Summary
In this section, the reality of the Hereafter is studied from the scientific point of view. Religion postulates that after death, human beings will leave this present, ephemeral world, and, on the Day of Judgment, will enter another world, which will be eternal. The present world is but a place of trial, where man, throughout his short stay, is on probation at every moment. When the time comes for the Last Reckoning, God will destroy this world and replace it with another world, created on an entirely different pattern. All human beings will then be resurrected and brought before the Almighty to be judged according to their deeds on this earth.
To understand this matter scientifically, let us first define what scientific proof is. When something is said to have been proven scientifically, it only means that its probability has been established, not that it has been proven to any degree of absolute certainty. Scientific concepts that are presented as established facts are generally accepted only because their probability has been established, and not because there is any absolutely certain knowledge about them that has been obtained as a result of observation. An example of this is the acceptance of the structure of the atom. If we accept the scientific argument in the matter of material entities such as the atom, we cannot refuse to apply the same argument to the case of the world of the Hereafter as well. If we apply the scientific method to the case of the world of the Hereafter, we can certainly arrive at an understanding of its probability. And, as we know, probability is another word for certainty as per the scientific method.
The greatest proof of the life hereafter is our present life, in which we must obviously believe, even if we do not accept that there is an afterlife. We should accept that if life is possible on one occasion, it is perfectly possible for it to come into existence a second time. There would be nothing very strange about the recurrence of our present experience of life. It is irrational to admit to a present occurrence of life and at the same time reject the probability of its recurrence in the future.
The advent of the life hereafter assumes a high degree of credibility when we find, astonishingly, that the actions of every human being are being instantaneously recorded at all times. The human personality manifests itself in three ways: thoughts, words and actions. All three manifestations are being preserved in their entirety, being imprinted on a cosmic screen in such a manner as to make their precise reproduction an instant possibility. In the Hereafter, every detail of one’s life on Earth will be revealed, when the record of all our thoughts, words and actions will be presented before God to show who opted for the path of God and who opted to follow Satan, who drew their inspiration from the angels and who trod the ways of evil. This makes the life hereafter vital to the establishment of a just and equitable order. The life hereafter then becomes the greatest and most universal of all truths. When one seriously considers the fact that one will be made to stand before God Almighty on the Day of Reckoning, and that God, having kept a watch over everyone, will sit in judgment then, one will become firm in one’s resolve to perform only good and right actions and to eschew all evil, in order to win God’s pleasure.
Man, by his very nature, desires a perfect world in fulfillment of his desires where he can live eternally. Paradise is the ultimate answer to this human quest. It is a vast, zero-defect, evil-free eternal universe, complete in itself. Paradise is the answer to all these problems. The concept of Paradise shows that man will find a place in the Hereafter where his desires will be fulfilled if he shows himself deserving of inhabiting it through the record of his life on Earth.
This scientific analysis of the Hereafter and Paradise leads one to accept them as religious truths.
One of the most important tenets of religion is the reality of the life hereafter. After death, human beings will leave this present ephemeral world, and, on the Day of Judgement, will enter another world, which will be eternal. The present world is but a place of trial where man, throughout his entire life span, is on probation. When the time has come for the Last Reckoning, God will destroy this world and replace it by another world created on an entirely different pattern. All human beings will then be resurrected and will be brought before the Almighty to be judged: it is then that they shall be rewarded, or punished, according to the merits and demerits of their deeds on this earth.
We shall now examine this concept from different standpoints and determine whether it is right or wrong to believe in this probability.
Probability
The question that first arises concerns the possible advent of an after-life in the present system of the universe. Do any events or indications substantiate our view?
The first thing that this concept of the other world presupposes is that man and the universe, in their present form, are not eternal. From the entire array of human knowledge up to the present, this fact stands out as indisputable. We all know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that for both man and the universe, death is an inescapable fate.
The greatest desire of those who do not believe in the other world is to convert this world into a heaven of eternal bliss. Research into the cause, or causes, of death have even been carried out so that it could be forestalled and prevented, thus rendering human beings immortal. But the failure of such research has been abysmal, and, with each unsuccessful attempt, it has been borne in more and more upon researchers just how ineluctable death is.
Why does death occur? About two hundred explanations have been put forward as to its causes. Organic decay in the body; the exhaustion of constituents; the atrophying of veins; the replacement of dynamic albumens by less dynamic ones; the wearing out of the tissues; the secretion of poison by intestinal bacteria, which is spread throughout the body, and so on.
The concept of bodily decay would appear to be correct. Machines, shoes, garments and all such material things do wear out with the passage of time. There is, ostensibly, the possibility of our body wearing out too, sooner or later, just as a garment does. But science only partially supports this view of bodily decay, for the human body is very different from a garment, a machine or a piece of rock. It should be likened, rather to, a river which has been flowing for thousands and thousands of years and continues to flow in the same fashion even today. Can we really say that a river becomes old or stagnates? An American chemist, Dr. Carl Linus Pauling (b. 1901), recipient of two Noble Prizes, one of Chemistry in 1954 and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962, has pointed out that, theoretically man is cast to a great extent in an eternal mould, cells in the human body being just like machines which automatically remove their own defects. In spite of this, man does grow old, and he does die.
But let us leave death for a moment and look at life. Our bodies are constantly undergoing a process of renewal. Molecules of albumen present within our cells are continually being produced, destroyed and reproduced. Cells too (except the nerve cells) are regularly destroyed and replaced by newly formed cells. It has been estimated that the blood in a human body is fully renewed within the short span of about four months. And, within a few years, all of the atoms in a human body are totally replaced. It shows that man is more like a river than a mere structure of flesh and bones. In short, the human body is constantly undergoing a process of change. This being so, all concepts of the body becoming old and worn-out are seen to have no basis in fact. Consider that in the normal course of events, the indirect causes of death, such as injury, various types of deficiencies, the clogging of arteries and the wasting away of muscle, tissue etc., are generally dealt with, bit by bit by the body’s own processes, (sometimes with the help of medical treatment) but, in any case are eliminated in the course of time, without either singly or jointly having caused the onset of death. It is normally much later in life that death occurs. How then can these injuries, deficiencies, etc., be held responsible for the death of the body? This would appear to imply that the cause of death does not lie in the intestines, veins or heart, but somewhere else.
Another explanation has it that nerve cells are the cause of death because they remain unchanged throughout life and are never replaced. The number of nerve cells in a human body thus decline year after year, thereby weakening the nervous system as a whole. If it is correct to say that the nervous system is the Achilles’ heel of the human body, it should conversely, be correct to say that a body having no nervous system at all should be able to survive for the longest period of time.
But observation does not support this view. A tree, which is devoid of a nervous system does survive much longer than a man, and in fact, survives the longest of all forms of plant-life. But wheat, which likewise, has no nervous system, survives for only one year. And the amoeba, with a minute nervous system, survives for only half an hour. These examples would appear to imply the reverse—that is, animals belonging to the higher species, with perfect nervous systems, should live longer. But that is not the case either. Creatures relatively lower down the evolutionary scale, like crocodiles, turtles and fishes, are the ones who survive the longest.
