sculptor, and the cultural role of physical beauty - all explain this point. Therefore, body is not to be emaciated but appreciated and elevated. This is the greatest shrine in relation to an individual and deserves more reverence than any other object. One's potential-to-be lies in it. By disturbing and destroying it, you disturb and destroy its essence, the soul. Does sour milk yield butter? Does a crippled horse win the race? Can a broken arm feed the mouth? Thus mortification and asceticism are entirely unmystical: mysticism means probing of one's self, love of mankind and the search for eternity through serving fellow beings. If one is determined to destroy one's self there is left nothing to probe into, and renunciation of society deprives an ascete or hermit of the chance to serve his fellow-men. b. With profound apology and respect to the practitioners of yoga and similar disciplines, I dare say that most of such "mystics" use mysticism to gratify their physical and sexual appetites. This brings me to discuss part ``b" of this problem, namely, the unmystical methods of achieving the mystical goals. Of course, yoga is a philosophy as well as practice, which though partly erroneous, deserves our respect for its sincerity. By the said "methods", I mean the shameful contrivances of the self-professed mystics. Tanterism (Sexual union and salvation) A deviation of yoga is its esoteric form called Tanterism. There are two types Of Tanterism Hindu and Buddhist. I am explaining my point of view with reference to the Hindu Tanterism. It is a system of esoteric practices aiming to secure spiritual goal through purification of the body. The stress is laid on rites, rituals and black magic to woo gods and goddesses. The theoretical structure of the Tanterism is based on the Hindu philosophy. It holds that the Supreme Reality is non-dual but consists of two aspects, namely, Siva (masculine) and Sakti (feminine): the former represents pure consciousnes and transcendent passivity and the latter concerns mental activity. However, realization of the truth in terms of Siva-Sakti and the Supreme Being lies within the human body which is an epitome of the universe. In fact, it is a "search for God" through free sex. The adroitness of satisfying carnal desires is simply stunning. A theory has been devised to gratify sexual appetites in the name of divinity. It holds that the spinal cord is the representation of the fabulous Mt. Meru, and its three main nerve connections (Ida, Pingala and Susumna) represent the three sacred Indian rivers Ganges, Yamuna and Sarasvati. Breathing plays the role of time in the human microcosm. Sakti, the female force, is also called Kundalini i.e. "the earringed one" which happens to be a name of the Goddess Kali. It lies serpentwise, coiled and dormant in the lowest psychic centre of the body. A tube known as Susumna runs through the spine, past the six centres i.e. Cakra (wheel) of increasing psychic power. Sahasrara, the most potent of these centres is located just under the skull and is pictured as a lotus of a thousand petals. The entire problem of salvation is solved when the Kundalini is awakened and united with the Sahasrara. The five pillars of sexual salvation How is union of the Kundalini and Sahasrara affected? It is done through some unconventional practices called Pancamakaras, the five things beginning with the letter "M", namely, Madya, Mamsa, Matsya, Mudru and Maithuna; in simple English it means, respectively, wine, meat, fish, female partner and sexual union. To qualify as a yogic process, thought to be the only true method culminating in the union of soul and God, the sexual union must not seek pleasurable completion of the sex act. It is claimed that it creates a condition of lofty suspense which totally

