Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reincarnation: Reality or Myth?

Reincarnation: Reality or Myth?

Ratings: (0)|Views: 15 |Likes:
Published by Mushafiq Sultan
The theory of Re-incarnation of souls, also known as the cycle of birth and death, is very central to Hindu philosophy. To a common Muslim this is a new idea which he/she has not previously encountered. We may not accept it, but we cannot cavil at the logic of it; more especially as it is born from the same causes which, in Muslim theology, give rise to the concept of Hell and Paradise.
The theory of Re-incarnation of souls, also known as the cycle of birth and death, is very central to Hindu philosophy. To a common Muslim this is a new idea which he/she has not previously encountered. We may not accept it, but we cannot cavil at the logic of it; more especially as it is born from the same causes which, in Muslim theology, give rise to the concept of Hell and Paradise.

More info:

Published by: Mushafiq Sultan on May 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Reincarnation: Reality or Myth?
WRITTEN BY MUSHAFIQ SULTANThe theory of Re-incarnation of souls, also known as the cycle of birth and death, is verycentral to Hindu philosophy. To a common Muslim this is a new idea which he/she has notpreviously encountered. We may not accept it, but we cannot cavil at the logic of it; moreespecially as it is born from the same causes which, in Muslim theology, give rise to theconcept of Hell and Paradise.If life on earth is a life of preparation in which we have to attain certain qualificationsessential for our entry into Paradise (
 Brahma Lok 
in the words of Shri Krishna), will it not benecessary, so would argue a Hindu divine, for us to return to earthly life again, if we have leftit without acquiring the necessary perfection? We had to attain certain experiences notavailable in the next world; we left this world without doing so and consequently we do needto come back to it again. This logic is not bad and the reasoning is quite plausible; but they donot coincide with what we observe in the universe.For example, a fruit may leave a tree in defective condition. It need not go back into thebranch of the tree it came from, to make up its deficiencies. The food we eat everyday willeventually take the form of a sperm and ovum, which will convert itself into the human shapeof a child. The sperm has to pass through many stages before it reaches that stage. Things notproperly cooked are sometimes taken in by us; they cause pains in the stomach, but thetrouble is removed by medical treatment. The food is not sent back from stomach to thekitchen to be cooked again. We take medicine to help digestion, and enable the food to passthrough the regions where it is made into blood. Sometimes, when, through the function of the stomach or through the function of a diseased liver, we produce poor blood, we seek aremedy in medicine, but no drop of that poor blood is allowed to return to the liver or thestomach for the purpose of rectification.If therefore, this rule be universal in Nature, that the thing which has failed to attain therequisite state of perfection in one state of being is passed into the state of being next highest,where its deficiencies are corrected; and if such a system be more expedient and moreconducive to the rapidity of the real progress then I fail to find any reason for subscribing tothe theory of re-incarnation or transmigration of the soul.
Closely linked to this theory is the doctrine of Karma (actions). The two, in fact, are one andthe same theory, representing different aspects of the same doctrine. The doctrine of Karmatakes for its genesis the diversity of circumstances in which people find themselves at theirbirth, from causes beyond their control. Some are born in affluence, poverty and indigence;some are born into the world with bodily defects, while others are blessed with bodilyperfection; and this disparity, producing arbitrarily, comfort and discomfort, happiness andmisery does seem a strange blot on the Divine Providence.The theory of Karma, in Hindu theology, thus explains this seeming incongruity in the Divinedispensation. According to this theory, all that we receive at our birth in the form of happiness or misery, and all the differences in social status that come into our being at birth
are the outcome of our deeds in the life before the present life. We take birth after birth tocomplete our course on this earth, and what we sow in the one; we must reap in the next. Noone would question the logic of the view that human society works on the Laws of Actions.That actions must bear their fruit is the basic principle of every other religion, except PaulineChristianity. Differences in social position, in many cases, undoubtedly arise from our ownactions. We are the creators of our own comfort and misery.According to this philosophy, inferiority of a person to a second person in the social scale isdue some of his sins in his bygone life. However, differences in occupation and employmentare the motive power of social machinery. We must serve each other in a wide variety of differing capacities, if adequate contribution is to be made to the common comfort. If,however, difference of this kind is attributed to some past sin, then comfort and progressmust demand the existence of evil. Men of one generation must necessarily commit sin sothat, in the next, they may be reborn in the lower for the purpose of contributing to thehappiness of the upper social stratum. What kind of philosophy is that considers sin andmisdeeds essential to maintain and sustain the cycle of life. It is absurd on the very face of it.The process of procreation demands difference of sex. You may ascribe your presentdifference from another man to some cause in your previous life, but where were the actionswhich caused difference of sex in the first pair, whence our species has its being?