All the investigations so far carried out with the objective of showing that death need not be a certainty have met with total failure. The fact still remains that, one-day, all human beings will have to die. There is no avoiding death. Dr. Alexis Carrel, a French Nobel prize-winner, who has done advanced research in tissue culture, has discussed this problem at length under the heading of Inward Time.
Man will never tire of seeking immortality. He will not attain it, because he is bound by certain laws of his organic constitution. He may succeed in retarding, perhaps even in reversing in some measure, the inexorable advance of physiological time. Never will he vanquish death.1
Anomalies in the organisation of the present set-up of the universe, which periodically result in minor calamities, are indicative of what is going to happen a on large scale, at some time in the future.
The earthquake is the terrestrial phenomenon which most obviously forewarns us of the possible advent of Doomsday. The interior of the earth is, in fact, composed of red-hot semi-molten magma, which is ejected periodically through volcanic activity in the form of lava. Sometimes strong vibrations of the earth’s crust can also be felt. These are produced by the shrinking of the globe due to the cooling process which has been going on for aeons. From time to time, the wrinkling of the earth’s surface assumes gigantic proportions and the resulting earthquakes are like a unilateral attack of nature upon man in which nature definitely has the upper hand. ‘When we remember that only a thin, rocky crust, comparable to the skin of an apple, separates us from the red-hot, semi-molten interior of our planet, we do not wonder that the inhabitants of its surface are so often reminded of the “physical hell” lying below the peaceful woodlands and blue seas.’2
Such earthquakes occur almost every day in varying degrees of intensity, some regions being more prone to earthquakes than others. The earthquakes which struck Shensi, a district in China, is the oldest of the highly destructive earthquakes recorded in history. It occurred in 1556 A.D. and took a heavy toll of more than 800,000 lives. Similarly, on the 1st November 1755, a volcano erupted cataclysmically in Portugal, totally destroying the city of Lisbon. In the course of this earthquake, within hardly six minutes, 30,000 people were killed and all the buildings were destroyed. It has been calculated that this earthquake caused an area four times the size of Europe to tremble. Another earthquake of the same intensity rocked Assam in 1877 A.D. It is reckoned to be one of the five most violent and devastating earthquakes on record. The whole of the northern part of Assam was catastrophically shaken, the course of the river Brahmaputra was diverted and Mount Everest was raised by 100 feet.
An Earthquake is, in fact, but a small reminder of the day of resurrection. When the earth is split asunder with a terrible rumbling; when buildings come tumbling down like playing cards; when the upper layers of the earth are cracked open and the interior of the earth is spewed out, when cities bustling with life are reduced to ashes in a matter of minutes; when the earth is strewn with dead bodies, like shoals of fish washed up on the sea coast, man realises his utter helplessness in the face of nature. What is most tragic about earthquakes and volcanic eruptions is the fact that no one can predict when or where they will take place. And, when they do, everything happens in a flash, leaving little or no time for escape. The day of the resurrection will come upon us all of a sudden, just like an earthquake. Such natural catastrophes demonstrate, most awesomely, God’s capacity to destroy the earth at any moment.
Even more terrifying events take place in the outer reaches of the universe. In the infinitude of its space, innumerable, enormous bonfires – the stars – are rotating wildly like so many spinning tops dancing at a furious pace through unimaginable voids. Not even the very fastest of our rockets could ever hope to catch them, so rapid is their flight. In this process, celestial bodies can be likened to crores of heavily loaded bomber aeroplanes, who after flying for aeons through space may all of a sudden collide with one another. Studies in astronomy having confirmed that this is an actual possibility, it would not be surprising if they did collide. (What is surprising is that they do not collide). Our Solar System may well be the result of a collision of this type. If we can visualise such a collision taking place on a greatly enlarged scale, the day of resurrection will no longer seem impossible, nor even such a remote possibility as we had perhaps at first imagined. Believers in the concept of the life hereafter contend that a time is bound to come when the forces of destruction, which are present in the universe in embryonic forms, will one day assume gigantic proportions. What is latent today will certainly manifest itself tomorrow, and the coming of the day of resurrection will be a reality. Today we apprehend it as a probability; tomorrow we shall witness it as a fact.
Once qiyamah (the Final Day) has been accepted as a probability, the second question that must be asked is: “Is there any life after death?” The answer to this tends, nowadays, to be in the negative because we are so used to thinking of life in terms of all the material elements of which it is apparently composed. We think of life developing when all the aforesaid elements are arranged in a particular order, and, as a corollary to that, we think of death as shattering that order and, in consequence, obviating all possibility of life after death.
T.R. Miles regards the concept of resurrection as a symbolic truth and refuses to accept it literally:
It seems to me that there is a good case for regarding ‘People have experiences after death’ as a literal, factually significant assertion capable in principle of being verified or falsified by experience. The only difficulty, in that case, is that, until we die, there is no means of discovering the true answer. Speculation, of course, is possible. It might be argued, for instance, that according to neurology awareness of the space occupied by our bodies (and of spatial relationships in general) it is possible only when the brain is functioning normally, and that after death, when the brain disintegrates, no such awareness will be possible.3
But there are certain other assumptions which suggest that disintegration of material particles in a body does not bring life to an end. And these assumptions carry considerable weight. We should be prepared to recognise that life has a distinct and independent identity which survives in spite of the change in material particles. It is known that the human body is composed of certain specific elements called cells. These are the fundamental units of living things, and are composed of microscopic particles with a highly complicated structure. A man is made up of some million million cells. It is as if cells were the tiny bricks4 of the human construction. But whereas, real bricks remain the same as they were at the time of building, human cells undergo a constant process of transformation. This is known as our metabolism.
When a machine is in operation, it undergoes a gradual process of deterioration; in like manner, our bodily ‘machine’ is in a continual state of deterioration. Its ‘bricks’ are constantly being eroded and destroyed in the normal course of our daily lives. But we compensate for this loss by taking in food. Once digested, this produces various forms of cells which counterbalance any physical deficiency. Our bodies are, in fact, a compound of cells that is always in the process of change. It is like a large river that is always filled with water, without the water ever remaining the same. At every moment the old water is being replaced by the new. The container remains the same, but the water flows on.
Our bodies are so constantly undergoing changes that a time comes when all of the ‘bricks’ in our bodies have been eroded and replaced by new ones. During childhood, this is a fairly rapid process. However, as one ages, this process slows down day by day. Over an entire lifetime, on an average, all of the body cells are renewed every ten years. This process of the death and decomposition of the body goes on continually, whereas the inner man survives in his original form. At all stages of his life, he thinks of himself as being the same ‘man’ that he was in the past, and this, in spite of the fact that no feature of his—eyes, ears, nose, hands, legs, hair, nails, etc. — has remained the same.