arrests all mental processes, leading to the mystical sense of oneness with the Supreme Being! For encouraging women to attend sacred orgies, they are revered as the manifestations of Sakti, and men are thought of as the representations of the god, Siva. With a view to enhancing the excitment of the sexual act and giving it the authenticity of mystical sanctity, use is made of Yantras (ritual mystic diagrams) and Mantras (mystic syllables or formulas). Christian mystical love However' fulfillment of erotic dreams is not confined to the Hindu and Buddhist mystics. The mystics belonging to other religions equally think of divine love in erotic terms and express it through symbolism based on the analogy of human love and marriage. In Christianity, St Bernard is worthy of mention. He has shown that the mystery of grace and union is moved forward by the carnal, filial and nuptial love of man. The Christian mystics have looked upon both Church and the faithful to be Christ's brides! St. Teresa speaks of the love bond between herself and God "as two human beings are joined in wedlock and will never separate Himself from her". Islamic mystical love The major mystics or suns Islam have expressed similar ideal of love. The first of them was Rabia Al Adawiah, a woman from Basra. Ibn al Arabi believed in symbolism; when in Mecca, he became acquainted with a girl of great beauty He used her as a symbol to express his love for God; his love poetry is highly erotic Jalal ud Din Rumi whose didactic epic "Masnavi" is said to be the "Quaran in Persian", sought divine love through symbolism. He had several male loves his first love was Shams ud Din. Rumi loved him so much that the members of his household became jealous of Shams. His sons are said to have had Shams murdered and buried; his second love was another man called Salah ud Din, an illiterate goldsmith, and after his death, yet another man, Hasam ud Din Chelebi became his spiritual love and deputy. Summary of mystical vision Because of the significance of this chapter, I may recapitulate what I have stated so far: 1. Mysticism is not only the culmination of the mysterious human desire to live forever, but also the search for the ETERNAL. a. God, the ETERNAL, is the apex of man's glory. No man, no God, is the basic thesis of true mysticism. b. God is the greatest mystery; its solution lies within one's self and not outside. 2. The ultimate goal of life is not the union of soul with God but with other souls because Godhead itself is the union of souls. 3. Formation of soul depends upon the righteousness of deeds, and not on faith intercession or grace. It is both an individual and collective affair, and its collective side demonstrates the spiritual value of one's social conscience in relation to eternity. a. Owing to the fundamental importance of the social conscience, mysticism ceases to be the only channel to Godhead because an honest atheist walking on the road of social conscience reaches its natural destination, which is eternity. However, the path of mysticism is like the metalled highway embellished by evergreen fruit-bearing trees frequently punctuated with fountains of sweet water whereas the road that an atheist follows runs through a hot desert having a few oases only. This difference arises from the fact that a mystic is conscious of a definite goal which inspires him, whereas an honest atheist walks towards God without acknowledging Him. The former's find is purposeful and carries the reward of joy associated with a serious quest whereas the latter's discovery is accidental and lacks the delight of conscious effort.

4 Sincerity and love constitute the foundation of mysticism. Without these elements, mysticism is a word without meaning, a body without blood, a singer without voice, a dancer without feet, a bridegroom without desire. 5. Mysticism is the natural religion of mankind, and is free from the pollutions of race, colour and creed. 6. Mysticism is about looking into one's self in relation to others. 7. A mystic's love is not confined to the fellow-beings but extends beyond - to the natural environment. This is the principle that lies behind the "unity of origin". 8. Mysticism is as much concerned with man's unity of end as it is with his unity of origin. 9. Cynical philosophy and extreme austerity form no part of mysticism. On the contrary mysticism requires the fulfillment of all legitimate desires in a morally acceptable manner. 10. One's body is the greatest shrine, mystically; one must keep it in sound condition through reverence and care. Rules of mysticism The above points sum up the essence and form of mysticism. A mystic is not addicted to any particular appearance such as filthy looks, long hair, full beard, rosary, bangles, shepherd's crook, loose clothes, and so on. If this is how he wants to look, it is not due to any ostentation but humility. Equally, he may be cleanshaven, fragrant and smartly dressed. He is not a cynic, and possesses good hedonistic and aesthetic tastes but satisfies them with probity and restrained passion. Moral precepts such as not to kill, not to lie, not to seduce etc., are well known to him, and he practices them faithfully. However, what makes a man a mystic is his belief in the following rules which he practices with all the sincerity at his disposal. The rules have been known to mankind since its inception: 1. Love thy fellow-men without any regard to race, colour or creed. Do what you can to reduce their misery by way of financial or personal help, as your circumstances may permit. There is no virtue greater than philanthropy. 2. Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself. 3. Compare your today with your yesterday. Check yourself objectively why your today is not as good, or better than yesterday, and try to remedy the situation. 4. Stand up for your legitimate rights because neglect of rights leads to servitude. But make sure what you think legitimate is really legitimate. 5. Liberty is the greatest virtue because without it, free will, the cornerstone of humanity' cannot be exercised. Liberty is more than one's personal liberty; it means genuine respect for other people's liberty as well. 6. Give everybody his due, that is, give benefit of doubt; a person may be doing wrong because he is a religious fanatic, because he is depressed by circumstances, because he is ignorant of facts, because he has been instigated falsely, and so on. 7. Earn your loaf honestly and diligently, instead of robbing others. 8. Learn to relax. Too much hurry, too much greed, too much ostentation - in fact, too much of anything coupled with the burning desire to grab it instantaneously, is the source of mental and spiritual instability. If excessiveness of ambitions makes you unhappy, learn to be contented with what you have or set your goals in a way which does not disturb the relaxed posture of your mind. This is the secret of real happiness; do not barter it for the realisation of false dreams.

