1 ILLNESS THEODICIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Journal of Religion & Health, Winter 86 by Robert M.

Price

The problem of theodicy is surely one of the most vexing questions theologi"ns. Perh"ps one d"y they ill come up ith " solution,

ith

hich !hristi"n f"ith,

or "ny religious f"ith, h"s to de"l. Most of us, ho ever, "re usu"lly quite illing to le"ve it to the e s"y to ourselves, releg"ting the problem to the s"me limbo "s s"fe nucle"r energy "nd " cure for c"ncer. #ut theodicy quic$ly intrudes itself upon the "gend" of even the simplest believer "s soon "s serious misfortune stri$es. The technic"l %"rgon of theology m"y rem"in in the ivory to er, but the stric$en believer must "s$, &'o c"n (od h"ve let this h"ppen to me ) & Theodicy, both "s "n intellectu"l stumper "nd "s " cry of the he"rt, is "s old "s theology "nd religion, "nd "ttention to the *e e find m"ny "ns ers offered. e ish to restrict our hether We find m"ny proposed or "t le"st mentioned in the #ible itself. 'ere

Test"ment, inquiring "fter the r"nge of theodicies occurring there,

"dvoc"ted or opposed. Most of the ex"mples chosen ill concern illness "nd its expl"n"tion. This is often the form in hich the question of theodicy "rises in the text "ny "y, "nd it ill f"cilit"te comp"rison if "ll c"ses "re dr" n from the s"me c"tegory. +irst, e find especi"lly though not exclusively in the gospels the "ssumption th"t illness

represents victimi,"tion by demonic or -"t"nic po ers. This belief is sh"red by most preliter"te cultures "nd by pentecost"l.ch"rism"tic segments of contempor"ry !hristi"nity. /ne p"rticul"rly stri$ing reference to this belief occurs in 0u$e 12314 15. 6n verse 11 e re"d th"t "n unfortun"te om"n h"s been &crippled by " spirit& for eighteen long ye"rs. The ords of 7esus in verse 16 "re even stronger8 she h"s been &bound by -"t"n& himself 9presum"bly through the "gency of " subordin"te spirit: "ll this time. The s"me verse "lso cont"ins the princip"l clue "s to everyone "ssumed her illness "ltern"tives ; see belo :. The om"n is c"lled by 7esus " &d"ughter of <br"h"m, & " term hy hich "s demonic in origin 9inste"d of one of the other "v"il"ble here upon his repent"nce >"cch"eus is <meric"n #ible rendering, &for this is

seems to imply her $no n piety, "s in 0u$e 1=3=, eulogi,ed "s &" son of <br"h"m& 9cf. especi"lly the *e

@ h"t it me"ns to be " son of <br"h"m&:. 6n other ords, the om"n is $no n to be pious "nd so her "ffliction c"nnot h"ve been sent "s divine ch"stisement. We find " simil"r c"se 9perh"ps t o of them combined: in M"r$ =31? @=. There " boy h"s been pl"gued intermittently 9&often& v. @@: by " demon, "s e might c"ll it, of epilepsy. This "ccount seems to h"ve been confl"ted ith "nother in hich " boy "s possessed by " &de"f "nd dumb "nton terrorism of demonic some here "long the line

spirit.& 6n either c"se, ho ever, the illness is the result of the religion. The presupposition

spirits. We should not ignore the theologic"l "ssumption implicit in this belief of popul"r ould seem to be one of M"nich"e"n li$e du"lism. There is no hint ith P"ulAs &thorn in the flesh, " one side g"ins ground, in these c"ses th"t (od is using devilish h"r"ssment "s " second"ry instrument to ch"stise or test f"ith "s is the c"se, for inst"nce, in the #oo$ of 7ob or possibly victims of infern"l terrorism in " divine demonic contest in -"t"nAs prisoners of messenger of -"t"n& 966 !orinthi"ns 1@35:. R"ther, the ide" is th"t the sufferers "re merely hich no no the other. /f course 7esus is under stood "s (odAs ch"mpion, sent 9fin"lly: by (od to rele"se "r. We h"ve " simil"r notion in P"ulAs comment th"t -"t"n hindered his ill put tr"vel pl"ns to Thess"loni$" 96 Thess"loni"ns @318:. P"ul expects th"t one d"y soon (od