Now if, along with the death of the body, the man inhabiting it died too, he should be diminished or depleted in some way by this total replacement of his cells. But this is not so. He remains quite distinct from and independent of the body, and retains his identity notwithstanding the death and decay of the body. Man is like a river. And the human personality is like an island in it, unaffected by the ceaseless flow of the cells. That is why a scientist has regarded life, or the human personality, as an independent entity that remains constant in the face of continuous change. He asserts that ‘personality is changelessness in change.’ Now if death means the end of the body, we might well say that whenever there is such a total replacement of cells in the body, the man actually dies on each occasion. And that if we see him moving about alive, he has really been resurrected. That is, a fifty-year old man would have experienced death at least five times within the short span of his life. If a man does not experience bodily ‘death’ five times in a row at ten-year intervals, how are we justified in believing that, on the ultimate occasion, he will have ceased quite finally to live?
Those who find this argument unacceptable—and modern philosophy is, in the main, opposed to the concept of the soul as an independent entity —will insist that the mind, or the internal entity, that is called man does not, in fact, enjoy any independent existence. Man is simply the outcome of the interaction between the body and the outer world. All feelings and thoughts in man develop in the course of a material process, just as friction between two pieces of metal causes heat. Sir James Jeans is of the view that consciousness is merely a function or a process, and contemporary philosophers maintain that consciousness is nothing more than a nervous response to external stimuli. According to this concept, once a man dies, that is, when he biologically disintegrates, there can be no question of his survival, because the nerve centres which interact with the outside world and produce a set of responses which we call ‘life’ no longer exist after death. The concept of life after death, viewed in this way, appears irrational and unconnected with reality.
I should like to point out at this juncture, that if this is the sum total of man’s existence, we should certainly be in a position to create a man—a conscious, living being. Today we are highly knowledgeable about the elements which make up the human body. All of these are, obtainable in abundance, beneath the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere. We have examined in great detail the internal system of the body with a microscopic ‘eye’ and we are very well aware of how the skeleton, veins, fibres, etc. have been constructed. Moreover, we have the services of so many expert artists who can copy the human body to perfection. If the antagonists of the ‘soul’-concept are truly convinced that their views are correct, they should prove their point by constructing ‘human’ bodies, placing them in sets of circumstances where they receive the correct number and type of stimuli and then demonstrating to the rest of the world how these inert bodies begin to move about and talk in response to their environment. The plain fact that no man can create another man in this artificial way, that no man can breathe the spark of life into a lifeless lump of flesh, should be enough to convince them that there is a great deal more to life than permutations and combinations of cellular forms.
Apart from concerning ourselves with the probability of survival after death, we must also look at this problem from the angle of what purpose is served by having faith in such a concept. Religion makes it plain that life is not as Nietsche maintained, just a blind and meaningless cycle of life, death, and resurrection, like an hour-glass being emptied of its sand, time and time again, for no particular reason: it is, on the contrary, a time of trial for the whole of mankind, and the afterlife is the time of reward or punishment. The purpose of belief in such religious tenets, therefore, is to strengthen the moral fibre of society by inculcating the fear of God in the individuals – of which it is composed.
The advent of the life hereafter assumes a high degree of credibility when we find, astonishingly, that the daily deeds of each and every human individual are being instantaneously recorded throughout the universe at all times. The human personality manifests itself in three ways: intentions, words and actions. All three manifestations are being preserved in their entirety, all being imprinted on a cosmic screen in such a manner as to make their precise reproduction an instant possibility. No detail of one’s life on earth will remain a secret. It will be possible to know who opted for the path of God and who opted to follow Satan, who drew their inspiration from the angels and who trod the ways of evil.
Since we soon forget the thoughts that pass through our minds, we imagine that they have been erased from our memories forever. However, when we dream of some long forgotten event, or when someone suffering from a mental disorder begins to reveal things that relate to a distant and not even dimly remembered past, it becomes evident that the human memory is not confined just to that part of existence which is consciously experienced. One may not be conscious of certain compartments of the human memory, but they nevertheless exit. Various experiments have proved that all our thoughts are preserved, for ever in the form in which they first existed. And even if we so desired, we could not eradicate them from our memory. Such investigations have revealed that the human personality does not have its basis only in the conscious part of the brain. On the contrary, there is another major part of the human personality which exists below the level of consciousness. Freud dubbed this part the subconscious, or unconscious. The human personality is rather like an iceberg whose tip—one ninth part of its total volume—is visible above the ocean’s surface, while the rest—a massive eight ninths—lies submerged, and therefore hidden from view. It is in this hidden part, the subconscious, that all of our thoughts and intentions are preserved. In his thirty-first lecture, Freud elaborates:
The laws of logic—above all, the law of contradiction—do not hold for processes in the id. Contradictory impulses exist side by side without neutralising each other or drawing apart; at most they combine in compromise-formations under the overpowering economic pressure towards discharging their energy. There is nothing in the id which can be compared to negation, and we are astonished to find in it an exception to the philosophers’ assertion that space and time are necessary forms of our mental acts. In the id there is nothing corresponding to the idea of time, no recognition of the passage of time, and (a thing which is very remarkable and awaits adequate attention in philosophic thought) no alteration of mental processes by the passage of time. Cognative impulses which have never got beyond the id, and even impressions which have been pushed down into the id by repression, are virtually immortal and are preserved for whole decades as though they had only recently occurred.5
This theory of the subconscious has gained general acceptance in psychology, this in turn, giving credence to the idea that every good or bad thought that comes to mind is indelibly engraved upon the human psyche. The passage of time or different sets of circumstances do not cause even the minutest changes to occur. This process of thought registration goes on independently, and irrespective of human likes or dislikes.
Freud, however, failed to take stock of Nature’s purpose in taking such great pains to preserve a record of our intentions and their outcome within the subconscious. He thus felt the necessity of inviting philosophers to ponder the matter. But when we look at this phenomenon in relation to the concept of the life hereafter, we immediately grasp its meaningfulness. It clearly shows the advent of the life hereafter as a distinct probability—as the time when every single human being will be confronted with a complete and accurate record of his deeds on earth. His own entity will be evidence of what the thoughts and intentions were which guided him in the course of his worldly existence.
“We verily created man and we know the promptings of his soul, and are closer to him than his jugular vein.”6
Let us now consider what happens to man’s words.
“Each word he utters shall be noted down by a vigilant guardian”.7
No matter whether his words are sweet or bitter, true or false, good or evil, each and every one of them is being cosmically recorded, and man shall be held accountable for them, for this record will be consulted on the Day of Judgement.
Whenever a man moves his tongue to utter some words, this movement produces waves in the air, just as a stone dropped into water will produce ripples. If you enclose an electric bell inside an airtight glass jar, pump out all the air so that the bell is in a vacuum and pass an electric current through it, it will ring, but the sound will be almost inaudible, because the sound waves from the ringing bell, cannot pass through the vacuum to our ears. The only sound which will be audible will be that which comes via the wires carrying the electric current, and it will be so extremely faint as to be almost undetectable. It is only when waves can pass freely through the air to strike the tympanum of the ear that the aural devices can pick them up and transmit them to the brain, thus making it possible for us to understand what we hear, whether it be the sound of a bell ringing, a bird chirruping or a series of spoken words.
