Destination… FAITH
Questions generally come with a prefix, which is, ‘never-ending’! And so I don’t really expect the Thomases to have run out of questions by now. But I do suggest avoiding feeling guilty about having doubts, as that could lead to repressing them. It won’t help. Bring your doubts to the open and look for answers. With each new query we should remind ourselves that it is alright to have them and to start another search for answers.Those who look for direction in the bible will find that Saint Paul does suggest that we should test all things.
In fact, I feel that the contradictions within the myriad of religions are like a puzzle that God seems to have deliberately put in the world for us to solve. When the whole world is God’s play ground then how could God resist from putting a mystery to the search that leads to him. The search for the truth is the most challenging of puzzles. Thinking over it sharpens one’s mental abilities and the seekers level of intelligence rises which is very helpful for those who choose knowledge to lead to the truth. Another way to look at it is that lower level of understanding makes the same simple basic truth in all religions and philosophies seem so very different!
As the seeker unravels one mystery after another he would eventually find out that the mysteries are unending. His path of doubts may not end with a state of no more questions, but should end with a state of no doubts about at least one source of wisdom, so that any further question won’t shake one off that one tested answer. When that happens, questions would lose their sting and will not create doubts.
So Thomases, we do have to anchor our boat somewhere! We will have to affix our faith on to a tested source and then believe everything that comes from it! The doubters’ destination has to be faith, as only that can carry the extra measure that intellect alone cannot.
When I first wrote down all I had learnt in the form of question and answers, it was just for the sake of organizing everything and in the process getting the clearer picture. Just when I had written a short summary, my husband gifted me a book, ‘Conversations with God Part I’ by Neale Donald Walsch. It dealt with areas of my interest and expanded my view. But the real gift of the book to me was the way it drilled in the idea of ‘choice’, further than any other book had done before. I could see that what I had written was my choice of the way I wished to see the reality. But I also realized that I do not have to discredit my choice. ‘It can never be wrong. It is absolutely right from my perspective! It is how I see things reconciling all the perspectives that I have taken so far.
So I should have by now cleared every question I had in my mind? Well I guess there is still one question and the question is to my own self. It is the question that started me on to this search for truth and now as I conclude my search I have to give myself a clear answer. And the same old question put today to myself is -Do I believe the advaitic(literal meaning is ‘not two’) philosophy (which in essence implies that ‘tat twam asi’ or ‘that thou art’) as true? That is, though I have accepted as true that ‘everything is God’ (within an earlier query in section I), the question that still remains is whether I feel it is proper to declare it with a statement “I am God”.
My answer is both a yes and a no. Guess I have internalized the lesson of giving two contradicting answers and calling both of it true! I am prepared to explain it though.
I had misunderstood the advaitic philosophy when I was first introduced to it by my friend. It is because I could only see an arrogant lifting of the head as my friend declared that ‘I am God’! This expression was supposed to be the summary of the philosophy. This expression was given as an attack to the Christian philosophy that supposedly considered God as separate from man. I argued against this philosophy not merely to protect my beliefs, but because this philosophy was threatening to make me lonesome. I did not want this philosophy to be true because I didn’t admire myself too much and I didn’t want to be God!
From the book ‘The Wisdom of Yoga’ by K.P. Bahadur, I learnt that the import of this philosophy (advaitic) is that, the soul is identical to Brahman. Also that, ‘Brahman is the doer and the deed, cause and effect, creator and creation. It is the truth behind the universe of unreality. Brahman is all that there is’ (quoted from the book). The unreality mentioned in the book, I am led to believe means the false self which interprets the world in a particular way as to allot it a power to influence the self. When the true self is discovered the world becomes unreal, because the real self cannot be affected by anything. For example a circumstance is interpreted by the intellect as unpleasant and the false self consequently experiences pain and unhappiness. When the nature of the true self is realized as the imperturbable, circumstances and the world is understood as unreal having no power to influence the true self. Therefore the world and the emotion packed self become unreal and everything thus becomes a play of the only reality, the Brahman. This results in equanimity in all circumstances, which is called the experience of the spirit.
I believe today therefore,(and have confirmed through my study) that the ‘I’ in ‘I am God’ does not refer to the emotion packed, sensitive, weak human being that I am, rather it refers to the Being( the Spirit) within me, which witnesses all the play of the mind and the body. The Being who is so close, as to be me though I am deluded by the body to believe that this Being is separate from me! The Being, which is in my body, is linked to the Cosmic Mind. The more I give time to this Being, the more I can get linked to the Cosmic Mind and be led by it, but the more I ignore this being I choose not be led by it. This Being can be called my soul! There is something shifting between the body and the soul and for want of a better word I just call this something ‘choice’, the freedom of choice, to be the body or be the soul. But this Being is for me(and is me)yesterday, today and forever even when the choice is to not allow the body to be ruled by it and thereby experience being a mere Body.
The advaitic philosophy only asks me to choose to see this Being or in other words my soul as myself rather than see myself as the body. It is difficult because choice is enabled by the bodily aids of sight and experience. It is compounded by the fact that only the ‘body’ can be seen and emotions generated by the body make a rush to get experienced thus forever clouding the inner calm which is the state of the true self!
I would not have been afraid of the advaitic philosophy had I know then what I came to know later that my soul has different characteristics than my body. The soul is ever calm and is ever at peace. The advaitic philosophy only asks me to switch off from the tense chattering of the body and become aware more often of the calm within. As the period of ‘switching off’ increases, this Being will get more and more control over the body. Finally when switching off becomes easy and natural, the Being would have come to be in full control of the body and therefore rule the body. The body will have receded then, to become merely an instrument to the Being and thereby to the Cosmic Mind. When this happens within a person, he would say ‘I’, and would in fact be referring to the Being within!