" stop to "ll such pes$y interference, but notice th"t for the present he "scribes, "s do the gospel riters, re"l po er to -"t"n. There is no thought to expl"in, "s modern theologi"ns might, ho (od c"n "llo -"t"n to contr"vene the divine purposes, or even h"t sense such " ill "ll ce"se. seemingly contr"dictory cl"im ould m"$e. 6t is deemed sufficient th"t soon it

This is " resolution of the problem but not " solution to it. The theoretic"l implic"tions of this type of theodicy "re usu"lly considered "s incomp"tible omnipotent "t present but one d"y ill be, ith Western monotheism. >oro"stri"nism h"s s"id the most th"t c"n be s"id for this theodicy theologic"lly3 (od is not hen the evil po er is fin"lly neutr"li,ed. <s hich hopes for " theoretic"lly uns"tisfying "s this schem" is in " !hristi"n context, it loses even its "pp"rent pr"ctic"l v"lue for "n obvious re"son. The impending victory of (od, on theodicy depend, is pushed off indefinitely into the future. 1 The second "ppro"ch to theodicy e meet in the *e Test"ment is the notion th"t (od h"s

inflicted the illness to punish or ch"stise. Though this ide" is very dist"steful to m"ny modern religious believers, this predisposition should not be "llo ed to obscure the me"ning of v"rious texts. +or inst"nce, the story of the inv"lid "t the he"ling shrine of #ethesd" 97ohn B31 1B:

2 concludes ith 7esusA "rning to the m"n ho h"s disobeyed him "nd spre"d the ne s of the ell "g"in. -top sinning or something orse

mir"cle, c"using trouble for 7esus. &-ee, you "re

m"y h"ppen to you, & 7esus "rns ith visible irrit"tion. !le"rly this is " "rning, if not "n "ctu"l thre"t, to the effect th"t sin brings divine repris"l in the form of illness. We "re prob"bly de"ling ith the s"me belief in M"r$ @31 1@, here 7esus "bsolves the sins of the p"r"lytic lo ered to ords, &-on, "s not the p"r"lyticAs request. #ut the ensuing him through " hole in the th"tched roof. Modern re"ders "re surprised to re"d the your sins "re forgiven& 9v. B:, since surely this

developments imply th"t the forgiveness is " necess"ry step prelimin"ry to the he"ling. 6t seems to be t"$en for gr"nted th"t the m"n h"d been stric$en ith p"r"lysis for some sin9s:, hich 7esus no forgives. The punishment is then n"tur"lly lifted, %ust "s surely "s " p"roled crimin"l is onder shortly rele"sed from %"il. 7esusA subsequent he"ling of the m"n is then no "rbitr"ry

intended to silence his critics by &bo ling them over& 9in th"t c"se he might "s ell h"ve pulled " r"bbit from " h"tC :. R"ther, his he"ling mir"cle serves to settle the question of his "uthority to forgive sins bec"use of the org"nic lin$ bet een sin "nd illness, "nd thus bet een forgiveness "nd he"ling. -ome re"ders m"y be tempted to dispute this exegesis by pointing to t o f"vorite texts else here in the *e Test"ment3 7ohn =32, here 7esus denies th"t " c"se of blindness is due to sin, "nd 0u$e 1231 B, hen 7esus re%ects the notion th"t cert"in politic"l "nd dis"ster ic$edness. 6t h"rdly need be s"id th"t the te"ching of 0uc"n

victimsA f"tes resulted from their

"nd 7oh"nnine texts c"nnot control our re"ding of M"r$. #ut these texts "re of interest to our discussion in their o n right. 6n the c"se of 7ohn =32 e need only note th"t only " p"rticul"r c"se of blindness is "t issue. *o st"tement "t "ll is m"de "bout blindness or illness in gener"l. <nd rec"ll 7ohn B31?, here illness is cle"rly "scribed to sin. 9We ill return to this story belo . : <s for 0u$e 1231 B, e suggest th"t the "ssumptions of the story m"y be very different th"n usu"lly ords must me"n th"t the f"mous ("lile"ns "nd 7erus"lemites r"th) 0u$e ere not supposed. True, 7esusA re%ect the B31 11,

gre"ter sinners th"n most simply bec"use their de"ths ere more spect"cul"r. #ut is to s"y this to hole ide" of divine visit"tion in ould not h"ve thought so8 cf. <cts "rn his he"rers th"t their f"te ic$edness is %ust "s gre"t3 ere not more innocentC The here <n"ni"s "nd -"pphir" "re dr"m"tic"lly stric$en de"d for their hypocrisyC <nd the hole point is to