It has been proved that sound waves once produced continue to exist for ever in the atmosphere. Although our technology is not yet so advanced as to enable us to catch and reproduce these sounds, science, is making such rapid and gigantic leaps forward that it will only be a matter of a very short time before we are actually able to do so. It has been accepted, in theory, that we shall have the physical means to listen to the sounds produced in ancient times, just as we receive the sounds relayed from broadcasting stations and have them made intelligible for us by radios. The obstacles to the actual catching of sounds from ancient times are fewer than the difficulties of separating individual sounds from the complex mixture of noises produced at any given moment. The same difficulties occur in broadcasting. There are hundreds of radio stations all over the world simultaneously relaying innumerable and vastly different kinds of programmes at the enormous speed of one lakh and eighty-six miles per second. One might imagine that the sounds received would be confused and incomprehensible because of their speed, huge numbers and widespread diffusion. But this is not so, because the different radio-stations broadcast their respective programmes on different wave lengths, some on short waves, some on long, and we have only to adjust our radios to the appropriate meter-band and we can listen to any desired programme without the interference of other sounds.
The technique of segregating natural sounds has yet to be evolved. But the very fact that techniques already exist by which radio transmitters and receivers separate artificial sounds is a strong indication that some time in the future, we shall be in a position to hear distinctly separate, naturally produced sounds. Then we shall have a first-hand account of all periods of human history through the medium of the sounds produced at that time. Once such a possibility is accepted, it becomes quite comprehensible that, man’s speech having been perfectly recorded in nature, everyone will be called to account for his deeds and misdeeds.
It came to light that when a former Prime Minister of Iran was placed under detention, a recording machine, which kept working round the clock, was secretly introduced into his room, so that every single word that he uttered, would be recorded and could be used in evidence against him when he was brought into court. In a similar fashion, God’s invisible angels are constantly hovering around every single individual on the face of this earth, recording with unfailing accuracy upon a cosmic disc his every thought, word and deed.
How are our deeds actually documented? Scientific studies have shown, surprisingly, that all our actions, whether in public or in a private, in broad daylight or in pitch darkness, linger in that atmosphere in photographic form. These photographs may be resorted to at any time to lay bare the innermost secrets of an entire life.
Recent investigations have shown that all objects continuously emit heat waves, (provided the surroundings are of a lower temperature) no matter whether it is in darkness or in light, in motion or at rest. For instance, suppose that after sitting in this room, writing this text, I get up and go out of the room. The heat waves emitted from my body while I was in the room will still be there. With the help of an evaporagraph, a contrivance now in use in Britain and the U.S.A., a complete ‘photograph’ of me can then be taken. Since this device functions by means of infrared rays, which can penetrate darkness, it does not matter whether the shots are taken in the light or darkness. However, the evaporagraphs in use at present are only powerful enough to register heat waves emitted up to a few hours beforehand.
A few years ago in the U.S.A., there was an interesting case of an evaporagraph solving a mystery. An unidentified aeroplane was seen flying around New York City. Then, quite suddenly, it disappeared. The suspicions of the authorities having been aroused, ‘photographs’ were taken of it with the help of an evaporagraph. A study of these shots revealed the design of the aeroplane.8
Commenting on this event, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, remarked that, in the near future, we shall be able to watch history on the screen. And it is quite probable that such a series of strange facts will come to light as will drastically change our entire conception of the past.
The remarkable performance and results of this invention show us that all our actions can be documented on a cosmic scale, just as all the actions of actors and actresses on a film set are caught and registered on film by the fast-moving, sharply-focussed cameras of the film world. Whether you strike someone or help a poor fellow to lift up his burden; whether you crusade for a noble cause or stoop to collaborate in the evil designs of others; whether you are in the light, in motion or at rest, all of your actions are being imprinted on a cosmic screen. This is happening every second of every minute in every home. There is no way of stopping it.
Once a story is filmed, it can be repeated on the screen even at far-off places and after long intervals. It is watched by people as if they were on the spot, witnessing everything as if it was actually happening there and then. In exactly the same way, a total picture of an individual’s good or bad deeds in this world can come before him on the day of Resurrection in such minute detail as will make him exclaim in bewilderment: “What can this book mean? It omits nothing small or great; all are noted down!”9
From the above discussion, it becomes clear how a complete account of each and every deed is being unfailingly recorded. Every thought that comes to our mind and every single word that we utter are preserved for eternity. We are pursued by such ‘cameras’ as are unaffected by darkness or light and which go on documenting our lives without interruption.
What happens is very similar to the fate of erring drivers, who blatantly commit traffic offences, unaware that their every movement is being picked up by closed-circuit television cameras. One such offender was the driver of a three-wheeler scooter rickshaw who left his vehicle in a no-parking area in Delhi, early in 1980.
The system was new at that time, so he had no idea he was being watched. When he was admonished by a policeman, he tried to pretend that he had just allowed a passenger to alight and that he was about to move on. The policeman promptly took him to the traffic inspector in the control room, where he was shown a film of all his movements—his parking (no passenger to be seen!), his strolling around, chatting to friends and finally his conversation with the policeman to whom he had put on such an air of outraged innocence! Naturally, when he saw the film, he had no defence left.
Cosmic recording is similar in effect, but it is no sporadic affair. It is a round-the-clock process. And it is as if not only our external personalities, but reflections of our inner selves were being regularly pictorialised. This astonishing phenomenon is explainable only as a means of providing evidence for or against individuals, to be used in the divine court on the Day of Judgement. Now if even such a stark reality fails to convince a man of his ineluctably being called to account on that fateful day, it is impossible to imagine what would, in the last analysis, cause the scales to fall from his eyes.
The Concept of the Afterlife as an Imperative
In the preceding pages the concept of the life hereafter was discussed in order to ascertain whether the advent of the life hereafter, as asserted by religion was or was not a distinct probability in the context of the present set-up of the universe: it was satisfactorily established that it was bound to occur. Now let us see whether or not this concept is a necessity in our present world.
First of all, let us deal with the psychological aspect. Keningham, in his book entitled, Plato’s Apology, has described the dogma of life after death as “cheerful agnosticism”.
All materialistic thinkers of the present age subscribe to the same view, in that they hold that man tends to seek out a world for himself where, free from all the restrictions and hardships of the present world, he may experience the freedom and happiness of his dreams. It is this very tendency in man, they say, which has given birth to the concept of a second life. They insist that this dogma is simply the result of wishful thinking, the desire to indulge in an imaginary solace. Who would not long, they say, to be ushered into the perfect world of their dreams after death? They would have it that the reality is otherwise and that there is no such world in existence. However, we must view man’s desire for paradise and his strong urge to enter it after death as pieces of psychological evidence which support the concept of the life hereafter. If the thirst for water points to the existence of water, and signifies a correlation between man and water, in exactly the same way, the desire for a better world shows that, in fact, such a world does exist and relates directly to our lives. History bears witness to the fact that this desire for a better world has been evinced by human beings on a universal scale from the time immemorial.
Now, it seems quite unthinkable that something unreal could so impress itself upon the human mind on such a large scale and in such an eternal and all-pervasive form. This fact, in itself, indicates that another, better world must exist. It would be nothing short of perverse to disregard this as a reality.
