This is an incidence that took place in pre-independence times. There were many kingdoms at that time. Although the kings were subordinates to the British, they too had some autonomy. One of the kings of those times sent his young son to England for higher education, as was the fashion in those days. After completing his education there, the prince returned to India. While in England, the prince had somehow become convinced that Indians had too many superstitions. As his plane was about to land, he saw the fields from above and asked the minister as to why there were so many bunds in the fields. The minister said that the bunds were there to show the extent of fields owned by different farmers.

Upon landing, the Prince drove straight to a function arranged to welcome him. Addressing the gathering there, he said, "In India, every one seems to have succumbed to superstitions. Because of this, they have not developed scientific temperament. They don’t even understand simple arithmetic. How much precious space they are wasting in the fields in the name of fixing boundaries! Imagine the loss that is incurred year after year because of this. Even our ministers seem to be ignorant in this aspect". As he was saying this, an aged farmer stood up and said, "Respected Prince! I have about 100 acres of land. I have built bunds even within my fields. If I did not have bunds, how will water remain in the seedbed? Just because the entire hundred acres belong to me, if I remove all the bunds, how can I ensure that the field is properly watered? Didn’t they teach you this in your university there?"

The Prince became angry. He admonished the aged farmer and shouted, "I have been reading in news papers as to how disgraceful the litigations are over here when it comes to land cases and water sharing cases. All this points to your unscientific, superstitious and irrational way of thinking. The science has progressed leaps and bounds. Even now it is not too late. Wake up! Remove the bunds and grow more".
The farmers who had assembled there started smiling sarcastically. The elderly King immediately sensed the situation and somehow ended the function quickly. When he was alone with the Prince, the King held a long conversation with him.
King: Prince! It would be better if you thought well before talking.
Prince: Because you are afraid of the subjects, they are behaving as though there is no one to control them.

King: This is not fear. Have you studied agricultural science? Do you know how to grow crops?

Prince: No. It is not necessary either. To understand these things, it is enough if one has commonsense. One can easily understand. Please pass an order for removal of bunds in the fields.

King: If I arrange for the removal of the bunds, will you take care of irrigating the fields?

Prince: We should not do all those things. We should only pass orders and leave it to the subordinate officers to enforce them.

King: It is true that the subordinate officers should enforce our orders. But, to whom is Mother Earth subordinate? Although the land looks flat, there will be humps and pits. The direction of water flow keeps changing depending on these humps and pits. We should level the ground as per our requirement, build bunds and irrigate it. First we should irrigate high-lying areas and then irrigate the low-lying areas. Just by passing an order that there should be no bunds, can we automatically ensure that the earth became flat? Is Mother Earth our subordinate?

Prince: In calling earth as mother, you are showing how superstitious you are.

King: O.K. I will not address earth as mother earth. I will simply say earth. Just by changing how we address it, can we ensure that the ground became flat?

Prince: It is up to our subordinate officers to ensure that.

King: But how? How can they control humps and pits?

Prince: It is this way of thinking that actually increases the number of land litigations in our country, thereby giving scope to land related murders and hatred. All this would not be there if we had done away with bunds.

King: Is there any country in which the fields are devoid of bunds?

Prince: I have not observed this aspect. But I can assure you that in no other country people are so superstitious. I would presume therefore that the fields in other countries do not have such ridges.

King: You are presuming. You believe in your presumption. You believe even though you have not actually seen. Is such belief not fallacy? Is it not erroneous notion?

Prince: Do you mean to say that even in those countries there are bunds in the fields?

King: Yes of course! I have seen them with my own eyes.

Prince: Why did you not tell this in the beginning?

King: Just to show you how superstitious you are.

Prince: I may have erred here because I do not have the knowledge regarding agriculture. But I am sure that in no other country there are as many land litigation cases as we have in our state.

King: It may be true. But, every country has boundary problems. Such disputes are not restricted to agricultural fields alone.

Prince: What does it mean?

King: In big cities, will there not be dispute regarding boundaries of one house and another? In a country, will there not be boundary disputes among neighboring states? Are there no disputes between two countries regarding boundaries?

Prince: All these are interesting situations in the evolution of civilization.

King: Oh Really! The two neighboring kings are well aware of the dividing line between their states. Still, one king will try to stretch the boundary somewhere. The other king too will try to do so elsewhere. Eventually each of them point out the other’s fault and start fighting. You call this interesting? Well, let it be so. But why do religions fight among themselves? Why are religious heads engaged in dispute? Why do rulers fight in the name of religion?

Prince: Religions are also like states.

King: States have boundaries. What boundary does religion have? All religions say that we are all God’s children. All religions assert that harming others is wrong. All religions preach peace. Does any religion really have a boundary of its own? When there is no boundary, where is the question of overstepping? Why then are religions fighting among themselves?

Prince: Although all religions preach peace, each has its own god. For some it is Brahma, for some it is Christ, for some it is Allah.

