Life After Death / The significance of life after death/Indians are poor but INDIA is not a poor country

Subject: "Indians are poor but INDIA is not a poor country". Says one
of the Swiss bank directors.

"Indians are poor but INDIA is not a poor country". Says one of the Swiss
bank directors. He says that "280 lac crore" of Indian money is deposited in
Swiss banks which can be used for 'tax less' budget for 30 years can give 60
crore jobs to all Indians. From any village to Delhi 4 lane roads can be paved. Forever
free power supply to more than 500 social projects can be executed. Every citizen can get
monthly 2000/- for 60 yrs. No need of World Bank & IMF loan. Think how our
money is blocked by rich politicians. We have full right against corrupt politicians.

Take this seriously Be a responsible citizen

Life After Death

Is there any life after death; if so, what kind of life is it? This question lies far beyond the ken of our perception. We do not have the eyes with which we could see beyond the frontiers of worldly life and find out what lies on beyond it. We do not have the ears with which we could hear anything from beyond these frontiers. Nor do we have any instrument by which we could determine with certainty whether there is any life beyond death. Therefore, the question whether there is any life after death lies completely outside the province of scientific knowledge which is concerned with the classification and interpretation of sense data. Anyone who asserts in the name of science that there is no life after death therefore makes a very unscientific statement. Merely on the basis of scientific knowledge , we can neither affirm that there is a life after death nor deny it, until we discover a dependable means of acquiring knowledge about this matter, the correct scientific attitude would be neither to affirm nor to deny the possibility of life after death . The question is beyond its jurisdiction.

But can we possibly maintain this attitude in life? Can we afford to adhere to this neutrality? Theoretically speaking, this may hold well, but looking to the hard realities of life which we have to face on every turn and pass, our answer would be: certainly not. If we do not have the means to know a thing directly, it is of course possible for us, from a purely rational point of view, to refrain from either affirming or dyeing it. But if the thing is directly concerned with our everyday life, we cannot maintain that attitude and must either affirm or deny its existence; in order to live a full life on the earth we must have a definite attitude towards such problems. These questions simply cannot be avoided. For instance, if you do not know a person with whom you do not have any dealings, you may refrain from forming an opinion about his integrity and trustworthiness; but if you have to deal with him, you must do so either on the assumption that he is an honest man or on the supposition that he is not. You may also proceed with the idea that until his honesty is either proved or disproved in practice, you will deal with him on the assumption that his integrity is doubtful. But this manner of dealing with him would, in effect, be no different from the way you would deal with him if you were convinced of his dishonesty, therefore, a state of doubt between affirmation and denial is possible only as an abstract idea; it cannot form the basis of practical dealings, which require a positive attitude of either affirmation or denial. 

The significance of life after death

A little reflection should help us to see that the question of life after death is not merely a philosophical question; it is deeply and intimately related to our everyday life, in fact our moral attitude depends entirely upon this question. If a person is of the view that the life of this word is the only life and that  there is no life of any kind after that, he must develop a particular type of moral attitude , a radically different kind of attitude and approach is bound to result if he believes that  this life is to be followed by another life where one will have to render account of all one’s acts in this world  and, that one’s conduct  in worldly life, let us try to understand this through simple example, a person undertakes journey from Lahore to Karachi on the assumption that he is traveling to his final destination, where he will be beyond the reach of the police that could haul him up for and offense , and the jurisdiction of the courts of justice that could bring him to book, another person undertakes the same journey knowing that it is only the first stage of a longer journey which will carry him beyond Karachi, to a land overseas which is ruled by the same sovereign as that of Pakistan, he also know that court of that sovereign has  complete secret dossiers of his activities in Pakistan and that  this record will be fully examined there in order to decide what position and treatment he deserves by virtue of his past performance , Now , is should be easy to realize how different the conduct of these two travelers of the  same train will be. The former will prepare himself only for the journey up to Karachi, whereas the latter will keep in view also the requirements of the further stages of the long journey, the former will assume that all the gains that he can possibly make, or all the losses or harms that he might suffer, will be confined to the journey up to Karachi, and that  will be the end of it, the latter, on the other hand, will know that the real gains or  losses of the journey will be   realized in its last stages and not in the first, the  former will keep in wives only those results of his actions as are likely to manifest themselves up to the time that  he reaches Karachi; the latter’s visit will extend to the long term results likely to unfold themselves in the distant overseas lands where his journey will eventually take him.