immedi"te context m"$es it obvious th"t 7esusA &Dnless you repent, you too "lre"dy de"d

ill be "s b"d "s th"t of the ("lile"ns "nd 7erus"lemites since their ere not more guilty, but r"ther th"t 7esusA he"rers

ill "ll perish& 9vv. 2 "nd B:. We "re to underst"nd not th"t those

? p"r"ble hich immedi"tely follo s m"$es 7esusA 9or 0u$eAs: intention cle"r8 it is " "rning of the coming %udgment on 6sr"el. <nd it is no "ccident th"t the t o p"rticul"r ex"mples of verses 1 "nd ? h"ve been chosen. Ee"th "t the h"nds of the Rom"ns "nd under coll"psing buildings "re both in the offing for unrepent"nt 7erus"lem 90u$e @136, @4, @?:. +"r from milit"ting "g"inst our second *e Test"ment theodicy, this p"ss"ge m"y better be seen "s "nother inst"nce of it.

Third "mong illness theodicies in the p"ges of the *e m"y h"ve come oneAs p"rticul"r blind m"n

Test"ment is the ide" th"t oneAs illness

"y vi" someone elseAs sins, specific"lly " p"rentAs. This ide" is mentioned "s not so "fflicted bec"use of his p"rents. 7esusA ords &*either this m"n

in 7ohn =32, in the story of the m"n blind from birth. <g"in, "ll e $no from the text is th"t this nor his p"rents sinned& simply do not "ddress the question of hether p"rents m"y sometimes be punished by their childrenAs misfortunes. !ert"inly the disciplesA question implies th"t such " situ"tion "s thought to be " re"l possibility. <s much "s it m"y outr"ge our o n sense of %ustice, it is undeni"ble th"t " biblic"l precedent, even " biblic"l not Fxodus @43B biblic"l "rn th"t "rr"nt for this belief existed. +or did ic$edness might t"$e its toll even unto the fourth gener"tion) /ther e le"ve this "ns er to the question of orth noting th"t @53@B, though illness is

riters re%ected the belief 9Eeuteronomy @?3168 F,e$iel 183@:, but this did not m"$e here the cure is "lmost orse th"n the illness, it is

Fxodus @43B "ny less c"nonic"l scripture. #efore theodicy, surely " c"se

something li$e the belief mentioned in 7ohn =32 occurs "lso in M"tthe not specific"lly the misfortune in vie . M"tthe de"th of 7esus "nd more th"n

depicts the cro d of 7e s "s hungry for the me"ns

illing to t"$e the responsibility for it th"t the sque"mish Pil"te

shuns3 &0et his blood be on us "nd on our childrenC & 6t is difficult to deny th"t M"tthe !"i"ph"s 97ohn 113?= B@:. 96t "lmost goes ithout s"ying th"t the

the re"der to see this suicid"l curse "s effective, in " f"shion p"r"llel to the un itting prophecy of hole structure of P"uline soteriology presupposes such " schem", though in bro"der, corpor"te terms3 &The m"ny died by the tresp"ss of one m"n& GRom"ns B31BH. : We m"y even be "ble to detect " positive converse of this inherit"nce of guilt, in individu"l c"ses, here "nd there in the *e Test"ment. 6t h"s often been noted th"t in M"r$ @31 1@ it is the f"ith of the p"r"lyticAs friends, not his o n, th"t "v"ils for his he"ling. -imil"rly, though religious s"lv"tion "nd not physic"l he"ling is in question, 6 !orinthi"ns 531? "nd <cts 16321 m"y be interpreted "s promising s"lv"tion to the f"milies of individu"ls ho believe, but "dmittedly the point of these texts is not cle"r. +ourth in the *e =32, " text Test"mentAs c"t"logue of theodicies is yet "nother option mentioned in 7ohn

hich seems to promise much but deliver dis"ppointingly little in terms of our

concern since it does not develop the "ltern"tive theodicies it so t"nt"li,ingly "lludes to. The fourth of our options is th"t implied in the disciplesA question, &Who sinned) This m"n . . ., th"t he "s born blind) & *o h"t did the disciples h"ve in mind) Eid they suppose th"t in his