The awareness of God within is required and is inline with what Jesus meant when he said, ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’, and therefore if my understanding of the advaitic philosophy is correct, then it is no different from the Christian philosophy. I believe that the kingdom of God is within the crust of the illusory self that we have created and mistakenly call it our self. Therefore it becomes important that the awareness of the God Self be of the soul and not inclusive of the mind (of the body) that is the false self. Mind is of the mortal and ‘the mortal is no God’ as can be understood from Ezekiel chapter 28. It is Gods proclamation against the King of Tyre for comparing his mind with the Mind of God. A true awareness can be appreciated by the fact that it never brings in comparison and pride. Pride about one’s self as God is pride in the false self. Whatever is perishable is just illusory, and therefore not God as He is not illusion. God is the imperishable, who will be there even when the heaven and earth pass away. Therefore if the advaitic philosophy is summarized as ‘I am God’, then it is only true when a person speaks in communion with God in a state of total awareness, the awareness of being the whole forgetting all separations. Like the awareness of the ripple that it is water; the awareness of the ray that it is light. When that is not the case, I do not believe the statement to be true. Unless the separation from God is removed at least in terms of knowledge and understanding, the person is not in a position to be fit for the advaitic philosophy. He is yet to have this philosophy in his adhikara (the level of understanding). Each person according to his level of understanding takes a particular way to approach God and adopts a particular concept of God. This is called adhikarabheda as per Hindu philosophy. When one concept is understood and adopted, other concepts may seem wrong, but that is required for faithfully following the road of one’s adhikara. Therefore for one who does not fully grasp the essence of advaitic philosophy, it won’t be wrong to believe that God is separate from man (dvaitic philosophy) and thereby adopt the worship of a personal God to reach Him. While anyone who has fully understood the advaitic concept can definitely opt to use the affirmation ‘I Am’ or I am Infinite Being’ during meditation (not in general talk or in defining God to someone of a different level of understanding) for realizing the true self.(In fact the truth is that even dvaita and advaita will be found the same truth from different viewpoints to the one with experiential and not mere intellectual understanding of the truth.)
It would be interesting to know that dvaita and advaita are in fact the two marked trends of the same philosophy called Vedanta which in turn is based on the Upanishads (part of the Vedas)! Yet for the follower of advaitic philosophy dvaitic philosophy is wrong and for the follower of dvaitic philosophy advaita is wrong. But I would say both are absolutely right in their thinking as long as it helps them in what they aim for and as long as they do not try to force their concept on someone whose adhikara is different. Because the only thing wrong would be to make a person adopt something, especially terms like ‘I am God’, that he is not intellectually or experientially ready for.
Therefore I do think that instead of saying, ‘I am God’ it would be always wiser for the Mortal to say that ‘God is there in me’, so that neither the speaker nor the listener gets confused about the statement. Beyond all the illusions of the world and behind the illusory veil of emotions of each person is the eternal calm, the stillness that is the only reality, the imperishable, the God. Even the Hindu scriptures do not proceed by teaching everybody that they are Gods. Instead the three initial sections (the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aaryanyakas) of each of the four Vedas lead the simple man through rituals and cleansing, till he has grown in understanding and relationship with God and till he is ready to read the final section of the scriptures, that is the Upanishads where it is whispered into his ears (and is meant only for his ears) that tat twam asi (that thou art). I personally have not yet attained the 'perpetual' awareness to be a worthy student for the ‘Upanishad’ or in other words, for ‘the truth to be whispered’ in my ears. So for me what is true for now is that, God is in me. And yet my understanding of the advaitic philosophy does permit me to meditate using the powerful affirmation ‘I Am’ to discover the God in me. I have answered the question I put to myself and I hope that it is also clear to the reader as to why I said both a yes and a no to the statement ‘I am God’.
And so finally I reach the state where I have no more questions? Not really, there are still questions like, what could be meant by the promise of the resurrection of the body? Could it mean that the followers of Christ will undergo a transfiguration of their bodies, where the perishable body would be transformed into an imperishable body? After all, Jesus took up his earthly body, three days after death and ascended into heaven with the Body!?
Buddha longed for Nirvana. He did not want to maintain his separate identity within the body. He never desired to keep his body; he wanted to lose his identity in the oneness with God. Does that mean there can be different destinations to man after the death of his physical body? One, where the spiritual body is absorbed into the oneness of God and becomes indistinguishable from it; another where a separate identity (as a spiritual body) from the one God is maintained? Then could Jesus be calling us to another world where those who have learnt to let the spirit direct the Body, those who have mastered the (enjoyable but difficult to handle) machine called Body, can live for ever with a Body and that too an imperishable body? Saint Paul says as follows regarding the raising of the dead, ‘When buried it (the body) is a physical body; when raised, it will be a spiritual body.’ 1 Corinthians 15:44. ‘Those who belong to the earth are like the one who was made of earth (first Adam); those who are of heaven are like the one who came from heaven (the second Adam or Jesus). Just as we wear the likeness of the man made of earth, so we will wear the likeness of the Man from heaven. 1 Corinthians15: 48, 49’. Saint Paul also says that the mortal cannot possess immortality and therefore the mortal will be changed into the immortal (in an instant) when the time comes.
