Early Writings — Page 23
HADRAT MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD AS 23 even after the person would have died. Hence, if, as the people of the Arya Samaj suggest, we should believe God to be nothing more than an ineffective being this would necessitate, God forbid, that even if we suppose Parameshvara to be dead, this would not adversely affect the souls and particles. The statement of Pundit Dayanand which he has recorded in Satyarth Prakash has com- pletely ruined the concept of divine Unity and Pundit Kharak Singh, has followed him without having properly pondered over his statement. According to them it is written in the Vedas that all souls are completely independent of Parameshvara for their sur- vival and life, and that their relationship with Parameshvara is like the relationship of a carpenter to a wooden chair or of a potter to a clay pitcher. In other words, the handicapped Parameshvara runs his business by merely joining things together, and He is not the Sustainer of creations. However, every wise person knows that by believing this to be the case, the being of Parameshvara has only as much significance as ordinary potters and carpenters, inasmuch as things made by them do not rely upon them for their survival. In other words, as is the case with potters and carpenters, when they have died, the pitchers and chairs that they have created will continue to exist; and so, in the same way, even in the case that Parameshvara died, the existence of things will remain unaffected. This shows that the proposition of Pundit Sahib that in his role as the creator Parameshvara may be likened to a potter or a carpenter, is a false analogy. If only the Pundit had believed God to be the Provider of subsistence to things and had not consid- ered Him to be like ordinary carpenters, he would not have felt compelled to state that even if Parameshvara was presumed dead, this would not cause any harm to the souls. However, this is what