6 omniscience, (od fores" the m"nAs sin before his birth "nd so g"ve him blindness "t birth) This ould cert"inly be " perverse st"te of "ff"irs. 6ndeed, blindness might ell prevent his committing " number of sins. /ne might in f"ct im"gine " theodicy th"t postul"ted (odAs depriving someone of sight "t birth in order to prevent his or her committing some d"mning sin of the &lust of the eyes& l"ter in life. 6n this c"se e ould h"ve thin$ing simil"r to th"t in M"r$ =3?53 &6f your eye c"uses you to sin, pluc$ it out. 6t is better for you to enter the $ingdom of (od ith one eye th"n to h"ve t o eyes "nd be thro n into hell. & 9cf. "lso 6 !orinthi"ns B3B. : #ut it ould str"in things consider"bly if e ere to try to re"d "ll this into our p"ss"ge. /ccultists "nd Western proponents of F"stern religions h"ve "l "ys pointed to 7ohn =32 "s biblic"l evidence for the doctrine of $"rm" "nd reinc"rn"tion. 6s it possible they "re right) We might feel " little more confident in "llo ing even " qu"lified "ffirm"tive "ns er if there 7osephusA The 7e ish W"r, here he ere "ny other evidence th"t "nyone in 7esusA milieu believed in reinc"rn"tion. -uch evidence, "lbeit sc"nty, m"y be found in rites of the Ph"risees th"t they believe &Fvery soul is
@

incorruptible, but only the souls of good men p"ss into other bodies, the souls of b"d men being sub%ected to etern"l punishment& 966, 8, 1?:. *o "dmittedly this might be " reference to the doctrine of the resurrection of the %ust. The &other bodies& might simply be the superhum"n bodies of the resurrection. P"ul spe"$s of the resurrection body in terms simil"rly suggestive of discontinuity. 6n 66 !orinthi"ns B31 ? he contr"sts the &e"rthly tent& d elling& no reserved in the he"vens, "s if they ith the future &he"venly ere ere t o different bodies. #esides, this is the

only version of " belief in "n "fterlife th"t 7osephus "scribes to the Ph"risees, "nd if he present

going to choose only one v"riety of Ph"r"s"ic belief for his summ"ry, reinc"rn"tionism even if ould not be the most represent"tive. -till, the reference might be to the doctrine of ould h"ve depicted 7ud"ism in the terms reinc"rn"tion. M"ny h"ve pointed out th"t 7osephus

most p"l"t"ble to his re"ders, "nd th"t me"ns 'ellenistic terms. -o, the suggestion runs, he m"y h"ve "scribed 'ellenistic beliefs 9such "s reinc"rn"tion: to 7e ish sects. Iet this "pologetic"l motive need not h"ve forced 7osephus to "ttribute to the Ph"risees beliefs th"t none of them held. 6f belief in reinc"rn"tion ere present "mong some Ph"ris"ic circles, "s it cert"inly "s in l"ter 7e ish heterodoxy, he might merely h"ve chosen to mention this doctrine inste"d of its 9to (entile e"rs: more "lien sounding riv"l, the doctrine of resurrection. -o perh"ps 7osephus m"y be summoned "s b"c$ground evidence for 7e ish reinc"rn"tionism in 7esusA er". Fven so, his description of it ould not fully coincide ith the "ssumptions of the disciples in 7ohn =32 if they

5 h"d reinc"rn"tion in mind. +or "ccording to 7osephusA "ccount, sin ould be punished not by h"t

"ffliction in oneAs next life on e"rth, but by disembodied torment in '"des. #y contr"st, mor"l record determining

occultists see in 7ohn =32 is the doctrine of $"rm", i. e., th"t "ll individu"ls "re reinc"rn"ted, their h"t h"ppens to them for good or ill in e"ch subsequent life. <nd, it is h"rd to deny, this re"ding of the text ould seem to m"$e better sense of it th"n "ny other $no n to us.2 Fven if there is no other evidence for contempor"ry 7e ish belief in $"rm" "nd reinc"rn"tion, th"t does not me"n th"t 7ohn =32 m"y not itself count "s evidence. Iet, be it noted, th"t is "ll e c"n s"y of it8 the p"ss"ge neither "dvoc"tes nor re%ects such " belief per se. 6f e "re right it merely mentions it. <g"in, "ll of " $"rmic debt. 6f the occultists ment te"ches reinc"rn"tionism, theodicy here, e. g., ho thought orth exploring. We c"ll on our much exercised text 7ohn = one l"st time, in our discussion of the fifth type of theodicy in the *e Test"ment. &This h"ppened so th"t the is it displ"yed) We $no or$ of (od might be displ"yed in from the rest of the story th"t the his life& 9v. 2:. <nd precisely ho e e "re told is th"t this m"nAs blindness is not the p"yment Test"; ould h"ve much more to s"y "bout its 1 4 utility "s " ith no sin going unpunished, no misfortune e h"ve ere right in their contention th"t in 7ohn =32 the *e