Also, why does Jesus say that I am going ahead of you to make a room for you, there are many rooms in my mansion? Could it be that the ‘life in abundance’ that Jesus promises is ‘a life for ever in an imperishable body’? The Bible does say that those who are baptized are actually baptized into the death of Jesus and so those who share in his death will also share in his resurrection. Maybe this question can be answered by a concept that many religions share, that is, the concept of Seven Heavens and even seven Earths or "the many worlds of space and time" (both Abrahamic and Hindu religions). From this concept it is understood that there are unseen universes where 'form' is, where there are angels and ascended souls. Even beyond these heavens is the state called "Nirvana" where there is no form.This I believe is the state called the Divine Throne which is said to be in or above the seventh heaven in most Abrahamic religions.
This question often is answered to people with the gift of visions, and so I cannot go further into with mere thinking; but there is one more significant controversy remaining which can be contended with reasoning.
Controversy regarding the logic of Synthesis
Yes! The truth is that even 'synthesis' has its own share of criticism. Since I have accepted synthesis and worked with it to find my own picture of unity within contradictions, I have to share the criticism meted out to 'synthesisers'. I read the book 'Hindu view of Christianity and Islam' by Ram Swarup (the author participated in our country's struggle for independence). In many parts it spoke very disapporovingly of Semitic religions (prophetic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam) which is understandable given the ideological imposition of semetic religion onto the rest of the world (including India). The author quotes Ralph Barsodi (educationist and thinker) "everywhere in the world excepting Asia Minor, the three great Semetic religions..are intruders.....indigenous Asia is Brahmanist, Confucianist, Buddhist, Taoist; indigenous Europe is pagan"
I too believe that it is oppressive to force one's beliefs onto another Human who has equal rights to use his own discretion (discussion and dialogue are the respectful way to understand differences) and so I took much of the criticism with a pinch of salt. But I have to object when certain criticisms are very unfair.
Ram Swarup says 'Besides the rationalists, many seekers in the West had learnt to reject Christianity as an inadequate spiritual ideology. But under the auspices of Hindu Synthesisers (Hindu's who claim that all religions preach the same thing), it began to find a new acceptance.'
'They(synthesisers) misrepresented the spirit of different preachings by slurring over important differences and by making too much of incidental agreements'
Here(and often through the book) I can't help but feel that the author's anger against the Christian ideological oppression over the ages which he too witnessed and experienced, is speaking rather than a real understanding of the unifying features of the two religions. He doesn't seem to note that synthesis cannot be acceptable to rationalists and unbiased thinkers, if it is not a 'rational' synthesis.
The author speaks of Visuddhi marg which tells that the first four dhyanas(meditation) are charecterized by reflection, sustained application, joy, one pointedness and mindfulness. The fourth level of dhyana involves mindfulness and equal mindedness. This equal mindedness opens the door to many kinds of infinities. Beyond these infinities lies the nirodhbhumi of Patanjali Yoga or the Nirvana bhumi of the budhists.
He says that Higher Indian spirituality begins with the fourth Dhyana..whereas in prophetic religions the truths are restricted to the first two or three dhyanas.
He points out that on several occassions the New testament emphasises on faith, piety, joy..which are all truths of the first dhyanas.
But the author doesnt seem to realize that he has picked up few words in the Bible and on their basis he has 'synthesized' the prophetic (semetic) religions to Lower Indian Spirituality! He is very obviously himself guilty of unfair synthesis! There are more words in the bible than just faith, piety and joy! Often in all comparisions he seems to be speaking only in terms of the Yogic branch of Hinduism forgetting that it is just one branch of Hinduism, where Hinduism is like a huge tree with numerous branches and no branch claiming to itself anymore glory than that of being part of the tree. In choosing to speak only on the yogic branch he is choosing to be on the safe side and also is definitely not being a fair synthesiser. Synthesis by Ram Swarup aims to show, 'My religion is better' and speaks of the anger of the author, whereas synthesis by the 'synthesisers' mentioned by the author, has been with an open unbiased mind. In fact the Christian prayer experiences are similar to what is claimed in the Dhyana experiences'. The Christian Prayer groups and retreats focus on few hours or days exclusively of prayer and worship, and it is a very powerful meditation on 'Love for God'. The blessings of the Holy Spirit that are claimed to be received in such meditiations are true (and I speak as one who has participated in a retreat). This blessing is the same as opening up the connect with the Universal divine spirit (it can viewed as opening up of the Kundalini or the channel through the whole body that is in direct connect with the universal spirit). The spirit opens up essentially the gifts of Agape(godly) Love. Though in different names; all are seeking the 'Dhyana' and Divine connect, though this experience of 'becoming opened up to God' is referred differently in different religions. Of all meditations I have tried, I personally feel that focusing hours and days on one's own 'Love for God' is utmost powerful and it naturally brings in mindlessness without having sought it! And so it is totally untrue to say that Christianity is limited to only the lower dhyanas like sustained application of joy and not the higher dhyanas of mindlessness which opens the doors to the infinite.
There were numerous other instances, while reading the book by Ram Swarup that I felt that he is not doing a Just and total comparision. For example, when he speaks of the wrath of the Biblical God, he forgets of the wrath of Shiva the destroyer.
He also forgets the Hindu faith in incarnates when he doubts the intentions or incarnation of Jesus.
He questions the intentions of Jesus in his statements like in the following statement of Jesus-"Beware of false prophets who come to you in the sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves"(Jn.10.8. This is a verse which all Christians understand as a warning not to believe in everybody but rather to test them. The verse urges one to test with the question-Are they like wolves that devour up the innocent, or are they really like a sheep that symbolises peace and calm? But these very words have been made to look by Ram Swaup as if Jesus was jealous of attention to anybody else as prophet! Knowledge as always is an instrument in Man's hands which can be used for good or for worse. It can be seen that the words used to explain the same statement can make totally different impressions on the hearers and readers about the very same statement. And so, this is what I have to say for Synthesis as well. Synthesis if does good and brings peace (which is the state in which God exists) then it can to be accepted (with one's own discretion of course), if it brings discord and doubt, it is not to be accepted.