I am at a loss to understand those who overlook the existence of such a strong psychological demand. How can they simply brush aside arguments in favour of the afterlife as being invalid? If the desire for a better world is simply the outcome of certain sets of circumstances, why should it correspond, so perfectly, to human aspirations. Can we cite any other thing which has remained so in consonance with human feelings over a period of thousands and thousands of years together with such unbroken continuity? The idea of the life hereafter has been deeply embedded in human psychology for as long as human beings have existed. It is inconceivable that this should be a false notion fed to uncritical, unsuspecting minds by men of superior but perverted intellect.
Many of the wishes of man remain unrealised in this world. He longs for eternal life right here in this world, but everything is terminated by death. How ironic it is that it is often just when a man, thanks to his knowledge, experience and endeavours is on the threshold of success, that he is cut short in his prime and simply disappears from the scene of life. Statistics gathered on successful businessmen in London, in the 45 to 65 age group, show that it is when they are well-established in business and have a very high level of income that one fine day their hearts suddenly fail, and they pass away from this world, bequeathing to others their greatly expanded and flourishing businesses. What then? Winwood Reade comments:
It is question for us now to consider whether we have any personal relations towards the Supreme Power; whether there exists another world in which we shall be requited according to our actions. Not only is this a grand problem of philosophy, it is of all questions the most practical for us, the one in which our interests are most vitally concerned. This life is short, and its pleasures are poor; when we have obtained what we desire, it is nearly time to die. If it can be shown that by living in a certain manner, eternal happiness may be obtained, then clearly no one except a frenzied or a mad man will refuse to live in such a manner.10
But the same author rejects this great call from nature on the basis of certain trifling misgivings:
Now this appears a very reasonable theory as long as we do not examine it closely, and as long as we do not carry out its propositions to their full extent. But when we do so we find that it conducts us to absurdity as we shall very quickly prove. The souls of idiots, not being responsible for their sins, will go to heaven, the soul of such men as Goethe and Rousseau are in danger of hell-fire. Therefore it is better to be born an idiot than to be born a Goethe or a Rousseau and that is altogether absurd.11
His rejection is just like Lord Kelvin’s refusal to accept the results of Maxwell’s research. Lord Kelvin asserted that unless he could develop a mechanical model of whatever was under scientific consideration, he could not attest to his understanding it. That is why he did not accept Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory of light as it could not be fitted into his material frame. Today such a notion seems quite absurd in the world of physics. J.W.N. Sullivan writes: “After all, why should one suppose that nature must necessarily be a thing which can be moulded by an engineer of the nineteenth century in his workshop?”12
In response to Winwood Reade’s denigration of the concept of another world, I would say: “After all, what right has a philosopher from the twentieth century to think that the external world must necessarily be in accord with his own suppositions?”
Winwood Reade failed to understand the plain fact that reality is not dependent upon what is externally mainfest. On the contrary, the external itself is dependent upon reality. Our success lies in accepting and conforming to reality, rather than ignoring, rejecting or running counter to it. When it is a reality that there is a God of this universe and that all of us must appear before Him to be judged, it becomes the bounden duty of each and every individual, whether it be a Rousseau or an ordinary layman, to be faithful to God. Winwood Reade does not suggest that Rousseau and Goethe should bow to reality: on the contrary, he expects reality to adapt itself to them. And when reality is not ready to mould itself to conform to his ideas, he rejects reality out of hand as being absurd. It is as nonsensical as regarding the law on the safeguarding of military secrets as being absurd because its application can lead to, say, the work of an ordinary soldier being highly commended, while eminent American scientists like Rosenberg and his wife are condemned to die by electrocution for passing on war secrets to the U.S.S.R (1953). Justice is a reality, and that is what the law is concerned with, no matter how harsh the results. Similarly, the divine scheme immanent in the universe is concerned with God’s justice, and makes itself manifest in many ways, which may seem unpalatable or incomprehensible, but this we must nevertheless, apprehend and accept as being the ultimate and incontrovertible reality.
It is a little appreciated, but a highly significant fact that throughout the world as we know it, man is the only being who possesses the concept of ‘tomorrow’. He is unique in thinking about the future, and not only wishing to improve his future life but actually taking steps to do so. The cerebral activity involved is far more subtle and complex than the instincts which move animals, birds and insects to be provident—for example, the ant storing food for the winter and the weaver bird weaving a nest in time for the arrival of her offspring. These activities take place, not as the result of forethought, but as the result of instinctive compulsions. There is no conscious, intellectual effort on their part. To keep ‘tomorrow’ in mind and then think about it and plan for it requires the capacity for conceptual thought—the privilege of man alone. No other living organism is known to have been endowed with such a capacity.
Had there been no ‘tomorrow’ for mankind, civilisation could never have developed in the way it has, for the concept of ‘tomorrow’ is inextricably linked with the desire for an improved, future life. The absence of this concept would have been a contradiction in the face of nature. The desire for a better life is often equated with the desire to escape the unpleasant consequences of failure or from general conditions of adversity, and that once a society becomes stable and prosperous, this yearning simply disappears. Roman slaves, for instance, embraced Christianity on a large scale because it offered them a haven of bliss in the afterlife. Had they not been slaves, they might have remained polytheists and idolaters. It is felt then that with the progress made in science, man will certainly become happier and more prosperous and that ultimately the concept of a second, better life will die a natural death.
The history of science and technology over the last four hundred years does not, however, bear this out. Capitalism, an economic phenomenon which went hand in hand with advances in technology, caught up ordinary people in its grip, reducing artisans and craftsmen to mere machine-minders and diverted wealth away from the proletariat and into the hands of the industrial barons. Men who had once been proud of their skills became mere labourers with no further control over their own destinies and no hope of a better life in sight. “Das Kapital” (capital) by Karl Marx, presents a gruesome picture of the exploitation of the masses, which took place in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It took one whole century of socialist crusading before conditions took a turn for the better. Whatever changes took place were, however, purely superficial. No doubt, the worker of today earns higher wages as compared to his predecessors. But as far as the wealth of real happiness is concerned, he is immeasurably the poorer. Modern civilisation and technology may offer certain material gains to man, but it does not bring him any mental peace. How apt is Blake’s description of man in modern civilisation.
“A mark in every face I meet, marks of weakness, marks of woe”.
Betrand Russell has plainly stated that “Animals are happy so long as they have health and enough to eat. Human beings, one feels, ought to be happy, but in the modern world they are not, at least in a great majority of cases.”13
The tourist in New York is dazzled to see 1250-foot high skyscrapers, like the Empire State Building, which is so high that the temperature of the top floors is much lower than that of the lower floors. You go all the way up and come back down again—hardly believing that you have been right up to the top, because the whole journey takes just 3 minutes in a lift. After seeing such impressive buildings and highly sophisticated shopping centres, the tourist enters a club where he finds men and women dancing together to the strains of music. “What a fortunate lot they are!” he exclaims. But no sooner are the words out of his mouth than a woman, looking decidedly depressed, emerges from the throng of dancers and sits down in a chair beside him. Out of the blue, she shoots the question at him, “Do I strike you as being ugly?” “No I don’t think so.” “I don’t seem to have any glamour.” “You look glamorous enough to me.” “Thanks. But you know, younger men have stopped cutting in or asking for a date. Life has become so dreary!”