King: Has any head of religion or missionary actually seen the God that he is preaching about? Even if he says, "I have seen God", do we believe it? He gives a name to his God, whom he has not even seen. The religious head or a missionary of another religion also does the same thing. If one of them is able to see ‘both’ gods, and if he is able to come to a conclusion as to which god is more superior, then there will be some meaning in fighting. He has not seen his own god, leave alone the god of other religion. Still both are engaged in fighting. Is this also an interesting situation in the evolution of civilization?
Prince: But all civilized countries have such disputes. Although they have not seen God, they will be having some idea about their god by reading their scriptures. Based on their imagination, they might feel that their god is superior and may want to fight.

King: They are fighting based on some assumption. What assumption? Every religion declares that its god is competent to create, sustain and destroy the creation. They also claim that He is omnipotent, all knowing, all-pervading, and compassionate and that all are His children. What if the names are different? Is there any difference in their characters?
Prince: No. There is no difference. All religions say that God is impartial, all-knowing, omnipotent, omni present and compassionate.
King: O.K. For a while, let us assume that my religion is different from yours. Let us assume that the name of god in your religion is X. You were fortunate; therefore you were born in that religion. I am less fortunate; therefore I was in a lesser religion. Is your X not impartial? Is he not all-knowing? Why then did he allow me to be born in his religion? Why was he simply watching when I was being born in a lesser religion? Does he have no compassion for me? Am I a sinner? What sin can I commit when I was not even born? When there is no mistake of mine, if he has allowed me to take birth in a lesser religion, we should say that he is not compassionate and impartial. Or, it may have happened without his knowledge, in which case, he is not all-knowing.

Prince: It is not proper to say that the Almighty is not all-knowing.

King: If he is all-knowing, may be, he was not present there when I was born.

Prince: How can that be? Is not Almighty omnipresent?

King: He is impartial, compassionate, all-knowing, and omnipresent. Still I am born in this lesser religion. It means that it has happened as per his wish.

Prince: Where is the doubt?

King: If there is no doubt in it, and if it is according to the wish of your god – X - that I am born in my religion, why should you fight with this religion?

Prince: Will you please repeat what you said?

King: Let us say, my god is Y. This name – Y – and my birth in my religion – both should have happened as per the wish of your god – X. If it is so, it means that you are fighting against my religion as per the wish of your God. Is it not so?

Prince: Is it fair for your religion to fight against mine?

King: My god’s name is Y. But he has the same characters such as impartial, compassionate, omnipresent, all-knowing and omni potent. If you are born in X religion, it should be as per the wish of our god – Y. If I have this knowledge, I should not fight against your religion. If I am fighting, it shows that I do not have that knowledge.
Prince: Forget about fighting. Is it possible for two such entities to exist? X is also all pervading; Y is also all pervading. X is also all knowing; Y is also all knowing. How can they be called different entities?

King: The answer to your question is indicated by your question itself.

Prince: If we follow that indication, it seems as though X and Y are the two names of the same person. But will the same god assume two names, have separate groups of followers and create a situation where the two groups fight among themselves? If He is really doing so, how can we call Him compassionate and impartial?
King: Now, imagine the vast field of a farmer. One portion of it is in a higher level and the other portion is in a lower level. The farmer separates the two and builds ridges around each of them. First, he irrigates the upper land. After it is fully irrigated, he opens a portion of the ridge to allow water to the low-lying portion of the field. All the water that was standing in the upper portion flowed to the lower portion, where it is allowed to stagnate for a long time. In the upper land, he sowed maize, while in the lower part of the land, he sowed paddy. Now tell me, is the farmer partial or impartial as far as the upper and lower parts of the land are concerned.

Prince: Certainly he is impartial. Maize does not require much water, whereas paddy does. Therefore, the farmer sowed maize in the upper portion and paddy in the lower portion. There is no question of partiality here.

King: Now, tell me, if the workers working in these two portions fight among themselves saying we are more superior, will the farmer be happy?

Prince: I do agree that it is impossible not to have ridges in the field. But is there anything like higher level and lower level in humans? Are not all human beings one? The Almighty is one and only one and He is for the entire mankind. Will He assume different forms and create confusion and conflict?

King: You had not realized in the beginning that ridges were necessary in the fields. A farmer knows its importance. If we think that the entire mankind is a field, the farmer who ploughs there is the Almighty. He is well aware of the troughs and crests in the field. Although you are not acquainted with agriculture, when I explained certain things, you were able to appreciate certain things. Similarly, although we have not seen the Almighty, if we can try to understand his activities, and thereby if we try to comprehend Him, and if we realize that He is indeed the embodiment of knowledge, all-knowing and impartial, we will understand why He had to assume different names.

Prince: Have you understood it?