But before I end this answer on this note, I want to address my respect to all the authors whom I have read and expressed critically. I want to thank them because without their thoughts to guide my own thoughts, my own book would not have been complete
For example the beautiful statement by Ram Swarup regarding the Yogic approach , 'The man on the inner journey not only realises that God or Gods are within him, but he also realises that he is within them. On this path one meets many divine figures which are also truths of his own soul' To the authors doubts on the Historical truth of Jesus, his own statements are the answer. The Historical reality of Jesus is not outside but within as a divine presence and an ever present reality.
To come back to the question of the destination to which a christian is called, the honest answer is that I do not know ‘the Christian destination’. Logic fails me here but here is my challenge to believe what I cannot view even with any reasoning.
And so here are my personal statements of faith(not logic), ‘I have tested with the help of knowledge and reasoning the truth and promise of faith that the name Jesus represents namely 'of freedom from the binding to the world'. I will follow his command of love (for God, for neighbours) and wherever that leads me though I may not understand any thing about the destination. My destination faith is Jesus. Therefore I give up my oars to him and from now on he will row me forward and I will relax and wait patiently for him to reveal the destination he has prepared for me.’
I could have followed somebody else, considering my faith in all scriptures or looked towards other possible destinations, but the reason I have accepted Jesus(or the symbolic reality called Jesus that chooses by design of the universe to be part of the known world) as destination faith is that he was the only one who said, ‘This is my body which will be given up for you.’ I cannot think of anybody else with such selfless love. I would rather follow a so called lunatic who demonstrated such love for each man and who promised that his sacrifice has prepared a place for me in heaven, than follow any other person (or other symbolic realities) who might have attained the oneness with God but neither suffered for me nor promised me a place; or follow the disbelief (in Jesus and his promised destination) of a world absorbed in self love. Even in everyday life we follow the friend who promises to keep a seat for us at the theatre than another equally loved who tells the way to the theatre but makes no such promise. There may be many who ask us how we can be assured that he will keep his promise. The answer could be something like," It is because I know him as I know myself"
There is also another thing I am sure of and that is; faith does eventually get rewarded. ‘According to your belief be it done unto you’.
Jesus fulfilled the requirements of Thomas (for believing that Jesus had indeed risen) as we see in John20:27- Then Jesus said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not persist in doubt but believe.’ We also the Christian Thomases may have had some requirements to be fulfilled before we could believe in everything about Jesus. If Jesus has not by now fulfilled it then be sure that he will in time. Because Thomas had not even addressed his requirements to Jesus but rather, he only had said to the other disciples that he won’t believe until he put his finger to the wound in Jesus’ hand. And yet Jesus was listening. I believe that Jesus is always listening to our hearts too. Though we may not be aware (quite like Thomas) but the Lord is surely present, listening to our every doubt and ever prepared to clear it. We only have to be clear about what proof we want to help us believe. Jesus can’t be angry with us for doubting as most Christians believe. He only says that those who are able to believe without seeing are happier. And so we may doubt but we shouldn’t persist in our doubting and thereby persist in unhappiness. That is, we must search for answers and clear our doubts, because peace and faith is important to reach God. And peace and faith cannot come where doubts live.
Today I may not be free of questions but I am free of doubts. That is, I sure have reached a state where questions do not come with the usual baggage of discomfort and pain. It is because I have finally anchored myself to Jesus. I allow the questions to be answered in their own time because it is no more a life or death issue as I am in trusted hands. What I work towards now is to experience again the everyday communion with God that I had once lost. With my doubts put to rest I am in touch with my calm! I can now experience again what it was to be so happy as to want nothing but the company of God. No questions in the world are worth giving up this relationship. ‘I would rather walk in the dark with God than go alone in the light. I would rather walk by faith with Him than go alone by sight.’
Everything turns out to the good of those that trust God. For eventually I gained from having strayed from the path of faith, as I have come back stronger and more evolved in my thinking in a way that any sort of question, can no longer shake me off. Today if anybody says ‘advaita’ I can say ‘yes’, or dvaita( man and God are separate) and I would still say ‘yes’. If somebody says God is nirvikar (without emotion), I would say surely, and if somebody says God is love, I would say ‘absolutely’.
And if the question is, why God didn’t give just one answer to who he really is, then I have to point out that just as a country like India which is a myriad of cultures cannot be understood by visiting one state, how can God who is unimaginably more complex be understood in one statement. So lets not argue whether ‘I am God’ or ‘God is separate from man’. We need these and even more concepts to create a vast mosaic of ‘ideas about God’ and then view the picture to add an ounce more to our understanding of God. In any case what use is our understanding alone when we finally reach our death beds? Would our understanding alone prepare us to leave the life we love and go to where God calls us? To be prepared to go to God, we need to love him more than anything, and that can come only when we accept our intellectual limitations and work more towards building a relationship with Him. For it is only a strong relationship with God, that will help us at our death beds to feel that ‘I am not going away from my loved ones but rather that I am coming home to somebody who not only loves me most but whom I too have learnt to love the most.’ It is obvious why we are asked to love God above all else. It is, so that bidding the world adieu may not become too difficult!
Therefore we need to cross over to God in this life itself and that is possible only when we take the road of Faith and build the relationship with God; by finding time each day to meditate upon His Word and thus opening our inner eyes and then doing what is asked of us, even when our circumstances and intellect point to a totally different course of action. For example, if God’s words suggest that we should not let our heart be troubled and that we should have a merry heart, then we should at least remember these words in our trying circumstances. We will at least be definitely thanking God in our old age for these words that we obeyed, for the robust health, that a merry heart helps maintain! In the context of these particular words, it also becomes important that we clear our doubts about God as it is one of the major causes to a troubled heart! Moreover how can a person discover the 'perpetual calmness' within unless the person has an untroubled heart which is the result of an unshakable trust in a Power within and without!