Man in this modern age has become a mere shadow of his former self. Progress in science and technology may have enhanced our homes in many ways and provided us with all kinds of facilities such as rapid means of transport, libraries, entertainment, etc., but to tell the truth, people have been robbed of their peace of mind. Giant technological plants have been set up, but there is mass unrest among the workers. This is the tragic culmination of four hundred years of science and technology. Why should we believe then that science and technology will ever succeed in creating that new world of peace and happiness after which man is eternally questing?
Now let us consider this problem from a moral point of view. The sordid state of affairs prevailing in the present world makes it imperative that there should be a life hereafter. The whole history of man is rendered meaningless if this concept is subtracted from it.
Human nature is such that we discriminate between good and evil, between justice and injustice. No other creature save man displays this moral sense. Yet, it is in this very world of man that we find this particular instinct being suppressed. Man exploits his fellow men, robs them, tortures them, in short, oppresses them in many different ways—even murders them. Whereas even the animals do not butcher their own species. Wolf does not eat wolf, but man has become a wolf to his own species. No doubt, the history of man shows occasional sparks of truth and justice, which are highly commendable, but the major part of human history tells heart-rending tales of cruelty, injustice, exploitation, and violation of human rights. Those who delve into history are, as a rule, disappointed to see that the hard realities of life bear no relation to the high ideals enshrined in our consciences. The following observations by famous philosophers, historians and literary men are pertinent illustrations:
Voltaire: History is nothing more than a picture of crimes and misfortunes.
Herbert Spencer: History is simply useless gossip.
Napoleon: History on the whole is another name for a meaningless story.
Edward Gibbon: History, which is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.
Haegel: The only thing public and government have learnt from a study of history is only that they have learnt nothing from history.
G.B. Shaw: We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.
We must ask ourselves if this grand show of humanity was staged only in order to present a series of horrors and then come to an end for ever. Our natures obviously rebel against this idea. A deeply rooted sense of justice and fair play in man demands that the fate of our world be different. There must come a time when truth and falsehood are known for what they are, when the oppressors must be called to account and the oppressed must be given due recompense for their sufferings. This desire for justice is so strongly ingrained in human nature that it is an inalienable part of the history of man. This contradiction between man’s nature and the course of events shows that there is a vacuum which demands to be filled. The difference between what should happen and what actually does happen clearly indicates that there is some other stage of life which has yet to emerge. This gap cries out for the time when this world will be brought to completion. I wonder how people agreeing with Hardy’s philosophy come to regard this world as a place of cruelty and oppression and yet fail to understand that something which does not exist today can exist tomorrow—that reason and logic demand it.
“If there is no Day of Judgement, who will punish these tyrants?” Often, while reading the newspaper, this question, sadly, forms in my mind. Newspapers, mirrors of day-to-day happenings in this world, report cases of kidnappings and murders, assault and battery, thefts, burglaries, charges, countercharges, and perhaps worst of all, the propaganda of vested interests. They show how rulers oppress their own subjects, and how, in the name of so-called national interest, one nation encroaches upon the territory of another. A newspaper thus depicts the dramas strategically played out by people in high places and how the common man is affected. The tally of racial genocide, communal riots, plunder and massacre of innocent people at the instance of those in power reaches unimaginable proportions. Heinous acts of violence are a commonplace. The atrocities perpetrated during the reign of a leader who is careful to project the public image of a benefactor of humanity and prophet of peace are so shameful that even animals like panthers, wolves and wild pigs seem humane by comparison. Such things happen regularly, on a large scale, and in an organised fashion over long periods. Sometimes, they happen too quite unabashedly in broad daylight for everyone to see. In spite of this, they may not even be mentioned in the world press, and false propaganda can all too easily prevent their final inclusion in the pages of history. Was this world created simply to serve as a stage for all these hideous dramas of fraud, wickedness, ferocity and robbery? For neither is the oppressor taken to task, nor are the grievances of the victims redressed. We must face the truth: such a world viewed in its entirety, reveals itself as suffering from abysmal deficiencies. Our world is incomplete, unfinished. This being so, a time will surely come when this world will be completed to absolute perfection.
Now look at the issue from another standpoint. Right from ancient times, the problem has arisen of keeping people on the path of truth and justice. If a group is vested with strong political authority, it is possible that those subject to that authority might not commit atrocities for fear of being punished. This system places no restraints, however, on those actually in authority. How then are those in power to be guided on to the path of justice? Even if laws are made and a whole army of policemen is raised, how is it possible to control people at places and on occasions which are beyond the reach of the police and the law? If a campaign appealing to the masses is launched, no matter how persuasive its propaganda may be, it is unlikely that those who have benefited materially from corrupt practices will relinquish their hold on their ill-gotten gains, or will change their ways one whit for the better. Humane appeals all too often fall on deaf ears. Even the fear of punishment in this world is unlikely to deter the criminal and the corrupt, for everyone knows fully well that falsehood, bribery, unfair influence and a host of other such underhand strategies will eventually win the day. Well-versed as they are in such tactics, the corrupt seldom feel apprehensive about prosecution and punishment.
If a man is to be successfully deterred from corrupt practices it is his own, inner motivation which will do this best. In the case of an upright, honest man, his will will be strengthened by the thought of the rewards in the after life, whereas a weak, immoral man will find himself propelled towards the straight and narrow path of virtue by his inner fear of the punishment that awaits him after death. These motivations will be far stronger and more effective than any external, artificial sanctions. This holds for everyone, whether in a superior or a subordinate position, be it in darkness or in light, in private or in public. The moment one seriously considers the fact that tomorrow, if not actually today, one will be made to stand before God Almighty on the Day of Reckoning, and that God, having kept a watch over everyone, will indeed sit in judgement on that day, one will be stiffened in one’s resolve to perform only good and right actions and to eschew all that is base and evil. On this most important of religious beliefs, Mathew Hales, an eminent jurist of the late seventeenth century commented: “To say that religion is a cheat is to dissolve all those obligations whereby civil societies are preserved.”14
How meaningful is the concept of the life hereafter when seen even from this angle. Even unbelievers who refute the notion that a day of judgement is an inevitable reality have been forced by the lessons of history to agree that if we reject the concept of the life hereafter, there remains no other deterrent strong enough to control man and oblige him to observe the rules of justice and fair play. Immanuel Kant, the noted German philosopher, rejected the belief in God’s existence on grounds of insufficient proof: “Since religion must be based not on the logic of theoretical reason but on the practical reason of the moral sense, it follows that any Bible or revelation must be judged by its value for morality and cannot itself be the judge of a moral code.”15
Voltaire likewise did not believe in any metaphysical reality, but in his view also:
“The concept of God and the life hereafter are very important in that they serve as postulates of the moral feeling. To him by means of them alone an atmosphere of good morals may be created. In the absence of such beliefs we have no incentive for good behaviour, making the maintenance of a social order well-nigh impossible.”16
Those who adhere to the view that the life hereafter is merely a hypothesis should pause to consider why, if it is really only hypothetical, we should find this notion so indispensable. Why is it that, without such a concept, we cannot have true social order? Why is it that if this concept is eliminated from human thinking, the whole moral structure of life disintegrates? Can any mere hypothesis be so integral to life as this? Is there any other single example in this universe of a supposedly non-existent thing looming so large in human life, as a positive reality? The concept of the life hereafter being so vital to the establishment of a just and equitable order of life clearly shows that it is the greatest and most universal of all truths. It is in no way an exaggeration to say that, seen in this way, the concept of the life hereafter is quite consistent with the standards set by empiricism.
