04 Oct 2016
Shri Anil asked: In the recent book on Your miracles, I found that You controlled the situation in the function of foundation stone for temple at Ayodhya. Similarly, why don’t You control the India-Pakistan Issue?
Swami Replied: First, you should realise the meaning of the word ‘You’ expressed in your question. The meaning of the word ‘You’ in your question is God Datta and not this human form called Swami which is medium. Of course, Datta merged with Swami and hence, Swami is treated as Datta. In this way, you should realise the actual meaning of the word ‘You’ used in your question. When God asked Jesus that whether he has spoken anything of his own, Jesus replied God that whatever God spoke through him that alone was expressed by him.
You may think that since I am Hindu, I supported the foundation of the temple. God has no specific religion. Every soul is equal with any other soul in His view. All religions are ways leading to Him only. Let us understand this case in view of Pravrutti or justice of the case. Muslims of old generation destroyed the temple and built Mosque on it. There are several Mosques in India built on free areas of the earth. No Hindu is touching such Mosque. Even that Mosque is condemned and no Muslim is praying in it. Hindus also assured Muslims that a Mosque will be built near the temple. This suggestion is justified. On the side of Hindus also there are certain faults: 1) the older generation of Muslims might have destroyed the temple where as the present generation of Muslims is not involved in such activity. Why should you hurt the present Muslims for the mistake done by their forefathers? 2) In the city of Ayodhya, how can you prove that Rama was born exactly in that place only? Birth of Rama took in Tretaa yuga, which has ended followed by Dvaapara yuga and that also ended. Between two yugas, the earth also undergoes destruction. Correct place can never be found out. You can build the temple of Rama anywhere at Ayodhya without hurting the present Muslims. 3) If you see the story of Taanisha and Rama Das, Taanisha, a Muslim king, became so much devoted to Rama that the successors of his family also continuously sent pearls for the marriage-function of Rama! Does this not show that Islam and Hinduism are one and the same and that God is beyond both? Rama gave His vision to a Muslim (Taanisha), but, not to His intensive Hindu devotee (Ramadas). Is this not a proof that God sees the character only and not the religion? You must read My message on Ramadas to understand that Ramadas was not correct in following the justice.
On that day, Rama or Datta controlled the situation there for the sake of peace only and not to support any religion. However, one may feel that Rama is Hindu God and hence Datta, the Hindu God, also protected that function. If one is so much insisting on that point, let Me answer it. I put a question to a Muslim in the following way: Let us imagine that in some past generation, Hindus went to Makkah, destroyed the Mosque there and built a temple on it. The present situation in Ayodhya is exactly the same by replacing Hindus by Muslims and vice-versa. This reversed scene can be also imagined for the sake of discussion to arrive at justice. In this imagined situation, let us imagine again that the Muslims are now destroying the temple to build a Mosque there. In this case, the justice is on the side of Muslims. If I put the question to Muslim “Is this not justified?”, he will certainly say “Yes. This is justified because temple was built on our Mosque”. In the case of Hindus, at Ayodhya, justice is on the side of Hindus in similar way. Do you find fault with Allah in protecting the Muslims in the above imagined situation at Makkah and Rama in protecting Hindus at Ayodhya in above real situation? Faulty person of any religion shall be punished by God in the above situations.
1)Those Hindus of old generation, who destroyed Mosque and built temple on it at Makkah shall be punished by Rama in the hell (imagined situation, not really happened) and 2) Those Muslims of old generation, who destroyed temple and built Mosque on it at Ayodhya shall be punished by Allah in the hell (real situation). At the same time, Hindus of present generation in the first hypothetical situation and Muslims of present generation in the second real situation should not be hurt at all since both present generations are not sinners. Hence, in both the situations, mutual consultations and discussions on the justice should be done and any action should be taken without hurting any non-sinner in both the situations. Controlling the situation is different and blindly favouring a religion is different. Datta controlled the situation and by this He did not favour any religion because Datta is Allah and Rama is Mohammad, who always fought for justice and peace in this world.