My concluding suggestion to every Thomas and especially the Christian Thomases, is that whenever faced with any more of confusing contradictions, just bring to mind the Sun! God made the Earth go round the Sun, and yet it seems to us on Earth that the Sun goes round the Earth. It is not God’s fault or even our mistake that what is, does not look the way it really is. From out in the universe the former is true and for all practical purposes on Earth, the latter is true. One can choose to keep wondering and worrying about which the truth is as the majority of us have never seen the whole thing from outer space. On the other hand we could believe in the words of one reliable person who has actually gone there and thereby put to rest our doubts and thenceforth just enjoy the warmth of the Sun and all the blessings of life that it is to us; for after all that is what the Sun is for!
Today I personally choose the latter. I would rather experience the joy of the companionship of God every moment of my life than keep troubling my heart by worrying about contradictions and controversies. And so for me God is the name for the One Power that Holds all that exists and the one Power called God is also moving in me, and yet God is my loving Father on whom I lean. This is my realization.
Showing posts with label Thomases' Road to Realization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomases' Road to Realization. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
SectionII-chr11 Prayer in the Approach to God
To build a relationship with God we must understand what each meeting with God feels like or in other words, we need to understand what is a Spiritual Experience. The teacher, who taught me about synthesis, also spoke about ‘Spiritual Experience’ as follows ‘to have a spiritual experience is to have forgotten oneself for a moment.’ He used to say that ‘even an artist immersed in creating his art form is undergoing a spiritual experience.’! This would imply that doing a work that one loves can be a medium to the spiritual experience, especially because it provides the all important ‘detachment’. Everything concerned with the self is out of mind when one is immersed, totally absorbed, in the work one loves. This work could be anything, writing, painting, music and any other as long as there is total immersion in it.
In fact music and dance are also powerful forms of meditation. Devotional songs are often considered the best prayer. Guru Nanak is known to have realized his beloved (whom he knew as Ik Onkar which is Punjabi for Om) through music. Shiva represents the energy in dance. Devotional dance brings out the energy in the being, connecting it to the powers of the universe.
On the other hand when there is nothing on which to devote one’s energies; the self and all its concerns come rushing. When the brain is not engaged in some productive work, it spends its energies by being destructive. It is aptly said that an empty mind is the devils workshop. An empty mind does think upon meaningless matters just to keep itself occupied, because it was created to be occupied. It spends its energies in aggression, possession, obsession, addiction, which are the time pass of an unengaged mind.
So whenever we find ourselves engaged in destructive thinking, we should realize that we are trapped in the worldly realm. To move again into the spiritual realm the easiest way is to find the right work and forget the self in the work. And so one can plainly conclude that Spiritual Experience through any approach must be the same as the experience of being immersed in a work of one’s choice! Somebody said very aptly that ‘Work is Worship’
What is the role of prayer in the approach to God?
‘All our libraries and studies are mere emptiness compared with our closets.’ Mr. Spurgeon.
What we seek is a perpetual relationship with God and not merely a one time spiritual experience. Perpetual experience is built by adding in one brick after another where each brick is a spiritual experience.To build a relationship there has to be a daily communication.This daily communication is Prayer. For communication there has to be speaking and also necessarily a period of listening. Prayer is therefore the means to this two way communication with God. Prayer is a daily communication with the unseen energy that drives the world. But prayer has so many ways and aspects that it has to be understood more deeply to become a real door to the unseen and so I am devoting a whole chapter to it.
Gratitude and prayer for others
Though today I believe in the importance of prayer above all research or study, it has not been always so. There has been a period in my life in which I did not pray at all. My prayers before that stage had been entirely for the fulfillment of my wishes or removal of problems that obstructed their fulfillment. I began to feel over time that praying for the removal of personal problems was only reminding me that I am in a problem situation and that it sort of only magnified the problem. Praying was to me like rolling in the gutter called ‘my problem’ leaving me feeling worse after prayer. That made me abandon prayer altogether. I was happier just being absorbed in ‘daily works’. I didn’t realize then that what was hurting me was not prayer but the manner and the topic of my prayer. I had a thinking that God should be giving only what I perceive as good for me. I was too immature to realize then, that believing in God means accepting everything that he chooses for us, even when we perceive it as ‘bad’.
Of course when life adamantly takes its own direction without consulting our wishes or dreams, we are left with no other option but to give up the importance that we accord to “my thinking, my dreams, my aims and myself”! But when that really happens finally, the need to sulk over ‘unpleasant’ happenings is gone, after all now one is not living in some constant expectation from life. When there comes such an acceptance of situations and a sincere gratitude to God for his wise decisions (which are albeit beyond our understanding), everything changes!
Whole hearted acceptance, changes one’s attitude and thereby the reactions to the ‘bad situations’. And suddenly as things change for the better, one may realize with a shock that 'non acceptance of life situations’ was the only thing that had gone wrong”.
Therefore today I believe that prayer becomes most helpful in the approach to God, when it consists of ‘gratitude’ and ‘prayer for others’ rather than mere demands. Gratitude, because it helps us remember that most of the things that happened during the day were good. It helps to realize how we fret over the single unpleasant occurrence in a day and forget the seven pleasant ones! If we think clearly, then the count of blessings each day will definitely be much more than the count of what we consider as unpleasant. These counts each day will surely make us breathe easy and relax, knowing that the day wasn’t that bad after all!