From another standpoint, the life hereafter may be viewed as the result of a ‘universal demand.’ In the last chapter, the existence of God in the universe was discussed and it became clear that a purely scientific and rational study demands that we believe in God as creator and sustainer of the universe. Now if there is such a God, his relationship with mankind ought to be in evidence. But as far as the present world is concerned, we have to concede that this relationship is not in any way apparent. Our leaders may boast of apostasy and still remain leaders while servants of the divine cause are debased and derided and their activities even declared illegal. We do not then experience any thunderbolts from heaven, or any other sign of God’s displeasure. There are people who openly ridicule religion, uttering such inanities as “We went to the moon on a rocket, but we didn’t find God on the Way!” No bolt of lightning strikes them down. Innumerable institutions work for the propagation of their materialistic ideologies and they are aided and eulogised by the high and the low at home and abroad, no effort being spared to ensure the success of their mission. In stark contrast to this, those who preach the simple, noble message of God and religion have abuse heaped upon them and are dubbed reactionaries and revivalists by contemporary scholars. They are fortunate if the worst they have to suffer is social ostracism. In what way does God show His ire? Nations rise and fall; revolutions come and go like thunderstorms and natural catastrophes occur with a depressing regularity. But nowhere in this world is the relationship between God and mankind made plain. The question then arises as to whether we should believe in God or not. If we do believe in God, we must also believe in the life hereafter, for the simple reason that we can conceive of no other set of circumstances in which the relationship between God and man can be made manifest.
Darwin recognised a creator for this world, but his interpretation of life did not prove the existence of any relationship between the creator and His creatures. Neither did his interpretation suggest that there was any need for a life hereafter or a day of judgement upon which the relationship between the Creator and His creatures would become a reality. I fail to understand how Darwin imagined this gap in his biological interpretation could be filled. That there should be a God of this universe without his having any relationship with this world seems too extraordinary to be even conceivable. That His Lordship over mankind may never be revealed to us; that such a vast universe has been created and will ultimately come to an end without the attributes of the power behind it ever being known—all this seems quite unimaginable and certainly deficient in logic.
Our hearts cry out that truly a day of resurrection is bound to come—like an unborn child that is impatient to enter the world. A rational approach, will likewise, lead us to the view that the Day of Resurrection is imminent and may burst upon the world at any moment.
“They ask you about the Hour (of Doom) and when it is to come. ‘Say, None Knows except my Lord. He alone will reveal it at the appointed time. A fateful hour it shall be both in the heavens and on earth. It will come without warning.”17
Empirical Evidence
To conclude this discussion, we must ask ourselves what empirical evidence there is to support the concept of a life hereafter. In actual fact, the greatest proof of the life hereafter is our present life, in which we must obviously believe, even if we do not accept that there is an afterlife. But then why should we not accept it? It should be obvious that if life is possible on one occasion, it is perfectly possible for it to come into existence a second time. There would be nothing very strange about the recurrence of our present experience of life. In truth, there is nothing so irrational as admitting to a present occurrence, while rejecting the probability of its recurrence in the future.
Modern man falls unwittingly into self-contradiction. He is sure that the gods he has forged (the law of nature, chance, etc.) can cause the recurrence of certain sequences of events, but that the God of religion is not at all in a position to cause a regenesis of the present world. Explaining that the present earth and all its attributes owe their origin to an “accident”, Sir James Jeans epitomises this school of thought: “There is no wonder if our earth originated out of certain accidents. If the universe survives for a long period, any thinkable accident is likely to occur.”18
The doctrine of organic evolution asserts that all the species of animals have evolved from the same rudimentary species. According to Darwin, the present giraffe was originally like the other hoofed quadruped, but, in the course of lengthy evolution, developed a long-necked structure after a series of minor mutations. On this point Darwin observes: “It seems to me almost certain that (if the desired process goes on for a longer period) an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.”19
It followed, obviously, that whosoever attempted to offer an explanation for life and the universe had no choice but to accept that, given the same set of circumstances as was responsible for their origin, the same sequence of events could certainly be repeated. The truth is that, from a rational point of view, a second life is as great a possibility as our present life and this has to be admitted, no matter who is supposed to be the creator of this universe, no matter who He may be, He can cause the same sequence of events to occur all over again. If we choose to deny this, then we must need to deny the existence of our present life as well. Once we accept the first life, we have left ourselves no basis for the denial of the second life.
In the course of the above discussion, with reference to psychological research, it has been shown how all the thoughts in the human mind remain preserved indefinitely in the memory cells, the subconscious part of the brain. This clearly shows that the human mind does not form a part of the body, the particles of which undergo a complete change every few years. Just reflect upon the fact that, even after a hundred years, there occurs no faintness, no delusion, nor any error in the record maintained at the sub-conscious level. If memory is related to the body, where is it situated, what part of the body does it occupy and when the body particles gradually disappear within a few years, why does not memory also disappear? What manner of a record is it that remains intact even when the plate on which it is engraved is broken into pieces? This advanced study of psychology clearly proves that the human entity is not in fact the body, which, of necessity, deteriorates and dies. There is, on the contrary, something over and above the body which is not subject to death or decay and which has an immutable and independent existence whose continuity remains unbroken.
As far as the present life is concerned, all our conscious functions are subject to the laws of time and space; the world hereafter – if it exists – is beyond their preview. If, according to Freud’s theory, we had an intellectual life which was free from these laws, this would clearly establish the fact that this life would continue even after death and that we would survive in spite of death. Our dying is a logical outcome of the laws of time and space. Our real entity, or, in the words of Freud, our subconscious, is totally free from these laws. That is why death does not affect it. Death affects only our mortal body. The subconscious, which is the real being, survives even after the death of man. Suppose an event which took place in my life twenty five years ago, or an idea which developed in my mind equally long ago, slipped from my memory, but that one day I recollected that very event or idea, or even dreamt of it, the psychologist’s explanation would be that it had all along been preserved intact in the depths of my sub-conscious. Here arises the question of where the memory lies. If it were engraved upon the cells as the voice is registered on gramophone records, it could not have been perpetuated, because those very cells would have disintegrated to the point of non-existence by the time of recollection. Where then was this subconscious record maintained within my body?
This is clearly evidence of an empirical nature which shows that, apart from this visible and tangible body, there is another invisible, intangible entity which does not die with the death of the body.