Take up a hobby which pleases you. Once it starts making a demand on your time, you will reduce your worrying activities to relax frequently. Hospitality is yet another virtue to conquer problems of hurry, worry and haste However, I shall describe it later. Search for a friend 9. Find a friend, especially outside your family circle. Better still, find someone outside your racial and social group. A friend is not the person whose wife you want to seduce or want to borrow money from or who can help you with your business or career. You befriend a person for his or her qualities. A good friend is the person who will stand by you in hour of need without being asked and without any expectation; he is someone whose chest is the graveyard of your secrets; he will neither molest you nor will he befriend your molesters. If you are lucky to find someone outside your own racial and social group, try to be like him instead of converting him. If he is below your rank, show him respect and kindness so that he can overcome his inferiority complex. Friends are always equal irrespective of what they look like, and disparity of wealth and social position. Friendship is the most beautiful but delicate thing and may not last without a great deal of mutual trust, care, understanding and tolerance. Sincerity is the keyword and love is its true embellishment. A boozing pal or a workmate is not a friend but an associate. True friendship means that you have conquered the barrier created by mistrust, intolerance and hatred, and laid a path founded on mutual good will. This is the way of the mystic. Friendship is not formal but intimate, relaxed and homely. You can never befriend a person who makes you feel uneasy. Friendship is a cure for loneliness and all its evils. Your friend is your spiritual part; he doubles your personality by reinforcing your sense of security with his loyal support and unfaltering goodwill. Friendship is a revolt against selfishness because it is a bond of mutual care. Friendship is forgiveness; if you are not capable of forgiving, then friendship is not for you. Learn to be content with yourself. Like all precious things, a true friend is hard to come by. Search for a friend is full of frustration; you will come across showboys, arrogants, misfits, cheats and hypocrites. However, the traveller who gives up the journey to his dreamland for fear of highwaymen or inclemencies of weather will never attain his goal, but the one who keeps marching towards his destination despite all the mishaps is likely to reach there. The search for a genuine friend is sweet, sacred and supreme. It is a symbol of love and sincerity which forms part of harmony leading to the formation of soul. If you are lucky enough to have a good friend, don't lose him through ignorance' misunderstanding or intolerance. Forgiveness is the cure for these infirmities. Do not let your false pride stand in the way. Giving is better than receiving in friendship, but a true friend does not expect anything in return nor is he ashamed of accepting a sincere gift, no matter how small, from a friend of tiny social stature. Hospitality Most of our psychosomatic worries and illnesses emanate from modern civilization which measures everything in terms of material benefits and does not appreciate spiritual values like friendship. Be hospitable and learn to relax in the company of your friends. When you invite them, do not be ostentatious. Offer them what you can by way of drink and food. Do not have large gatherings: your company must be confined to those who qualify as companions. It is wrong to offer hospitality to a friend, expecting him to invite you in return. A true friend remembers his obligations; he will invite you of his own free will, and not because he owes you a meal. Remember, every friend may not have the means to invite you back. Hospitality seeks no return, and if it does, then it is not hospitality. 10. Seek accord with nature. After all, man is a part of it. More accurately, the entire universe is a part of man's family; he has evolved from the same particles as rivers, lakes, streams, springs, forests, mountains, birds and animals. Being the most highly evolved, and thus, the