Prayer for others helps us see that our sufferings are so insignificant compared to what others suffer. Looking back into time, I feel that in our childhood we are able to empathize with the suffering of others, but as we grow older, we learn to put to mute our sensitivity to the suffering of others; because suffering is everywhere and we feel we can’t help anyway. But today I feel that we can in fact help. Somebody once asked me ‘how can God allow such suffering, why doesn’t he help?’ I personally feel that God has given us free will and he can help the world only if it is our common will that he interfere. Our will for God’s intervention is put forth when we pray. While reading tragic news in the paper instead of trying to move away our attention, we have to allow our eyes to well up with tears and pause a moment to pray for peace for the concerned people or souls. We may not know what is right for an individual, but prayer for peace and strength can never be an inappropriate prayer. In our own trying circumstances also we must remember that there are countless who might be in similar circumstances, and take our situation as an opportunity from God to pray for all in similar circumstances by using our own intensity of need.
What is the right thing to ask for another? I used to wonder, 'how can I be sure that what I am praying for the other person is proper or not, after all only God knows what is right for him or her'. We may pray for somebody’s recovery from a life threatening disease and it may not happen. And we may also think that anyway everybody has to die one day or the other! Personally, I used to find unanswered prayers very discouraging and therefore avoided praying for sick people. But later, when prayers again became a part of my life, I began to realize that in cases where I had pushed God, asking him to go in accordance to my wishes; I had experienced a definite feeling of despair all through. Whenever I have had such feelings, I have found that the prayer has finally not been answered. On the other hand, there are cases where I have experienced peace after repeated prayers. In such cases the prayers were finally answered. This difference may be because of factors like my own faith while asking something that seemed impossible or the intensity and sincerity of my demand, or even my willingness or unwillingness to accept whatever could be God’s own will in the regard. My personal feeling is that one major factor to it is that when the message, the response from the soul is something I am unwilling to hear, it results in the distress due to the non acceptance of the message by the conscious mind and yet a subconscious awareness that the specific request is not in accordance with God’s will. When the answer from the soul is favorable my conscious mind immediately hears and becomes assured and relaxed! This is where one has to remember that prayer is a two way ‘communication’. One has to keep the heart open for answers, and for that matter, whatever those answers may be! One has to become mature enough to keep in mind at all times that God’s choice is best. It is true that belief powers reality but if all belief turned to reality there would have been no space for God. When a strong belief does not become a reality there is more reason to believe in a God who decides whether what we are asking with our limited awareness, is in concurrence to what experience our soul is actually calling out to, for its growth. For we don’t know what we really are wanting, we can ask only from as far as we can be aware of, but the one who gives sees further into our soul. Therefore though it is true that what we believe has the power to come true, we must also remember that Jesus in his prayers always included “Not by my will but according to your will God be it done”. When the rod and staff of God guides us, we must remember that our pain is an indicator that it is a direction we must not take.
What I am suggesting here is that a check on ‘resultant’ feelings could avoid disappointment over unanswered prayers, as these resultant feelings may be an indication of God’s will in the regard. Having realized this, a subsequent acceptance of God’s will as the best would also prevent further distress and dejection. We should remember that when we pray we are in fact surrendering everything to God’s will. The only thing wrong that can happen after such surrender is our non acceptance of God’s will.
Another thing is that prayer for the sick need not be only for the recovery (as I used to think), but more importantly it should involve a prayer to God to provide the necessary courage to the person undergoing the trial and also to those close to him/her. Finally I have found that, regret for a seemingly unanswered prayer is more bearable than a regret of the like, ‘if only I had at least once prayed for that person’.
Asking for ones needs
Now personal prayer can surely also hold something for ones own person! Prayer helps us to define what we need and faith in god helps us to believe that we can get it. At the same time, surrender to gods will helps to ensure that it is not our limited conscious want but our expanded soul yearnings that find fulfillment. When we ask with this surrender, often we might find that things may happen exactly opposite to our beliefs but in the long run, what it eventually leads to, we realize is what we really needed. Even when we seem to be drifting, that really is not the case. We are always moving in the direction of our inner magnets drive. Remember “ All things work for good of those who love God” That is why giving prime importance to God will always lead us in the best direction possible for our lives however difficult the road might seem.
We can speak to God with abandon, as to a best friend. It could be about joys, worries, expectations, anything. Opening our mind in this way helps us become clear about our problem. But to avoid prayer from becoming just "the wallowing in the gutter called our problem" we should also find a solution and focus on it from that point on, to make the solution our reality.
An experience associated with bringing all the emotions to the fore; anger, envy, sorrow or whatever is that in this state of extreme emotions you might discover occasions of the other extreme within, the unperturbed calm which is like the calm centre within a whirlwind; and with this experience, comes an awareness of a remedy to the problem surrendered. To each person experiences during prayer differ, and no particular experience is supposed to be sought after. Every prayer opens its own doors and so prayer has to be always done for its own sake and not seeking a particular experience. Therefore even if one doesn’t get this awareness after the opening up; just a resolve that, ‘now that I have surrendered all in my mind to God, everything that will happen will be God’s will for me and therefore will be what is proper for me, and I will accept it gracefully’, will lead to the same result as would following the answer of the soul.
Prayer to achieve the communication from the other end for answers can involve silence, a form of meditation which is an effort to switch off the human mind and switch on to the cosmic mind. This can be experienced (as described earlier) as the discovery of the inner calm and silence after a period of mindfulness experiencing all emotions to its intensity; or it can be sought directly by focuusing on a single thing like breathing or chanting.
What about following community prayers and religious rules?
Community prayer is based on the verse that says that where two or more people are gathered in God’s name, there God is in the midst of them.