As I put the above hypothetical question to a Muslim, I am asking a Christian another hypothetical question, which is “Jesus performed several miracles, could He not perform a miracle by which He could have avoided His crucifixion?” In fact, this question was put by the ignorant soldiers after crucifixion.
Knowledge Can’t Be Received By Hard Minds Due to Intense Ignorance
The answer of this question shall be the answer of Rama (Datta) to your above question. In order to understand Rama’s intention in not controlling India-Pakistan issue, we must understand the intention of Jesus in not avoiding His crucifixion. Jesus performed several miracles in a specific angle, which is to attract the ignorant people first by miracles and then preach spiritual knowledge to protect Pravrutti (balance of society). The miracles were a must, in His case, because almost all the public was in the climax level of ignorance. Ignorant people will never pay attention to preaching unless significant miracles are exhibited. Scholars can receive preaching even in the absence of miracles. In fact, top most scholars even neglect miracles giving top most importance to spiritual knowledge only. Even though Shankara entered the house through bolted doors through miraculous power, Mandana Mishra neglected it and respected Shankara only after seeing His exceptional spiritual knowledge. Hence, miracles of Jesus in that time for those ordinary people were quite justified. All these miracles were performed by the Divine Father only and not by Jesus as Mary’s son. Since Divine Father as Holy Spirit merged with Jesus, Jesus can be taken as Son of God totally representing the Divine Father. It is very important to see which angle is taken by you when you take the name of Jesus. Hence, Jesus as son of God performed all the miracles, which means that all the miracles were performed by Divine Father only. Therefore, avoiding crucifixion was the intention of Jesus as son of God (or the Divine Father Himself) and the last prayer done by Jesus as Mary’s son was only to avoid the crucifixion proposed by the Divine Father or God.
Then, what is the intention of the Divine Father (or Son of God) in implementing the crucifixion? Knowledge alone can reform the soul permanently because it alone can convince the inner consciousness in free atmosphere unlike the punishment bringing temporary reformation by the pressure of force. Knowledge can’t be received by the minds, which are hard, due to intense ignorance. God wanted to create kindness in such hearts so that the minds become soft to receive the knowledge. The crucifixion of Jesus alone can kindle kindness in their hearts. If the people are not reformed by knowledge, the crimes of crucifixion of good preachers will continue forever even if the single crucifixion of Jesus was avoided. Based on this fundamental reason only, the crucifixion of Jesus was not avoided using miracle.
Similarly, to stop these unnecessary quarrels between religions, it is not sufficient if the India-Pakistan issue alone is solved by the miraculous power of God. The point is not controlling an issue. The important point is to rectify the basis by which all such issues arise. If a single issue is avoided, that can’t give assurance that all similar issues can be avoided in future. Therefore here, the basic background is diversity of religions. If all these worldly religions are unified through philosophy, all such inter-religious-splits can be controlled. Already, such programme is started by Datta in the name of Universal Religion as central Government of India and one’s own ancestral religion can be followed strictly by anybody like a person of a state following the rules of that State Government. There is no conflict between Universal Religion (Central Government) and any present religion (State Government) since both are mutually inclusive and not contradicting each other. Any present worldly religion can lead any soul to God and thus every religion should be equally respected even though a specific religion is followed. Every devotee of every Worldly Religion (state) shall simultaneously come under the Universal Religion (centre) so that no devotee of any specific religion will insult other religions. This programme alone will remove the inter-religious splits and will bring world peace.
When the Universal Religion is established, Hinduism and Islam become one and the same in the essence like the same milk existing in two cups made of different metals. Difference is only in the container, but, not in the content present in the containers. On such day, neither India nor Pakistan is interested to get Kashmir. Each Government will try to escape from the responsibility of maintaining the extra state. On such day, Kashmir becomes only a responsibility and not benefit. After all, the income of Kashmir should be spent on the development of Kashmir only and not for the benefit of any Central Government. When such detachment to money comes, how does it matter for Kashmir to be in India or Pakistan? Since corruption for money is ruling the present time, both India and Pakistan are interested to swallow the income of Kashmir without allotting the same to the state. Hence, the spiritual knowledge of Datta is essential for the present world, which brings the concepts of Universal Religion and reduction of the intensity of the bond with money.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★