most exalted, he has a duty of care towards the natural environment. The nature is a mirror of his excellence; he must look at it more frequently through a genuine association. It cannot fail to inspire awe and self-reverence in man. A mystic tries to translate this awe and reverence through his character. Once he has done so, he is on his way to embrace Godhead. Meditation Finally, I must state that meditation is an integral part of mysticism; dietry discipline and rituals also play a part in the psychological satisfaction of a mystic as the white gown of a doctor and red robe of a judge influence patients and litigants. Description of such details has worried me all the time that I have been writing this book. I am in a big dilemma. If I specify the meditative details and rituals, then I am indirectly projecting myself as a god or guru. I am nothing of the sort; I am just an ordinary human who is not free of blame but trying to discharge his duty towards his fellow-beings. On the other hand, if I neglect this point completely, then I have left the conscientious reader in the lurch. This is especially true because, once upon a time, I did practice mysticism, and I know it works. Therefore, I shall say just a few words about this subject without pretending to be a messenger or messiah. Meditation is an ancient Indian practice and is common to both Hindus and Buddhists. Now it has been taken up by mystics of other religions such as suns of Islam. Instead of describing the aims and methods of other mystics, I shall give my own views: Meditation is the practice of the basic mystical principle: "look into thyself". Its purpose is to enable the seeker to seek himself through his self. Though this search is conducted by concentration on many media such as colour and light or other exercises, namely, the consciousness of infinity of space or unconsciousness of reality, the easier and more effective method is to concentrate on one's self and recite "Lord, Lord" or "God, God" to intensify one's concentration. Essence of meditation However, the most important point of recitation is, that "Lord, Lord" or "God, God" does not refer to the traditional God but to yourself as the future component of Godhead. It ought to make you conscious of your divine dignity which you must express through deeds in ordinary life. If you practice convenience or cookery in your routine affairs and make a show of piety during recitation, you are not meditating but indulging in hypocrisy which is the exact antithesis of mysticism. You will do well to discard it but if you think that you are improving gradually, keep doing it until virtuous aspect of your personality starts dominating your weaker side. I never found any solace in "breath control" or "discipline of postures". These exercises, in fact, benumb consciousness of yourself and impair your intellectual capacities whereas the purpose of meditation is to enhance your intuitive as well as rational powers so that you can knowingly attune yourself with the divine aspect of yourself. Therefore, ease of posture is essential because painful posture leads to distraction. The right posture for you is the one that makes you comfortable and helps you concentrate. It is for you to decide whether you want to meditate by sitting, standing or lying. Concentration and aids Though not always, concentration usually requires aids. Even when you concentrate on yourself, you may need an object. This is a paradox but there is no contradiction in it: Place a large mirror in front of you, assuming that you are sitting cross-legged or even on a chair. Put a burning candle behind you in an elevated position in such a way that it reflects itself into the mirror somewhere parallel to your nose. Concentrate on it reciting the "Lord, Lord" or "God, God" without forgetting that you are referring to your own divine dignity. Your concentration should be intense enough so that after some practice, the reflection of the candle disappears and you see your own reflection only. However, if you can't eliminate the flame, do this exercise without the candle, by concentrating just on your own reflection. Once you have mastered this art, you will find that your image disappears. This suits a practitioner of yoga who aims at unconsciousness of reality but not to someone like yourself who is trying to see himself through his self. Your image must always be there. To make sure that it is there, give your exercise a temporary break, and resume it after a short while. However, the most important