But of course, if any particular method doesn’t seem to help, one must surely experiment with other methods. On the other hand, once prayer has become a part of one’s daily life, any type of prayer would be of help. It’s like exercise. We find one or the other problem with a form of exercise, when we have just initiated into exercising. Once we get into the mind set of exercising daily, we find any form of exercise enjoyable. It’s also the purpose, that is, which part of our body we want to target, that decides which exercise to choose. So also, each stage of development of an individual may call for a different form of prayer. So it would be wisest to just go with what the mind is prepared for at present, rather than trying to identify with what the community is doing.
Something we should keep reminding ourselves is that we always have the freedom to choose. There might be dilemmas. Just as one might feel bound to say only a particular prayer every night, there might also be a compulsion to follow all the rules of the church to perfection. The rules (as well as the manner of prayers) of the church are to direct a man until he is no longer controlled by the flesh. When the spirit leads the man, the rules are not binding. ‘The Sabbath is for man and woman and not they for the Sabbath.’ The church and its rules are also therefore to serve man in his purpose for realization, not man made for the service of the church.
I am not suggesting that we need not follow the rules of the church, rather I am only suggesting that we do not have to become slaves to the rules. Though we may follow all rules sincerely, we should not become unduly upset or guilty over minor omissions for example missing a Sunday mass for something like attending a close friend’s party or for the preparation of an exam. It may seem unbelievable to some, but there are people who feel compelled to attend mass against all odds. If this is done for the joy that attending a mass provides, fine, but if it is a compulsion, it’s not so healthy. To avoid this compulsion it becomes necessary to be aware of the freedom that we have.
I understand the Christian religion as basically a liberating religion rather than a binding one. There is no ‘should do’ in Christianity because what it teaches is that, ‘it is not what we do but what we are, that is important’. A good heart can only lead to good deeds, for a good tree can bear only good fruit. I personally used to have a compulsion to follow all the sayings in the Bible without fail. But as I proceeded with different sayings, I became confused. Following one, made following some other saying quite impossible! With time I realized that since the different books of the Bible have a compilation of wisdom and wise sayings which sometimes seem to go against each other, obviously these cannot be ‘orders’ to be followed strictly; rather we are supposed to select the one that fits our particular circumstances using our own discretion. For example the Bible does suggest that we should give to the needy, like in Mathew 5:42- ‘When someone asks you for something, give it to him; when someone wants to borrow something, lend it to him’. And yet the Bible also warns in parts of its other books that discretion should be maintained in the dealings with wealth. Therefore the call to help others need not compel us to give to every other person and probably get cheated and bankrupt in the process. The Bible does ask us to be innocent as a dove, but it also advices us to be wise as a snake. We have a duty towards ourselves also, and we do need to protect our interests by being discreet in our dealings and by being wary of people who may cheat. For it is also the Bible that says, ‘Give to the devout, but do not help the sinner. Do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly…..for by means of it they might subdue you; then you will receive twice as much evil for all the good you have done to them.’ Sirach12:4and5. Therefore if the Bible says at one place that we should give to everybody whatever they ask of us, it also at a different page reminds us of our duty to protect our own interests. We are asked to love our neighbour as ourselves and not more than ourselves. We need to take care we are not cheated or that we are not getting hurt in any obsessive philanthropy.
Jesus said that the commandments given by Moses; do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not murder and so on can be summarised as loving the neighbour as oneself. In saying so Jesus does not defy the commandments conveyed by Moses, but it can be seen that just as Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman to stoning, Jesus, I would believe, does not condemn acts where we have loved ourselves as much as our neighbour; where a self defence has led to murder, where hunger has led to taking bread from a shop, where preserving sanity in a difficult marriage drove a non lustful person to seek solace in a different relation. Laws and directives are where an act can be from clearly “black” or “white” intentions; whereas in reality the terms used to describe any act do not cover the intentions. Jesus said "You judge according to the flesh. I Judge no one" We judge according to who we are and not according to a wide perspective or our spirit's understanding, and so we can be often wrong. Jesus could see a person from human and from a spirit perspective, which is a complete perspective and if he ever judged, his judgement was correct. I feel scriptures only put directives for black and white issues and not for the grey areas because of the possibility of people using it as an excuse to sin. We have to always check that the equations are balanced where preserving one's body, soul and sanity led to an act which is otherwise a sin, rather than selfish intensions leading us, for God will check our hearts in all things.
It should also be noted that Jesus was firm that all laws of Moses should be kept and no word should be added to it. This firmness of Jesus should be seen in the context of the “new teachings” that Pharisees and Sadducees at the time were teaching which went round the laws creating loopholes by adding to the word of God and thereby even allowing for perversions and some forms of murder and abuse. This was why Jesus never minced any words while speaking against them.
Here it should be noted as mentioned earlier that even the Qur’an which suggests stern measures for certain acts goes ahead and says that if the person is regretful, be merciful. Therefore what one requires is not one word, one scripture, but rather the spirit to understand all conflicting words from the backdrop of context. Each person and each scripture has to be read with one’s spirit, with our hearts attuned to God, with knowledge of the context. A pure and clean heart is led in spirit and sees the truth beyond the veil of words. That is what being pure and clean while reading scriptures is all about, as without clarity we could be ‘hearing and hearing but never understanding’. We may wrongly follow words out of fear of going against written words even if it means going against what our spirit directed. But we must understand that our spirit knows all words from all contexts than we may ever read in a lifetime, and so it is to be trusted. In understanding a scripture in its spirit, we are not adding words to it. Yet fear is necessary to follow rules until our hearts are attuned to God. But only until that, for fear should not remain part of our nature when we love God truly.
