Fountain of Christianity — Page 38
38 what basis can we apply this possessive noun between them? A possessive noun can be used in the sense of own- ership, for instance, when we say, 'Zaid’s slave', we understand that there should be some reason for this own- ership. But we do not see why independent things, that have possessed their powers and faculties from eternity, should be considered as being owned by Parmeshwar. In the second instance, the possessive noun denotes relation- ship, for instance, one might say, 'Zaid’s son'. But if particles and souls are not related to God as His creation, there will be no justification for such a relationship either. There is no doubt that for such 'independent' souls, the ex- istence of Parmeshwar is of no use, nor will they have anything to lose by His non-existence. In this situation, salvation—which the A rya Sam a j refer to as mukt i — becomes impossible to attain, for it wholly depends upon the personal love for God which He has created in the very nature of the souls. If souls have not been created by Parmeshwar, how can they love Him by their very nature? And Parmeshwar could not have placed His love in their nature afterwards, because natural love is something that has to be eternally inherent in them and not something that was created later on. This is what God refers to in the Holy Quran when He says: 21 i. e. , I asked the souls, "Am I not your Creator?" And the souls replied, "Yes, in- deed. " The meaning of this verse is that the soul contains in its very nature the testimony that God is its Creator. The 21 Al- A‘r a f, 7:173 [Publishers]