point is, that your image replaces the mirror itself, that is, though initially you look at yourself through your reflected image, eventually you must be able to call your image without the aid of a mirror. Thus you must become your own companionat-will to reinforce yourself. Under no circumstances must you forget your divinity during the recitation, and, expressing it through righteous deeds in everyday life. Otherwise, you are engaged in an exercise of self-deception. No drugs Again, your diet has a bearing on your physical and mental discipline. Eat and drink what you like, but do it with moderation, and occasionally, sparingly. Do not resort to drugs or get addicted to alcoholic drinks for securing ecstacy. These remarks equally apply to dancing or head-shaking. Devices such as these are meant to impair your intelligence to convert you into a "believer". Cleanliness and good dressing I certainly have no wish to prolong this discussion but must add that it gives a feeling of exhuberance to be thoroughly clean and well dressed when meditating. Use of flowers and fragrant surroundings enhances the zest of the experience. And it brings success much earlier if you put aside some money to give it to the less fortunate. It should accompany each meditation though you don't have to give it away immediately. Let it accumulate and then distribute it, say, once a month. Remember, the money you have set aside is no longer yours; it belongs to the sick and the needy. Give to the best of your ability. If you can't give money, set aside so much time to help the sick and the old. Frequency of meditation It is nice to meditate twice a day - once in the morning and once in the evening. If it is not possible, then do it once a day or every other day, and if it is still too much, do it at least once a week. If this is not possible, then meditation is not for you. The duration of meditation depends upon your power of concentration; it may last from one minute to an hour. If you can prolong it for ten minutes each session, you have done well. Remember, concentration means emptying your mind of everything except your object of meditation, that is, yourself. Also bear in mind that it takes several years before the meditative efforts bear fruit. A warning However, I must warn you about the supernatural tales that the so-called yogis and suns have invented. While in human body, all your abilities stay commensurate with your physical existence. You will not be able to perform miracles or forecast future events. These are the hobbies of impostors and tricksters. What you will get is an extraordinary understanding of life suffused with peace, calm and conciliation. No matter what your circumstances, you will find ripples of delightful serenity rising in you most of the time. You will feel lifted above the ordinary level of life where differences of race, colour and creed disappear. you will feel proud and fortunate that you are a human, free of scepticism and certain of the Final Truth. One thing you must not forget; this condition of the mind lasts only as long as you are really righteous. The moment you bid goodbye to sincerity you lose it. Believe me that this loss is a dreadful experience, it is like falling from a tall tree onto a bed of stiff, pointed thorns. Apology and repentance However, minor follies can be rectified through sincere apologies or voluntary compensation to the offended. Repentance, if genuine, should go a long way to retrieve your divine dignity but repentance is the medicine which usually works once only. If you commit sins habitually, hoping that repentance will eradicate their aftermath, you are simply fooling yourself. However, charity and hospitality being divine virtues, have an immense value. They may not restore the spiritual stature gained through meditation but a charitable and hospitable person is blessed in his own right. If you are a philanthropist, you will undoubtedly attain Godhead. And philanthropy is not restricted to financial deeds, it also means physical help. Meditation is the path for those who want to attune themselves with the Divine while still wearing the mantle of bones and flesh. For the man in the street, a fair conduct based on goodwill towards the fellow beings is enough provided the goodwill is active and not a show of words. It means, it matters not what a person's religion or opinions, he is likely to achieve Godhead if he has actively and consciously

contributed to the advancement of social order with a view to enhancing liberties and reducing pain, poverty and persecution. If he has suffered to promote this aim, his spiritual reward is sure to multiply beyond reckoning Curse of fundamentalism However, bigotry, orthodoxy and fundamentalism being anti-humanitarian in practice, constitute a heavy burden on conscience and act as a barrier to the formation of soul. These haters of mankind cannot attain Godhead which is the manifestation of love and harmony. To be human is the greatest honour that there is, but it is as vulnerable to fundamentalism as beauty is to age, flowers to frost and chastity to seduction.

POSTSCRIPT The reader is entitled to ask me: Who am I? and 2. Why have I written this book? 1. I am simply nobody. In fact, I am worse than many and better than none. Yet I have written this book which is didactic in essence and form. 2. Why? It is a long story. If I tell in detail, the reader may think that I am trying to join the league of gods and gurus through the backdoor. Of course, this thought gripped me for many years but I knew at heart that there is no truth in revelation, and it is wrong to proclaim one's superiority over one's fellow-beings by threatening them with hell and coaxing them with the fiction of heaven. It was a great temptation which lasted for several years. Despite many drawbacks I am glad to say that I had the good fortune of resisting this evil desire and it took a long struggle to conquer this passion. Even then, I thought I had no qualification to write such a complex book of universal concern. Treating myself the victim of my own fantasies, I decided not to think about the subject anymore. But I was wrong. I started having terrible nightmares, all related to this topic. It appeared to me that unless I wrote this book, I would eternally suffer from excruciating dreams. Yet at the same time, I questioned myself: "Why me? Why shouldn't someone better qualified undertake this project?". Then one day it dawned on me that as revelation is a falsehood, writing such a book is not the privilege of a Messiah or Messenger but the concern of an ordinary mortal like myself. It strengthened my belief that gods, gurus, messiahs and messengers are the cause of man's spiritual destruction because their claims to divinity have distracted him from the right path. As a result, human beings have fallen victims to the dominance urge of these self-appointed divines. Thus they are likely to face spiritual extinction, and stand no chance of eternity. This is what gave me the strength to write this book. The day I decided to do so, I stopped having nightmares. It is not my intention to offend anyone. However, I apologise to the believers of all shades. I shall be prepared to modify the contents of this book if they can show me that I have misquoted or misinterpreted their scriptures. Finally, I ought to add that I should have included a discussion on the relationship between the opposite sexes because their mutual attitudes exert an immense influence on social harmony. I, therefore, intend to publish my views on the subject, by the Autumn of 1991, under the title: SEXUAL CONFLICT. Anwar Shaikh, 1st June, 1990