King: Have you not understood about the farmer now? Do you now understand why he made those ridges in the fields? Do you now realize why different countries came into being? Do you realize why many counties had to be formed in a state? Why did different localities come up in a town? Different houses in a street, different rooms in a house, different cupboards in a room?

Prince: I had not thought about it till now. Now I am beginning to realize.

King: The following Sookti is intended to help people like you to understand.

Soukarya drishtyaiva naraistu ye ye
Prakalpitaa desha mataadi bhedaah
Midhovadhaayaadya bhavanti te te
Ravistamo varshati kim vadaamah

Men established different countries and religions for their convenience. These very classifications of countries and religions have now become the causes of hatred and killings. Sun himself is causing darkness. What can we say?

Prince: Throughout our lengthy discussion, you maintained that the Almighty made the different classifications of religions and that classifications such as country (and the classification of agricultural fields) were man made. Now, in this Sookti, you are suggesting that even the classification of religions was man made. Why such contradictory statements?

King: You have spotted the difference. But you have made a small mistake in your observation. What was said in the discussion was that the Almighty had assumed different names. We never said that the Almighty created different religions. Just as there are higher plots and low lying plots in an agricultural field, there are men with different inclinations and tastes. The Almighty took different forms and gave Darshan to the pious men living in different parts. Only the fortunate and blessed few could see Him. Those who could see the form, meditated on that form of the Almighty and after meditating for a long time, they were able to appreciate the different forms of the Almighty. In doing so, they also imbibed all the noble qualities of the Almighty. They even experience oneness with the Almighty. Thus, the compassionate nature of the Almighty seeped into them also. These pious men developed a longing to make their fellow beings to experience whatever they had experienced. Because they had completely comprehended the Almighty, they were in a position to understand the will of the Almighty as to which form and name (of the Almighty) would be suitable for their followers. These pious men encouraged their followers to reach the Almighty by meditating upon those names and forms, which the Almighty had thought was suitable for them. They planted the seeds (teachings) in the fields (the group of people who followed them). Their teachings assumed the form of cults. Therefore, the above Sookti says that the different religions are man made.

Prince: If they are really man made, we cannot say that they are flawless, can we?
King: If a farmer builds a ridge in his neighbor’s plot, one may assume that there may be some mistake in it. But if a knowledgeable and sensible son of a father builds ridges in his own plot, why should anyone think that there might be flaw in it? Similarly, there will be no scope for mistakes in the scheme of religions established by those who have experienced oneness with the Almighty and who have completely understood the divine plan.
Prince: Why then are we seeing so many conflicts among different religions?
King: Why do the laborers of the upper plot fight with the laborers of the low lying plot? Because they do not have the same feeling of the owner of the plot who thinks that the entire field is one. They are unable to appreciate the different utilities of those plots. In fact, the farmer had built those ridges with a good intention. Similarly, emperors like Prithu, driven by noble thoughts, established different countries and gave different administrative mechanisms. For such great emperors, everyone under the sun was equally important. Therefore, they took great care in establishing different political and religious setups keeping in view a host of aspects. One can see a detailed account of this aspect in the 5th Skandha of Srimad Bhagavata. Due to vicissitude of time, when the systems got disturbed, the saints who incarnated in those times re-established the old systems with slight modifications necessitated by the changing times and gave out new preachings. But, with the passage of time, as man’s ‘intelligence’ increased, his ego also grew at a phenomenal speed. The modern man forgot the inner message of the preachings and engaged in fights just as the laborers in the field. The proponents of different faiths had actually desired that their followers should become the owners of the fields. But the followers chase to push aside the ownership and embraced labour mentality of fighting among each other. Whose fault is this?

Prince: The culprit is ego.

King: True. The proponents of different faiths had totally given up ego and had handed down the preachings as though they were the commandments of the Almighty. The followers doggedly are fighting for superiority, claiming that their religion alone is superior. Whereas the ancient rulers established boundaries, the modern rulers, in the name of expanding their kingdom, are engaging in wars, causing bloodshed on both sides. The original idea of establishing kingdoms was to protect lives. The later rulers completely forgot this idea. Similar was the case with the missionaries. They forgot the real purpose of the existence of different religions and started fighting for superiority. Succumbing to ego, they are fighting in the name of religion. The sun is shining as usual. But the owl cries that sun is causing darkness. The fourth line of the Sookti is referring to this. By saying so, the Sookti is pointing out that the fault lies with us in our failure to understand the purpose of having different religions. It is unfair to blame the proponents of different religions. The Sookti urges us to refrain from acting like owls.

Today’s generation has the same temperament as that of the Prince. Vitiated by ego they are engaging themselves in fighting in the name of religion, country and even in the name of peace. The Sookti, like the King in the above discussion, is trying to persuade mankind to direct itself towards the Almighty.

May the present day mankind make proper use of the ancient methods and achieve intellectual evolution as well as divine experience.

Jaya Guru Datta.

Sri Swamiji