READER: Don’t you feel that religion plays larger role in division or unification of countries than these faster mode of communication?

EDITOR: No, religion emanates from certain region containing basic tenets of perennial faith along with regional requirement of society management. When kingdom expands intermingling between people, their requirement, their respective culture and their religion happens. Religious conversion generally do not take place because of superiority or inferiority of any religion, religious conversion happens either to take advantage or to avoid disadvantage of ruling kingdom (i.e. King belong to religion A then he or his ministers and officials would like citizens to be of religion A, for this use of force, fear, advantages, allurement and other possible means can be applied, and this has happened in our violent history of religious conversion to Muslims and Christians. Sanatan dharma or the true and perennial dharma does not and will never resort to use of temptations, fear or force for religious conversions, rather when people are free or when people become free they adopt dharma the Sanatan (which is currently known to some extent as Hindu).

Religious conversion considered necessary to provide longevity to the kingdom. In the event of forceful or barbaric conversion, those who avoid, will have to run away, become refugee or tribe and those who stays will have to lose their property, respect of self and family (if not get killed). But in India or in America people of different caste, creed, colour, culture live together and do not feel astray, so it is wrong to assume that religion divide countries.

READER: Don’t you feel that religion unmade the nations?

EDITOR: No, further to what has been said it may be noted that Differences in religion is not enmity, for taking certain advantages so called intelligent and gentleman tries to project differences as enmity.

Whatever enmity you are thinking of, is created by the advantage seekers or disadvantage avoider (ruler who is about to leave like Britishers in 1947 from India will definitely not like you to remain united, so that you do not remain capable and try to get them defeated in future).

Hindus worship facing sun or sea, Muslim worship facing Mecca, Medina knowing well that directional prayer is for novices who forget or do not know that Allah/Brahma is omnidirectional, omnipotent, omnipresent etc. Few worship form and other worship formless, they say “Adhmam murti puja, madhyam jap strotam, Uttam nirakar puja, shrestham so aho aham (i.e. Lowest is the idol worshiping, middle is the recitation, best is the formless worship, where as beautiful is that wherein one remain always in prayer where prayer become self/automatic -constant and continuous without the need of any assistance of idol or prayer)”. In this last stage feeling of Aham Brahmsmi and Tatwa masi (I am that and you are also that) arises.

Before Twenty six hundred years, everybody was following one religion i.e. Sanatan Dharma. Sanatan Dharma used to fulfill religious requirement of everybody at that time, and only it has the power to encompass everybody on earth even now.

Later on after the disturbances in sea and sand religion at few places being recognized as Hindus and at some places as Jews (one does not know the beginning of these religions). Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism got developed out of Hindu in India and Christians, Muslims and Baha’i got developed out of Jews in Arab.

In India harmony is larger between its constituent Hindus, Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs whereas in other part of the world harmony between Jews, Christian and Muslims is relatively low. Simply because others are not able to maintain internal harmony in their country, It is wrong to accept their version that religion unmade the nations.

There are eight to ten main religion and there are two hundred plus countries in the world, if religion unmade the nations then there has to be two hundred plus religions in the world.

On the similar questions reply of Mr. Gandhi :
But I am impatient to bear your answer to my question. Has the introduction of Mohammedanism not unmade the nation?

ANS: India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it.

A country is one nation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have a faculty for assimilation; India has ever been such a country. In reality there are as many religions as there are individuals; but those who are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with one another’s religion. If they do, they are not fit to be considered a nation. If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only by Hindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mohammedans, the Parsis and the Christians who have made India their country are fellow countrymen, and they will have to live in unity, if only for their own interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms; nor has it ever been so in India.

QST: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and Mohammedans?

ANS: That phrase has been invented by our mutual enemy. When the Hindus and Mohammedans fought against one another, they certainly spoke in that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, can there be any inborn enmity? Please remember this too, that we did not cease to fight only after British occupation. The Hindus flourished under Moslem sovereigns and Moslems under the Hindu. Each party recognized that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither party would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore, decided to live in peace. With the English advent quarrels recommenced.

The proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were fighting; to quote them now is obviously harmful. Should we not remember that many Hindus and Mohammedans own the same ancestors and the same blood runs through their veins? Do people become enemies because they change their religion? Is the God of the Mohammedan different from the God of the Hindu? Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads so long as we reach the same goal? Wherein is the cause of quarreling?

Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of Siva and those 6f Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not belong to the same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is different from Jainism, but the followers of the respective faiths are not different nations. The fact is that we have become enslaved and, therefore, quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third party. There are Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mohammedan. The more we advance in true knowledge, the better we shall understand that we need not be at war with those whose religion we may not follow.

READER: Before we proceed further we would like to know, what exactly the religion is.

EDITOR: For this you can refer Mita- Life Style Agenda:


“Dharyate iti Dharma” that which encompasses is Dharma (religion).
Dharma (religion) is faith, innate in every body, and is Sanatana (perpetual) in Nature. In humans it takes the shape after first Arth –i.e. means, meaning, money and physique then Kam (work, sex – the physical love) then Religion (physical love and psycho physical love - a regional love) then Moksha –the freedom (benevolence or simply love – all inclusive), at this forth stage it become Dharma.
Dharma is Sanatana (perennial, perpetual); Dharma is natural and one with the Nature, dharma covers the entire region and religion in its fold. The ways sages and Sufis lived their lives testify this fourth step.
Dharma is inward which waters karma for outward development, firm connection between both defines kismat (Luck) which in turn brings rhythm in life.
Religion is like river (may be purest Ganga) which culminates into sea the Sanatan. Religion/river may flood may dry but never equal the sea. All the river get water from sea and all the religion get basic energy from Sanatan Dharma. Disconnection with dharma which makes one floating or so called adharmi, does not sustain long, whether it is of individual or of group.
Sages have described God, Allah, and Bhagwan, as omnipotent, Omni present in all, Omni in character and as an integral self. Integral self integrates all it doesn’t leave any differentiation Wherever dharma originated, it started as faith that is Sanatana in Nature and regional love and later on as name was attached to it, that is why we did not find name of that religion in that particular religious book, whether it is Quran, Gita or Guru Granth Sahib etc.
Spirituality is the very base- the essence of all things including politics. On the base of spirituality, nations are formed and take geographical shape according to the suitability of region and religion. Politics is profession emanating from Rajniti and for many, politics is like any other profession.

Above suggests the following-
All the religions are great had they not been great they would not have survived so long. Instead of finishing one or other religion we should promote and wait for their submergence or assimilation as different rivers submerges into the sea the Sanatan.
Veda-Puran, Quran-Bible are like our soul and it is also true that we are defined by Veda-Puran, Quran-Bible, but still what we will do tomorrow that is not there in all these (Veda hamari atma, hum vedo ke main, Kal hame jo karna, wah vedo me nain).
By sheer strength of country of largest Muslim population, and its natural leader along with largest Hindu Population, We have to assume the natural responsibility to spread the essence of all religion to worldwide population This natural responsibility also comes to us by the virtue of originator of many religions; apart from it having been a place where Moses, Jesus stayed. We have to see that religion stands and spreads, not by fear of hell, but by virtue of love.
All religion emanates from region. Where region is covered with one religion, religion automatically have dictating power for entire region (like Vatican), but wherein various regions and religions combine and form one country, people’s collective power will supersede any or all regional or religional power, and this is the natural (Dharma) and have to be accepted with serenity.
Government will have to encourage more and more international religious conferences, discussions and interactions in its land as well as outside. We will have to encourage and help in disseminating or spreading the outcome of religious conference for the betterment of international community so as to spread the feeling of “Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam” (international family). In last twenty six hundred year religion spread either by sword or stein gun or by strategic state power but never because of religious supremacy. In an interconnected and internet connected world religion will rise because of its overall supremacy in this scenario every religion is expected to participate in comparative presentation of their religion vis-a-vis other religion so that essence of every religion can spread in all the region of world.
Government will have to encourage operating at least one Annakuta/ Lunger, Quran- Khani at each block for the respect of Sufis, saints and Nihangs etc. Acceptance of food, which now appear, as begging has to be curbed
We will have to encourage setting up of religious centers associated with religious study centre in its length and breadth, covering at least three religions e.g. Hindu, Muslim and Sikh.
We will have to encourage building of Golden Mosque, Golden Mandir, in line with golden temple of Amritsar.
It feels- at least the reading of all religious scripture must be started at religious place. Onus and responsibility to start it lie on those who feel their religion is superior and are not afraid. It feels that who so ever gives, gets in return later or sooner. Sanatan (so called Hindu) Dharma can and has to initiate it {i.e. to allow worshipper to worship in temples as idol worship or jap strot (recitation of prayer) or as nirakar (formless) or for saint and Sufis}.