GLOSSARY During the discussion on metaphysics, I could not find appropriate words to express certain thoughts. Again, I realised that some existing words did not help in conveying the intended purpose. Therefore, I had to extend their meaning in addition to coining a few new ones. SOUL: Metaphorically, it is the rebirth of a purified and elevated ego. In terms of physics, it represents the evolutionary process which turns particles into atoms, and atoms into cells. Soul is the apex of this sequence. Harmony is its chief trait which enables it to unite with other souls to create Godhead. SOULOSPHERE: I have defined mind as spiritual environment of the brain. The spiritual environment attains the dignity of soulosphere when, through a process of self-purification, it becomes capable of giving birth to a soul. It is akin to the physical phenomenon of geosphere changing into anthroposphere; the former refers to the solid part of the earth, e.g. rocks, etc., and the latter concerns the state that leads to the emergence of human life. SPIRITUON: It refers to the imaginary small particles that constitute the spiritual environment and rank as spiritual cells. In terms of spiritual existence, it is like the tiny bits called "gravitons" which make up gravity or the photons which constitute light. MAUI: Another name for God representing man's highest magnitude.

BIBLIOGRAPHY



THE CAMBRIDGE GUIDE TO THE MATERIAL WORLD - Rodney Cotterill Cambridge University Press, 1985.



COSMOS - Carl Sagan MacDonald, 1981.



THE DISCOVERY OF SUBATOMIC PARTICLES - Steven Weinberg Scientific American Library, 1983.



RELATIVITY FOR THE LAYMAN - James A. Coleman Penguin Books, 1959.



ATOMS OF SILENCE - Hubert Reeves The MIT Press, 1984.



THE CREATION OF MATTER - Harald Fritzsch Basic Books, 1984.



THE UNIVERSE, Its Beginning and End - Lloyd Motz Abacus, 1976.



A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - Stephen W. Hawking Bantam Press, 1988.



ASTRONOMY FOR BEGINNERS - Henry Brinton Pelham Books, 1970.



THE UNIVERSE - Ian Nicolson and Patrick Moore Collins, 1985.



A MODERN APPROACH TO BIOLOGY - M. T. Cooper Intertext Books, 1968.



GENES, DREAMS AND REALITIES - MacFarlane Burnet Penguin Books, 1973.



THE GROWTH OF PLANTS - G. E. Fogg Penguin Books, 1970.



PLANT VARIATION AND EVOLUTION - D. Briggs and S. M. Walters Weindenfeld Nicolson, 1969.



LIFE ON EARTH - David Attenborough Fontana/Collins, 1981.



THE LIVING PLANET - David Attenborough Collins, 1984.



EVOLUTION AS A RELIGION - Mary Midgley Methuen, London, 1985.



IN THE NAME OF EUGENICS - Daniel J. Kevles Penguin Books, 1983.



THE TRANSFORMING PRINCIPLE - MacLyn McCarthy Penguin Books, 1985.



RESHAPING LIFE - G. J. V. Nossal Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1985.



GAIA- J. E. Lovelock Oxford University Press, 1979.



THE EVOLUTION OF CLIMATE AND LIFE - Stephen H. Schneider and Randi Londer Sierra Club Books, 1984.



THE CHEMICAL EVOLUTION OF THE ATMOSPHERE AND OCEANS Heinrich D. Holland Princeton University Press, 1984.



THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS - Verne Grant Columbia University Press, 1985.



A GUIDED TOUR OF THE LIVING CELL - Christian de Duve Scientific American Books, 1984.