If all our present means of happiness are given to us as a reward for past actions, how are weto explain the happiness which comes to us providentially? Much of our happiness is derivedfrom the varied manifestations of Nature, like the Sun, the Moon, the Earth and all that itprovides; and the proportion of happiness that we acquire through our actions depends too,upon the working out, by us, of sources of Nature which were in existence long before mancame on the Earth. How can all this be the reward of our past actions? We cannot livewithout the pre-existence of millions of things in the universe; they all add to our happiness.They all come as beneficence of God, and not in reward of actions. Divine Providence, asexhibited in Nature, makes Divine Blessing, which is the main store of our happiness, a pre-existing thing; while the theory of Karma makes our actions to pre-exist the Divine Blessing,which is absurd on the face of it.If all our happiness has to arise from our actions, our happiness would be next to nothing.What comes out of our actions in the shape of happiness sinks into insignificance whencompared with what we get as Divine Blessings. If we get everything due to the actions of our past life, then we need not be grateful to God anymore. As you can see, this is a blot onthe Beneficence of God.
If our actions receive their birth and mould from our beliefs, we should not entertain anytenet or doctrine which tends to ruin our sense of responsibility, and to create in us oral ormental imbecility. Fatalism, in the received sense of the word, was condemned by Islam forthis very reason. Vicarious Atonement in Christianity is another condemnable belief. If another has to bear the burden my burden, incentive for action, on my part, is lost. Similarly,we strive hard to alleviate our misery, because we believe that it is possible to alleviate it; butwhen we find that our trouble is absolutely without remedy, our zeal is gone, for what is theuse of trying in such a case? Our misery, under the theory of Karma has come to us as the
fruit of some past actions. It cannot be undone, and all our efforts to undo it will be in vain. Icommitted some wrong in a previous life, I must suffer for its consequences in the presentlife, and all my efforts to be free from it are simply to give the lie to that theory. If 'A' is downwill cholera which he has got on account of some past wrong, it hardly befit him to seek medical relief if he subscribes to the principle of Karma. The theory thus makes man a fatalistand thereby impedes human progress.Pain in this life, they say, is the penalty of past actions. If persecution and want of comfortmay come within the category of pain, no progress in human society has, till now, beenachieved with them as the famous proverb goes, "No gains without pains". The world hasseen its best benefactors in the persons of prophets, reformers and philosophers, but,unfortunately, there are the persons who have always been subjected to every kind of persecution. Similarly all scientific discoveries, to which we owe so much of our comfort andhappiness, are fruits of pain and hardship. Should we believe that all these great teachers andinventors were wicked men and sinners in the past life, because they have been for the mostpart persecuted people and leading the most painful lives?No one gets happiness without some pain and according to this theory; pain is the penalty of sin. Evil therefore becomes essential for enjoying happiness in the life to come. Such a theorycannot give birth to high character. If 'A' receives some injury from 'B', it is, as a Hinduwould say, to make up for some injury received by 'B' from 'A' in his previous birth. Thus,offence becomes a justification in the eye of a culprit, if he believes in the philosophy of Karma. I need not be thankful to my benefactors, because, I receive from them only what Igave to them in charity in the past life. The more I think upon this subject; keeping in view allthe consequences to which such beliefs much logically lead, the more I am strengthened inmy conviction that this philosophy is most unfavourable to our moral growth.The explanation given by our Holy Quran of the misery around us, and of the socialdifferences which we have been discussing, appeals to me more, as it strengthens my sense of responsibility. Parents are more interested in their children than in their own selves. thewelfare of the family often keeps its members away from such misdeeds as are sometimesunscrupulously committed by those who lead single lives.If the consequences of every action I do be shared by my own children, I shall make myactions more steady and righteous. But if I alone have to reap what I sow, despair ortemptation may, sometimes, lead me to extremes. Belief, therefore, that children born withbodily defects, owe their misfortune to paternity, which sometimes may come to them fromthree or four generations back, will generally prove a more efficacious check to intemperateactions, than the belief that the children are themselves responsible for their physicaldeficiencies. A person may not care much for the evil consequences of his actions if they areto be confined to him; but his care to see his family happy may reform him.
The whole difficulty is one of misconception; or rather to conceive adequately of pain, or of pleasure, or of the real object and purpose of this our earthly pilgrimage; for what is pain toone is pleasure to another, who is to decide whether prince or peasant sleeps sounder in thenights or whether the millionaire or the bricklayer has the just perception of the end of life?The sublimation of our consciousness is the main purpose of our sojourn on earth; riches andpoverty are both helpful and harmful to this end; helpful to one and harmful to another; a

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->