Such expression is not unique. In the sixth century BC, Sidharth Vardhaman and Sidhartha Gautam, both of rich families had given up comforts of life for life of millions subsisting in extreme poverty. Vardhman ended in recommending preference for meager living to spare resources for deprived and Buddha found solution in service to poor and needy.

But neither could score over nature gifted inequalities in abilities, physical and mental as well as of resources. The nature has been unjust but not a single of umpteen million efforts succeeded so far but promoters got worshipped for their daring to fight the inequality a gift of nature. Who sought different ways to seek solution did not succeed but their followers converted several of them to immortality to end their own difficulties. Jesus Christ was born poor but as a human and got converted to be god three centuries later. Mahavir and Buddha immediately got established as gods and Mohamed Paigambar as revered personalities far above other human beings.

None attempted to fight nature to end inequality but sought solution by imposing responsibility on better off persons to take care of less equipped. Perhaps they also saw a design in nature’s gift on inequality. If all were born equal, the life would be no more interesting even in ancient era. The great novels and scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and Latin or Persian scriptures are interesting for study in striving to overcome inequalities.

Human societies all over the Earth have similar pattern of growth and living. First twenty Years for learning and acquiring skills, physical strength and abilities, and next forty years of working and then come forty years maximum after retiring and surviving.

Indians attended mainly to their mental conditions to gain best philosophy, astrology, medical science and count and counting ability. Other civilizations devoted their life only on survival and philosophy of survival as dictated by their understanding of life. Indians never made their life enveloped in religion and under dictate of one entity. They had freedom of choice as a way of their life to allow tolerance for others and freedom for them as individuals to allow three religions, more as different patterns of life to develop and dictate in different times. The Sanatan Dharma did not impose any limits on personal comforts to limit material assets, Jainism though claims to be original since beginning of human evolution but material evidence pegs it down to seventh century BC. No restrictions were in way of seeking comfortable life but Jain philosophy has recommended a severe austerity in living and the Buddhism said neither wallowing in comfort nor austerity in extreme form can be way of life. Serving needy and poor alone can help in seeking salvation. Four religions of the Middle East origins allowed no freedom in choice of their deity for worship or their religious head. Thus they imposed authoritarianism.

None of the religions world over sought elimination of equality as the leaders could sense and see danger. Without equality, the extreme situations would persist. We do not know why but the nature may have excellent reason to impose an inequality to provide full time engagement to both the evolution process and the natural correction process. No one can find faults with the god given system though some continue to gain a false image of sensitivity.