every b"se is covered

being undeserved. #ut "t most the doctrine is only mentioned "nd this very possibility

divine glory is displ"yed in the blind m"nAs he"ling, but "s e sh"ll see belo , this is not the only "y the story might h"ve ended to "chieve the s"me result. 6n every 7oh"nnine mir"cle story " symbolic signific"nce is never f"r to see$. <fter "ll, they "re &signs& of spiritu"l truths. 6t is cle"r by the end of the ch"pter th"t the story is symbolic of spiritu"l blindness "nd its cure by f"ith. When unli$e the spiritu"lly blind Ph"risees the former blind m"n orships 7esus, e "re to see in his f"ith " reflection of the mir"cle in !"n" in ch"pter @. There, too, 7esus &reve"led his glory, "nd his disciples put their f"ith in him& 9@311:. #ut the story is told on " liter"l level "s 7ohn does "nt us to underst"nd th"t the m"n "s born ell, "nd ith physic"l blindness, so the question

of theodicy is r"ised. 7ohn thought it not unto "rd for (od to h"ve sent the poor m"n through ye"rs "nd ye"rs of life "s " blind begg"r so th"t one d"y he might, so to spe"$, serve "s "n ob%ect lesson. *o sooner does one m"rvel "t (odAs mercy "t he"ling him th"n the troublesome question obtrudes itself, &Why inflict him ith ye"rs of blindness in the first pl"ce)& 6t is "s if e ere to push " m"n into " r"ging torrent to demonstr"te our cour"ge "s e %ump in to rescue himC This is

8 not mere c"rping8 remember, the question is precisely th"t of (odAs f"irness. The disciples "nted to $no , "nd e ish to $no , here is the %ustice in " m"nAs being born blind if (od is "ble to prevent it) 6f one ishes to ob%ect th"t e "re c"ric"turing (od by holding him hole question of theodicy is ould pl"ce us outside "ys in hich the *e ith the illness responsible to hum"n st"nd"rds, then let us "dmit th"t the our chosen field of inquiry, since Test"ment tries to gr"pple

rong he"ded, "nd th"t (od is, "fter "ll, beyond good "nd evil. <nd this e "re see$ing to c"t"logue the

ith the question of theodicy. <nother difficulty

theodicy offered in our p"ss"ge is its very limited "pplic"bility. /bviously most sufferers "re un"ble to sei,e upon 7ohn =3? to r"tion"li,e their illness for the simple f"ct th"t no mir"culous he"ling is forthcoming. #ut of course recoveries:. Wh"t of those tr"ce their m"l"dy) #esides demonic victimi,"tion 9our first *e Test"ment option:, one possibility rem"ins. The e h"ve been m"int"ining th"t 7ohn = is not intended to hich they might cover "ll illnesses, only the one in the story 9"nd presum"bly others issuing in mir"culous ho rem"in "fflicted, yet seem guilty of no sin to

sic$ person m"y follo P"ul in believing th"t sic$nesses m"y be "llo ed or even sent &so th"t the life of 7esus m"y "lso be reve"led in our body& 966 !orinthi"ns ?314:. 6n his opposition to the triumph"list &super "postles& ho opposed him in !orinth, P"ul cl"ims his sc"rs of suffering "s ho "re !hristAs3 &We h"ve this tre"sure in %"rs of cl"y to sho the true &signs follo ing& those

th"t this "ll surp"ssing po er is from (od "nd not from us. We "re h"rd pressed on every side, but not crushed8 perplexed but not in desp"ir& 966 !orinthi"ns ?35 8:. The ide" is ex"ctly p"r"llel to th"t in 6 !orinthi"ns @3?3 &My mess"ge "nd my pre"ching ords, but ere not ith ise "nd persu"sive ith " demonstr"tion of the -piritAs po er, so th"t your f"ith might not rest on menAs

