Is God judge or accountant?

Published on 18th December, 2016, in Mid-day

In Abrahamic mythology, God is the judge. In Hindu mythology, God is not a judge; he is an
accountant. Ask yourself, who do you instinctively respect more, the judge or the accountant?
How do you see yourself: as judge or accountant?

The answer is probably judge. In fact, an accountant — the munim — with his meticulous
bookkeeping often evokes exasperation, if not outright disrespect. Could this be an indicator of
how strongly we are influenced by Abrahamic mythology compared to Hindu mythology in
contemporary times?

The approach of the judge and the accountant is fundamentally different. The judge seeks to be
right. His righteousness is rooted in a set of rules. In Christian mythology, after death, one has to
face God on His high throne, and argue the decisions one has made in one’s life. These are
measured against rules, the commandments revealed by God through prophets, angels and
messengers.

The judge then decides if you have followed the rules, or not followed the rules. In Islamic
mythology, to follow the rule is ‘halal’ and to not follow the rule is ‘haram’. Thus, a judge
creates a binary world of rule-followers and rule-breakers, the good and the bad, the right and the
wrong. The good are rewarded and sent to heaven and the wrong are punished and sent to hell.
The judge who can condemn you, also has the power to forgive you, if you appeal, or repent.
With the judge comes authority.

The accountant checks your debts (rinn) in society. In Hindu mythology, Yama oversees the
dead, and his assistant, Chitragupta, maintains the book of records, accounting every deed.
Although there is tendency nowadays to classify actions as good (punya) and bad (paap), the
traditional Vedic model was simply to check if what a living creatures owes to the world. If there
is debt, you are bound to be reborn.
If there is no debt, you are liberated. So, the binary is bound and free. The monastic orders —
Buddhists, Jains, Naths, Yogis, Tapasvis — all sought freedom. They concluded that all craving
for food, security and pleasure involves feeding and dependence, hence debt. Traditionally, every
human being was indebted to ancestors (pitr) and so had to raise a family. They were indebted to
gods (devas) and so had to feed the gods through ritual (yagna). They were indebted to nature
(prakriti) and fellow humans (manavas), and so had to take care of nature and be civil members
of society (dharma).

Here, the key word is obligation, not morality. When you nourish another being, they owe you.
When you deprive another being of nourishment, for your own nourishment, you owe them.
Thus, we live in a web of debts. Debt leads to rebirth. No debt leads to liberation. Fortune means
we are receiving loan repayment; misfortune means we have to pay for loans incurred. Wisdom
lies in not expecting repayment, writing off loans, and not incurring loans.

Liberal society in modern society means being a liberal judge — one who does not try to control
human behaviour through rules, monitoring and punitive action. What if it meant liberal
accountant — who keeps clearing debts, and does not believe people ‘owe’ him their money,
their time, their loyalty, their admiration or respect? A simple paradigm shift makes us think
deeply about our lives and question the very nature of our relationships.