THE HIDDEN SPRINGS An Enquiry into Extra-sensory Perception Renee Haynes Radius Books/Hutchinson, 1973.



INTRODUCING PSYCHOLOGY - An Experimental Approach - D. S. Wright, Ann Taylor, D. R. Davies, W. Sluckin, S. G. M. Lee and J. T. Reason Penguin Books, 1970.



PSYCHOLOGY The Science of Mental Life - George A. Miller Penguin Books, 1967.



THE GROWTH OF PERSONALITY from Infancy to Old Age - Gordon R. Lowe Penguin Books, 1972.



THE GROWTH OF SOCIABILITY - H. R. Schaffer Penguin Books, 1971.



FREUD and the POST-FREUDIANS - J. A. C. Brown Penguin Books, 1966.



PSYCHOLOGY AND RELIGION - edited by L. B. Brown Penguin Education, 1973.



MEMORY - Ian M. L. Hunter Penguin Books, 1957.



KARL MARX - Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy Edited by Bottomore and Rubel Penguin Books, 1965.



HEREDITY AND ACHIEVEMENT Edited by Daniel N. Robinson Oxford University Press, 1970.



INTRODUCING SOCIOLOGY Peter Worsley (and Contributors) 1970.



SUPERSENSE - Perception in the Animal World - John Downer B.B.C. Books, 1988.



LIFE, DEATH AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH Edited by Canon J. D. Pearce-Higgins and Rev. G. Stanley Whitby.

 

CREATIVITY Edited by P. E. Vernon Penguin Books, 1970.



THE MIND'S NEW SCIENCE - Howard Gardner Basic books, 1973.



THE HUMAN BRAIN - Dick Gilling and Robin Brightwell



THE MIND MACHINE - Colin Blakemore B.B.C. Books, 1988.



JOHN STUART MILL ON POLITICS AND SOCIETY Edited by Geraint L. Williams The Harvester Press, 1976.



THE EXPLANATION OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR - R. Harre and P. F. Secord Basil Blackwell, 1972.



A HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Peter T. Manicas Basil Blackwell, 1987.



THE RESTRUCTURING OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THEORY - Richard J. Bernstein Methuen and Co. 1976.



THE POSSIBILITY OF NATURALISM - Roy Bhaskar The Harvester Press, 1979.



SOCIAL RULES AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR - Edited by Petter Collet Basil Blackwell, 1977.



DIALOGUES AND DEBATES IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Edited by Jeannette Murphy, Mar John and Hedy Brown Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984.



THEORY AND REALITY - The Development of Social Systems translated by Jane Cave Allison and Busby, 1981.



SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY - Martin Rein Penguin Books, 1976.



HOLISTIC THOUGHT IN SOCIAL SCIENCE - D. C. Phillips The MacMillan, 1977.



THE JEW IN THE MODERN WORLD A Documentary History - Edited by Paul R. mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz Oxford University Press, 1980.



A HISTORY OF ANCIENT ISRAEL AND JUDAH - J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1986.



THE HISTORY AND RELIGION OF ISRAEL - G. W. Anderson Oxford University Press, 1966.



A HISTORY OF ISRAEL - Rinna Samuel Weindenfeld and Nicolson, 1989.



THE SIEGE: THE SAGA OF ISRAEL AND ZIONISM - Conor Cruise O'Brien Weindenfeld and Nicolson, 1986.



THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM - Joan Comay Weindenfeld and Nicolson, 1975.



WHOSE JERUSALEM? - Terence Prittie Frederick Muller Ltd., 1981.



THE MAKING OF MODERN ZIONISM - Shlomo Avineri Weindenfeld and Nicolson (London), 1981.



PALESTINIAN SELF-DETERMINATION - Hassan bin Talal, The Crown Prince of Jordan Quartet Books, 1981.



CHILDREN OF BETHANY The Story of a Palestinian Family - Said K. Abruish I. B. Tauris and Co. Ltd., 1988.



CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF IRAN (Volume 4) (From the Aryan Invasion to the Saljuqs) Edited by R. N. Frye Cambridge University Press, 1975.



PERSIAN, BRIDGE OF TURQUOISE - Roloff Beyn Thames and Hudson, 1975.



HISTORY OF THE OTTOMON EMPIRE AND MODERN TURKEY - Stanford J. Shaw (2 volumes) Cambridge University Press, 1976.