isdom, but on (odAs po er. & P"ul "nts it to rem"in "bsolutely cle"r %ust hence the po er in his ministry comes. 'is speech is unimpressive) <ll the better no one c"n "ttribute the compelling qu"lity of his mess"ge to his person"l eloquence or cleverness. 'is life is full of e"$ness "nd c"l"mity 9cf. 66 !orinthi"ns 113@2 22:) -o be it no one thin$ing th"t mere hum"n resources $eep him going. &Th"t is ill m"$e the mist"$e of hy, for !hristAs s"$e, 6 delight in "s some type of

e"$nesses, in insults, in h"rdships, in persecutions, in difficulties& 966 !orinthi"ns 1@314:. #ut h"t "bout sic$ness) 6f P"ulAs &thorn in the flesh& 966 !orinthi"ns 1@35: physic"l "ffliction, "s most 9though not "ll: exegetes hold, then the "pplic"bility of his thin$ing

= "bout &h"rdships& is "ssumed, since on his o n "ccount it "s the experience of the &thorn& th"t

t"ught him the lesson in the first pl"ce. &Three times 6 ple"ded ith the 0ord to t"$e it " "y from me. #ut he s"id to me, AMy gr"ce is sufficient for you, for my po er is m"de perfect in e"$ness&A 966 !orinthi"ns 1@3=":. 6f 7ohn s" "ffliction, (odAs glory m"de m"nifest in the he"ling of e m"y s"y th"t P"ul sees it displ"yed first "nd foremost in the be"ring of "ffliction

ith "n unflinching endur"nce hich c"n only come from !hrist. -een this "y sic$ness does us the f"vor of loosening the hold over us of the illusion of security "nd self reli"nce. 6t helps us &fix our eyes not on h"t is seen but on h"t is unseen. +or h"t is seen is tempor"ry, but h"t is unseen is etern"l& 966 !orinthi"ns ?318:. This need not imply th"t the sufferer is to see$ out suffering in " m"sochistic f"shion. The point of " theodicy is not to m"$e suffering " desir"ble thing, but r"ther simply to m"$e it underst"nd"ble "nd me"ningful, "nd P"ul seems to h"ve recogni,ed this line "nd "voided overstepping it. +l"gell"nts "nd mediev"l penit"nts m"y h"ve sought out suffering, but P"ul did not. <fter "ll, he $ne "bound& "s ell 9Philippi"ns ?31@:. /f "ll the theodicies mentioned in the *e Test"ment, the sixth is prob"bly the most "ttr"ctive ith either serious difficulties or severe e c"n thin$ of none for e hich not only ho to &be "b"sed, & but &to

"nd service"ble theologic"lly. <11 the others "re beset

limit"tions. They require us to "ccept the re"lity of demons or 9possibly: reinc"rn"tion8 they "s$ us to believe th"t (od visits sic$ness upon us for our sins or, if e "re guilty, our "ncestorsA sins8 or they he"led. The sixth "s$s us simply to follo "ffliction itself "s "n opportunity to dr" the utility of there being so different re"ders ill "ppro"ch the text or$ only if the e "re sure ill be mir"culously

"y of !hrist in our suffering, recogni,ing the Test"ment, since

on !hristAs po er. Iet this very observ"tion points up ith different beliefs, "nd e"ch m"y find "ppropri"te

ide " r"nge of theodicy models in the *e

guid"nce in de"ling ith his or her illness or misfortune.

14

+//T*/TF RF+FRF*!F1-ee Peter 0. #ergerAs highly interesting rem"r$s on this $ind of theodicy in The -"cred !"nopy 9("rden !ity, *I3 Eoubled"y J !omp"ny, 6nc., 1=6=:, pp. 68 51. @+l"vius 7osephus, The 7e ish W"r, tr"ns. (. <. Willi"mson 9#"ltimore3 Penguin #oo$s, 1=58:, pp. 1@= 124. 2. !omp"re our story ith the experience of P"ul Eeussen3 6n 7"ipur 6 met in Eecember 18=@ "n old P"ndit "lmost n"$ed, ho "ppro"ched me groping his

"y. They told me th"t he "s completely blind. *ot $no ing th"t he h"d been blind from birth, 6 symp"thised ith him, "nd "s$ed by h"t unfortun"te "ccident the loss of sight h"d come upon him. 6mmedi"tely "nd ithout sho ing "ny sign h"tever of bitterness, the "ns er "s re"dy to his lips3 $en"cAid "p"r"hen" purv"smin %"nm"ni $riten", &by some crime committed in " former birth. & 9The Philosophy of the Dp"nish"ds, *e Ior$3 Eover, 1=66, p. 212. :