REDAER: When we are talking of religion, what you have to say which religion is the greatest and the best?

EDITOR: There are various answers to this question- All religion leads to same (single) god, so no comparison can be made.

The religion of ruler is the best, if Hindus are ruling then Hindu, if Jews are ruling then Jews, if Muslim than Muslim, and if Christian is ruling in the country or in the world then of course ruler and their followers will say that their religion is the best.

-Disciple of Buddha concentrate more on kings than subject to spread his preaching/ religion , in medieval time Muslims ruler used sword to spread their religion, and now in recent history Christian governor are using weapons, wealth and wine, to spread their religion .> All religions are great and appear best for their followers had they not been great they would not have survived so long.

Religion which has survived shock and is still liked by their followers can said to be best, Hindus and Jews have survived shock Hindus survived more shock than Jews and can said to be the best . All other religion Muslim, Christian, Buddhist has not survived much shock and is open to tryst with destiny.

Most modern religion has to be the best, so Sikhism has to be the best.

Old is gold, oldest has to be the best: Sanatan dharma has to be the best. When no other religion was there Sanatan used to be called the dharma that is why in the oldest text name of any religion was not mentioned (what is mentioned is the dharma the Sanatan the perennial). They say before twenty six hundred year there was only one religion that is Sanatan, the source of all religion. It says– source has to be the best.

When a well-educated man named Naren from secluded island arrived in India, he was asked by Pushpa which religion he belonged to-
Naren – None
Pushpa – How come you don’t have religion?
Naren - I came from a secluded island (like jungle for outside world), there we were not taught to have religion to survive, so I did not have one.
Pushpa – But here you have to have religion like any other country, but the only difference here is that you have wider choice to select.
Naren – Can I not survive without religion; can I not retain citizenship and freedom without my becoming a member of any religion?
Does here everybody choose his/her religion or it is coming with one’s birth (religion of their parents) and later on become deaths destiny? Do here anybody changes ones religion at his adulthood or at older age when he/she develops understanding of the things?
Pushpa – For part two of your questions: Here religion comes with one’s birth i.e. religion of his/her parents and continues. People do change their religion but normally it is guided by the factors other than ones religious understanding, and can be regarded as a missionary job of one or the other religion.
For part one of your question: yes, you can – but people will not allow you to live peacefully, they will lure you, they will frighten you, they will preach you, they may even brain wash you but yes there are religion which will not bother much about your performing religious rites.
Naren – What is that religion?
Pushpa – Yes that religion they call it Sanatan where in everything is free, you can abandon it and you can criticize it, that you may practice it and you may not practice it; this dharma will not say anything about it until you do not do any harm to anybody. One thing which is very great about it is that it cares about everybody, and provides you the full opportunity to grow and develop even to the level where one understand and say that I am the Brahma/ Allah.
Naren – that sounds great but I will request your good self to provide me the comparative statement of all the religion wherein I myself can feel and say that this is the best religion for me. At the same time I would like to maintain that I should be still at liberty to choose the religion which may not be the best or even not to choose any one religion but respecting land of the law.
Pushpa- I feel pity and sorry that comparative statement of all the religion is not available right now. This may be a large order to provide a comparative statement, but certainly I feel that it is required and we have to work for it, and till then...........
-- Ganga is great but Ganga-Sagar is the best. All religion appears great because like river they are at higher level than Sea the Sanatan – the perennial. In last twenty six hundred year every religion tried to -annihilate other religions but failed. Greatness is not in annihilating others rather greatness lies in the assimilation.