SULEIMAN, THE MAGNIFICIENT - Scourage of Heaven - Antony Bridge Granada Publishing, 1983.



THE OTTOMON IMPACT ON EUROPE - Paul Coles Thames and Hudson, 1968.



THE BEDOUIN - Shirley Kay Crane, Russak and Co., 1978.



THE CAMBRIDGE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA Executive Editor Trevor Mostyn Cambridge University Press, 1988.



ONE WORLD - The interaction of science and theology - John Polkinghorne SPCK, 1986.



THEMES IN THEOLOGY - Donald M. MacKinnon Clark, 1987.



THE HOLY BLOOD AND THE HOLY GRAIL - Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. Jonathan Cape, 1982.



OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY - Edited by R. E. Clements Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1978.



THE AGE OF THE CRUSADES - P. M. Holt Longman, 1986.



THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION - The Age of Faith - Will Durant (4 volumes) Simon and Schuster, 1950.



ISLAM (2 volumes) - Edited and translated by Bernard Lewis Harper and Row, 1974.



THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF ISLAM (4 volumes) - Edited by P. M. Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton and Bernard Lewis Cambridge University Press, 1970.



HISTORY OF THE ISLAMIC PEOPLES - Edited by Carl Brockelmann Routledge and Kegan Paul (translation) 1948.



MILITANT ISLAM - G. H. Jansen Pan Books, 1979.



MEDIEVAL ISLAM - Dominique Sourdel Routledge and Kegan Paul (translation), 1983.



ISLAMIC CIVILISATION - Edited by R. M. Savory Cambridge University Press, 1976.



CHRIST AND THE BIBLE - John W. Wenham Basker Book House, 1984.



SCIENCE AND THE CHRISTIAN EXPERIMENT - A. R. Peacocke Oxford University Press, 1971.



UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE - R. W. Scott Fletcher and Son, 1972.



UNDER GOD'S WORD - Jim Packer Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1980.



CHRISTIANITY AS MYSTICAL FACT and the Mysteries of Antiquity - Rudolf Steiner Rudolf Steiner Press (translation), 1972.



PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY Its Background History - Karl Barth SCM Press, 1972.



FUNDAMENTALISM - James Barr SCM Press, 1977.



THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE - Edited by Robin Keeley Lion Publishing, 1988.



THE BIBLE AS HISTORY - Werner Keller Book Club Association, London, 1974.



A HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT - Eric Roll Faber and Faber, 1978.



ESSAYS ON JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES - Edited by Milo Keynes Cambridge University Press, 1975.



JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES - Hyman P. Minsky



ADAM SMITH'S SOCIOLOGICAL ECONOMICS - David A. Reisman Croom Helm, 1976.



THE LEGACY OF RICARDO - Edited by Giovanni A. Caravale Basil Blackwell, 1985.



A REAPPRAISAL OF WELFARE ECONOMICS - S. K. Nath Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.



THE AFFWENT SOCIETY - John Kenneth Galbraith Andre Deutsch, 1977.



LAND AND PEOPLE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY WALES - David Howell Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977. The MacMillan Press, 1976.



WELFARE ECONOMICS - Yew-Kwng Ng MacMillan Press, 1979.



CAPITAL - Karl Marx (3 volumes) translated by I. Lasker



A BOOK OF MYTHS - Roger Lancelyn Green Dent and Sons Ltd., 1973.



A DICTIONARY OF WORLD MYTHOLOGY - Arthur Cotterell Oxford University Press, 1986.



LAND OF ZEUS - Stephanie Dorwick NEL, 1974.



GREEK ISLAND MYTHOLOGY - Stephanie Dorwick NEL, 1974.



PRIMAL MYTHS - Barbara C. Sproul Rider and Co., 1979.



GREEK MYTHS - Robert Graves Cassell 1 9RI



ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF WORLD MYTHOLOGY - Rex Warner Octopus Books, 1975.



MIRACLES - Geoffrey Ashe Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978.



SAINTS AND THEIR CULTS - Edited by Stephen Wilson Cambridge University Press, 1983.



THE HIGHEST ALTAR - Patrick Tierney Bloomsbury Publishing, 1989.