The results of psychical research—a branch of modern psychology which makes an empirical study of supernatural faculties in man—likewise establishes the existence of life after death at a purely observational level. What is most interesting is that such research does not merely establish survival; rather it establishes the survival of exactly the same personality—the entity that was known to us before death.
The first institution to conduct research in this field was established in England in 1882. It exists till today under the name of “Society for Psychical Research.” In 1889, it began its work on a large scale by contacting 17,000 people for the purpose of making enquiries from them and obtaining their help in carrying out studies in the field. Many other countries followed suit, and by means of various experiments and demonstrations, it was shown that even after bodily death the human personality survives in some mysterious form. In his Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death, F.W.H. Myers recounts how a travelling agent was once noting down his orders, sitting in a hotel room at the Hotel St. Joseph in Missouri (U.S.A.), when he suddenly felt that someone was seated on his right. Turning quickly, he clearly saw that it was his sister, who had died nine years ago. Soon afterwards, his sister’s image disappeared. He was so badly perturbed by this event that instead of continuing on his onward journey, he caught the next train back to his home town, St. Louis, where he narrated the entire episode to his relatives. When he reached the point of saying that he had seen a red-coloured scratch on the right side of his sister’s face, his mother at once got to her feet, trembling. She confessed that after her daughter’s death she had accidentally scratched her face, and had been so greatly pained to see this scar that she rubbed powder on it to conceal it, and had refrained from mentioning it to anyone.
There are a great number of recorded events which testify to the survival of the personality after bodily death. We cannot simply write off these events as illusory. Just ponder upon the fact that the scratch on the girl’s face was known only to her mother and, presumably, to the deceased girl. There was no third person who had any inkling of it. Such events are not confined to Europe and America. But since most of the latter-day investigations have been carried out on those continents we find ourselves obliged to refer to them, for the sake of having a sufficiently large body of scientific evidence to draw on. If people in our country were adventurous enough to come forward and start such investigations right here and now, a large number of highly credible and sound pieces of evidence could be collected.
Regarding another class of events C.J. Ducasse observes:
Another class of occurrences asserted to constitute empirical evidence of survival consists of the communications given by the persons called automatists. There are men or women, whose organs of expression – their hand, holding a pencil, or their vocal organs – function at times automatically; that is, write or speak words that are not the expression of thoughts present to their consciousness at that time or of knowledge they possess, but appear to be as independent of the thoughts of, and of the stock of knowledge possessed by another person who happens to read them. The automatist is usually in a trance at such times, but there are many cases where he is not, and where, for example, he will be engaged in conversation, with someone present, and yet his hand will at the same time be writing, on some totally different subject, a lengthy communication of whose content he knows nothing until he reads it afterwards. The communications so obtained generally purport to come—either directly or through some invisible intermediary referred to as the automatist’s “control”—from a person who has died and whose spirit has survived death. Such communications, in many cases have contained numerous items of evidence, of the very kinds which, for instance, would satisfy one of the identity of a person claiming to be his brother, with whom he could communicate at the time only through the intermediary of some third person or by telephone.”20
Most contemporary scholars are hesitant about accepting the evidence furnished by psychical research. C.D. Broad writes:
“Barring the doubtful exceptions of psychical research, none of the different branches of science prove even the remotest possibility of life after death.”21
This argument is as unsound as saying that “thinking” is a rather dubious phenomenon because, except for man, we have never been able to place anything in the universe under observation which testifies to the phenomenon of “thinking”. Since the survival or extinction of life after death is a purely psychological problem, any evidence, either for or against, must be produced by psychology alone. To seek affirmation from any other discipline of science is as meaningless as turning to botany or metallography in order to understand man’s inborn capacity to think. Even a study of the parts of the body cannot serve as a basis for the affirmation or denial of this concept because the doctrine of the life hereafter asserts not the survival of the present material body, but that of the spirit which albeit dwelling in the body, has its independent existence.
Many other scholars who have objectively examined the evidence furnished by psychical research have felt compelled to accept the life hereafter as a matter of fact. C.J. Ducasse, Professor of Philosophy at the Brown University, has made a philosophical and psychological scrutiny of this concept. He does not believe in it in the sense in which it is presented by religion, yet he holds that apart from the dogmas of religion, such evidence does exist as compels us to accept the survival of life after death. After making a general survey of various investigations in the field of psychical research he observes:
Some of the keenest-minded and best informed persons, who studied the evidence over many years in a highly critical spirit, eventually came to the conclusion, that, in some cases at least, only the survival hypothesis remained plausible. Among such persons may be mentioned Alfred Russel Wallace, Sir William Crookes, F.W.H. Myers, Ceasare Lombrozo, Camille Flammarion, Sir Oliver Lodge, Dr. Richard Hodgson, Mrs. Henry Sidgwick and Professor Hyslop, to name only a few of the most eminent.
This suggests that the belief in a life after death, which so many persons have found no particular difficulty in accepting as an article of religious faith, not only may be true but is perhaps capable of empirical proof; and if so, that, instead of the inventions of theologians concerning the nature of the post-mortem life, factual information regarding it may eventually be obtained.
That, in such a case, the content of this information will turn out to be useful rather than not, for the two tasks which it is the function of religion to perform, does not, of course, automatically follow.22
Having travelled so far along the road towards acceptance of life after death as a reality, it seems quite extraordinary to refuse to accept the religious concept of this same phenomenon. This is on a parallel with the insistance of an ignorant villager that conversation between two people living thousands of miles apart is impossible. Even when we dial the number of one of his own relatives living at a far distant place, hand him the receiver and let him have that conversation which he had found so incredible, he responds with, “Oh, that was not necessarily my relative speaking. That could have been some kind of machine.” Where belief is concerned, we can lead a horse to the water, but we cannot make him drink.
Notes
1. Man the Unknown, p. 173.
2. George Gamow, Biography of the Earth, p. 82.
3. T.R. Miles, Religion and the Scientific Outlook, p. 206.
4. Here a cell is described in terms of “bricks” simply to indicate its function in the body. In actuality, the cell is a highly intricate compound having a fully developed ‘body’ of its own. To study the cells, a new branch of science has been developed called Cytology.
5. New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, (London, The Hogarth Press, Ltd., 1949), p. 239.
6. Quran, 50:16.
7. Quran, 50:18.
8. Reader’s Digest, November, 1960.
9. Quran, 18:49.
10. Winwood Reade, The Martyrdom of Man, London, 1948, p. 414.
11. Ibid, p. 415.
12. The Limitations of Science, p. 9.
13. Conquest of Happiness, p. 93.
14. Quoted by Julian Huxley, Religion without Revelation, p. 115.
15. Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, 1955, p. 279.
16. Windelband, History of Philosophy, p. 496.
17. Quran, 7:187.
18. Modern Scientific Thought, p. 3.
19. Origin of Species, p. 169.
20. C.J. Ducasse, A Philosophical Scrutiny of Religion, p. 407-408.
21. Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research, (London, 1953), p. 235.
22. A Philosophical Scrutiny of Religion, p. 412.