The religion which can assimilate, which have power to assimilate Ram, Krishna, various god and goddess, Buddha, Jesus and can assimilate various mode and methods of prayer- idol worship or formless worship, can said to be the greatest and better than the best.

LEADER: Now I would like to know your views about cow- protection.

EDITOR: (1) Men kind develops drinking milk of his mother and as supplement milk of cow, buffalo, goat, camel etc. kicking or leaving milk provider shows the utilitarianism and killing the milk provided as cannibalism. If you leave your milk provider since she has stopped giving milk or you are grown up and do not require milk then this is height of utilitarianism, it is a crime bigger than anything else one can do, bigger than those who takes away or buy cow (your mother) and kill it and eat it.

(2) Few meat eater communities in the Himalayan region neither drink nor sell milk of goat and sheep, they say if we drink or sell milk of goat and sheep then these goat and sheep will become our mother then it is unimaginable to eat their meat.

(3) Farmer and their family across the Indian continent (Hindus and Muslims) were respecting the cow clan before the introduction of mechanization in the farming, so it is baseless to say that Muslims doesn’t respect cow.

(4) When you castrate bull to make it ox, you are taking curse of cow community and it is not surprising that the whole community becomes unmanly and may tend towards incest. Problem is not of cow protection, though it is the basic, but if people and its government fail to respect mother (milk provider) so called weak, then sooner or later these are bound to become slave, whether it is Hindu, Muslims, Christian or anybody else.

Further to this you can refer- From Mita-Life Style Agenda: —

Maharishi Durbasa has given cow the status of Mother, the Mother cow. Bull is the main in performing Puja of Shiva and Shakti and hence awarded the status of being placed along with Shiva-Linga in every temple.
Two strange things have been observed in respect of the sacred cow.
(1) Cow is being respected like mother, but her son is castrated to become an ox in the farm. Very few male offspring of cow are left out of castration to remain as bull to continue the generation. In many cases after cow stops giving milk, they treat mother cow unwanted and may leave it or sell it; this practice is prevalent in most part of Asia if not in the entire world.
(2) Apart from the above, for many cows is not sacred but they too serve the cow till it gives milk, later when cow stops giving milk, they use the cow itself. There are meat eater communities in India which doesn’t drink the milk of goat on the simple logic that if we drink milk it will be like our mother then eating its meats will be like eating mothers flesh.
In First case hypocrisy is reflected and in the second case clear-cut utilitarianism is reflected.
1.1 If one goes deeper into the subject then one will be feared to conclude that society behaving as in the first case will be with full of hypocrites mesmerized lot, its male generation will be more like ox and its top class people will not have much moral authority and its folks and females will be respected yet they will be fearful. The children of such society will have unnatural and poor upbringing.
“Somewhere the curse of sacred cow-The Mother, shows its results”.
2.1 Society, which behaves as in second case, will not have much respect for older generation, and somewhat less respect for younger lot. Here breadwinner will be the only respected person and when it becomes old, respect will reduce. Here one will observe; somewhat hopelessness, helplessness and somewhat blind aggressiveness. Such society will have hopeless folks, bewildered young, a youth centered society where women will be more like utility, a society which will show concern to women in reproductive phase only and women at reproductive stage will take care more of their body and food.
- It is submitted to the entire world that we must look in our collar, what we want us to be?
A. Those who consider cow as mother must come out with clarity, about what they will do after mother cow’s death; will it be given full last rites, that no leather will be used, that milk will be used only after its calf has taken full feed.
B. Issue of Sacred Cow need not be only emotional, but as a more practical one, that is how we want ourselves to be in our society? And how our society, state and nation should be?
C. Castration is not necessary as bulls are also being used for farming in various parts of Bharat. There are no such symptoms of necessity in similar type of animals like Horses, Buffalos, and Donkeys.
D. Leaders of the cow eater societies should take note whether they want harmonious society or utilitarian society and then decide. For the entire Bharat, we must discuss entire issues with religious leaders, intelligentsia to arrive at a decision for implementation. Here two things have to be remembered. A) Jeev Jeevasay Bhojnam (Living is Living Food). B) Medicinal value of Cow fat as also of human skull in Tantrik’s-Aghori traditions etc.
E. When we talk of cow care, message must be disseminated that cows presence itself brings health and prosperity, be it Gobar gas, Manure, Cow urine, beside milk and bull for labor work. As far as utility of cow clan is concerned it can be easily ascertained that two cows per farmer with its offspring will be more than sufficient for a farmer’s family need of milk, fuel, gas (Gobar Gas), Manure, internal transport, medicine, etc.
F. Unnecessary promotions of chemical fertilizer, sale of injection for enhancing milk production are not required for high grade of crops, milk and milk products along with discussion on treatment offered to milk giving animals, their male counterpart and their offspring’s. G. Recent development in ‘Denmark’ of giving women milk DNA injection to cow, for cow to give milk with ingredient of women’s milk, will be a step toward new marketing cow milk –’Mothers milk’.
H. Cloning or cross sexual /DNA injection for cow to give milk like Women, Goat, Buffalo or reverse, will see the process of development of better milk producing new species. Whereas if we consider last 4-5 thousand years of development then we can appreciate that such development happens for one life only and not continued for generations. Such cross, weather it is mule, seedless papaya or anything else have not been able to give birth to new variety of species and neither it will be. It needs not to be promoted in large scale.
I. Freedom to cow and animals is need of the hour for healthy, happy and holy environment, as the earth is not for the humans only. The treatment to the cow clan also indicates the style of governance “{where bulls are produced, cows remains protected, where calf are castrated, cows will definitely be ill treated and killed i.e. where weak (soft-cow, scientist and female) are protected and wise (strong-bull, wise, and brave male) are respected}”, such governments only can command power and respect and will be able to sustain boundaries.
On the similar questions reply of Mr. Gandhi :
I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India because, being an agricultural country, she is dependent on the cow. The cow is a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mohammedan brethren will admit this. But, just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow men. A man is just as useful as a cow no matter whether he be a Mohammedan or a Hindu. Am I, then, to fight with or kill a Mohammedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would become an enemy of the Mohammedan as well as of the cow. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mohammedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me I should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond my ability. If I were overfull of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice my life to save her but not take my brother’s. This, I hold, is the law of our religion.

When men become obstinate, it is a fight. If I pull one way, my Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will return the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much more so; and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong in having bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows increased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered cow killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such societies.

What am I to do when a blood brother is on the point of killing a cow? Am I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him?
If you admit that I should adopt the latter course, I must do the same to my Moslem brother.

Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when they cruelly ill treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they mercilessly belabor the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this has not prevented us from remaining one nation.

Lastly, if it is be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of non-killing and the Mohammedans do not, what, pray, is the duty of the former? It is not written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa (non-killing) may kill a fellow-man. For him the way is straight. In order to save one being, he may not kill another. He can only plead therein lies his sole duty.

But does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of the matter, not one man really practices such a religion because we do destroy life. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain freedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we may observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore, followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the two cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa Mohammedans do not.

These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious teachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have habit of writing history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all peoples. God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the function of the Godhead and indulge in novel experiments. They write about their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotize us into believing them. We in our ignorance then fall at their feet.

Those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and they will find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus, and the Bhagavad Gita contains passages to which not a Mohammedan can take exception. Am I to dislike a Mohammedan because there are passages in the Koran I do not understand or like?

It takes two to make a quarrel. If I do not waist to quarrel with a Mohammedan, the latter will be powerless to foist a quarrel on me; and, similarly, I should be powerless if a Mohammedan refuses his assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking the air will become disjointed. If everyone will try to understand the core of his own religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachers to dictate to him, there will be no room left for quarrelling.

READER: You have spoken about cow protection; we have seen cruelty against elephant as well, what you will say about protection of elephant.

EDITOR: First thing jungles are getting depleted. Wild life is recklessly killed for smaller benefit. Many riches want to decorate teeth of the elephant in their drawing room and many wishes to uses it in medicine. Similarly the teeth of the lion are also being used as ornamental pieces. Main reason of cruelty being made possible is one because of depletion of jungle, rise in human population, and centralization of jungle which made locals unconcerned and unconnected with local flora and fauna. Lot has to be done; only making slogan to save and protect elephant or save lion won’t help. We have to work for integrated development of human, animal and trees i.e. total environment.

READER: You have spoken well for wild life, do you have any concern for oceanic/marine life safety.

EDITOR: Previously whales were also being killed now after world convention there is restriction on the killing of Whales, except for the purpose of scientific research. Why? We have to stop that as well. We have to stop giving blank Cheque for any killing what so ever may be the reason or scientific research, all scientific research must pass the test of wisdom and killing of whale or Guiana pig has to be stopped.

READER: What about Pig protection

EDITOR: Previously many a fight has been created by using/ slaughtering cow/pig. Cow is a symbol of cleanliness and pig is a symbol of pollution. Pig is a Nature provided scavenger.

Hate not the pig; hate the pollution hate the persons creating pollution. Irony is that people does not like flies, mosquitoes, pig but will not maintain the cleanness. By maintaining cleanness these flies, mosquitoes, pig automatically will be reduced.

READER: My question is it the capitalist and imperialistic forces would ever allow the right minded bodies to join Hands?

EDITOR: you are free to associates with anybody as long as you are free. Once you are free who can stop you to associates with one or the other and fight with third. Even if Shias and Sunnis, or Hindus and Muslims, Christian and Jews fight how third one is concerned until you do not go to him or the court set up by the third agency.

On the similar question reply of Mr. Gandhi:
But will the English ever allow the two bodies to join hands?

ANS: This question arises out of your timidity. It betrays our shallowness. If two brothers want to live in peace, is it possible for a third party to separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels we would consider them to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and Mohammedans would have to blame our folly rather than the English, if we allowed them to put us asunder. A clay pot would break through impact, if not with one stone, then with another. The way to save the pot is not to keep it away from the danger point but to bake it so that no stone would break it. We have then to make our hearts of perfectly baked clay. Then we shall be steeled against all danger. This can be easily done by the Hindus. They are superior in numbers; they pretend that they are more educated, they are, therefore, better able to shield themselves from attack on their amicable relations with the Mohammedans.

There is mutual distrust between the two communities. The Mohammedans therefore ask for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why should the Hindus oppose this? If the Hindus desisted, the English would notice it, the Mohammedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, and brotherliness would be the outcome.

We should be ashamed to take our quarrels to the English. Everyone can find out for himself that the Hindus can lose nothing by desisting. That man who has inspired confidence in another has never lost anything in this world.

I do not suggest that the Hindus and the Mohammedans will never fight. Two brothers living together often do so. We shall sometimes have our heads broken. Such a thing ought not to be necessary, but all men are not equitable. When people are in a rage, they do many foolish things. These we have to put up with. But when we do quarrel, we certainly do not want to engage counsel and resort to English or any law courts. Two men fight; both have their beads broken or one only. How shall a third party distribute justice amongst them? Those who fight may expect to be injured.