I feel that the unhealthy ‘compulsion’ to follow rules and directions without using one’s own discretion, is due to an undue fear of God and also therefore everything concerned with God. This fear may also lead some to be unkind to a neighbor! Sometimes it leads an orthodox Christian to disrespect or put down another who has a different faith or who follows a different path. Or there might be occasions when a devout, disregard the needs of a visiting friend or neighbor in an obsession to follow all the religious rules. In occasions like these it is wise to remember the concept of ‘attithi devo bhava’ (the guest is God) and also ‘If you cannot love the neighbour whom you can see, how can you claim to love God whom you cannot see?’ as the bible tells us.
There is freedom from all laws for those led by the spirit. ‘Freedom is what we have- Christ has set us free. Galatians 5:1.’ And so, whatever one does with a good intention is good. It is not your act but rather the thought behind the act that counts. For example sexuality is not a sin, it is part of our natural instinct but if we follow lustful expression of sexuality it become sin because it is selfish, whereas if we are pulled by our love for another to this expression, then it can lead one to a higher energy state, connecting us more to the positive energies of the universe. It is the intention with which sex is approached and not the act in itself that is good or bad. Tantra Shastra also affirms regarding sex that it only degrades the degraded, only harms the harmful, is only evil to the evil, but is a joy to the joyful, healthful to the healthy, illuminating to those who seek illumination. One should meditate before and after sex for the energy of sex to direct one to illumination. In everything, as ye seek, so shall ye find.
Even something like vegetarianism or even hardcore fasting can be considered under this freedom. Christianity has it that the non vegetarian is praising God by accepting what God has provided and the vegetarian is praising God by respecting the life that God created as sacred. Therefore the one who eats and the one who does not eat flesh are both at heart glorifying God. But when a vegetarian shuns a neighbour, just for being a non vegetarian, would that be really pleasing to God?
Likewise one can fast as long as it helps in the worship. In fact fasting has been used for ages to help in making prayer more effective. Denying food to the body is a deliberate denial of the body as the real self and thereby attention is shifted to the spirit. Fasting prods all our faculties to focus more on prayer and commune with God through the awareness of the real self. The whole purpose of the day of fasting becomes prayer and thereby the prayer becomes unceasing and immensely powerful. And yet, even Buddha gave up fasting when he found it was not helping. If a person is able to worship better on a full stomach, then that is what should be done. In everything we do, we should never lose sight of the purpose. Keeping a fast should not become more important than worshiping. Isaiah chapter 58 speaks about false and true worship. In verse 5 of the chapter, the people complain, that though they fast, God does not seem to notice. The answer given to them further in the chapter is, ‘Look you fast only to quarrel and to fight and to strike with a wicked fist. Such fasting as you do today will not make your voice heard on high. Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice…., is it not to share your bread with the hungry.…, when you see the naked to cover them. Then you shall call and the Lord will answer….. Isaiah 58: 4, 6, 7 and 9.’ And therefore if we can do such service to our neighbour, if we can give something of what we have to others, we are in a way fasting.
But though we have freedom and though the rules of church or a procedure of prayer need not be followed out of a compulsion, it does not mean that we can ignore them totally. These should still be followed, keeping in mind the common good. Saint Paul has implied that though you (strong in faith) do not need to follow any rituals, yet you must do it for those who are weaker in faith. They should not become disturbed by your (a devout Christian’s) attitude and wander away even further.
Also following rituals are not always merely only the initial steps, towards the goal of realization, but one who enjoys prayer, can enjoy them and find them useful even when he has gone much beyond the stage of rituals. In fact there are some situations where ritualistic prayer becomes necessary. There can be occasions when all our belief power and all our prayers for peace or release from any issue goes unanswered. We do not know what is causing this relentless torment in our lives. We might not have done any grave sin to deserve the evil that we observe in our lives. On such occasions we must remember that god does not hear when there is sin in the family line and so we could even conclude that there are curses in the family. Here ritualistic prayer (like chaplets of mercy) for forgiveness of ancestral sin done with sincerity for a duration with fasting and faith helps to free from the binding powers of evil that is brought into a family line on account of ancestral sins.
Therefore the road to realization need not be like a ladder, it can be a peculiar web of a road where everything is enmeshed together, at every point. That is, where new learning is added on and yet the essence of the old remains, thus creating a more wholesome realm.
To get a hold of the core of this chapter, it would be good to look again at the example of the monkey who could not take his hand out of the surahi because he was not willing to let go of the peanuts. This example is such a powerful pointer and is packed with so many meanings that it can be used to understand the essence of this chapter as well. We want to think clearly and freely but we are afraid to let go of what we have been taught. We are afraid to let go of what has been drilled into our minds as ‘must believe’, ‘must do’. Unless we keep aside what we think we need to believe, because our church teaches us or the religion tells us, how can we think freely? What freedom do we have? What one’s religion, one’s church teaches or directs one to do, may be absolutely true but our belief would be so much stronger if we thought with freedom and found that what we have been taught is true. Doing with faith is always better than doing out of fear. Doing with freedom is better than doing out of compulsion.
Freedom helps in getting the right answers to all our questions. Answer to every question is buried deep within the soul. Whenever a question plagues the mind, shed all the ideas that the world has so far put in the brain and with a fresh slate ask the soul for the answer. The answer the soul gives is the one to be taken. But how do we know the Soul when it speaks? I do believe that the soul is always speaking to us but we choose not to hear it when we choose to follow preexisting beliefs and outside information. If one takes the exactly opposite course, that is, make a regular practice of discounting answers provided from the outside then soon one could be hearing from the soul!
For the Thomases, the skeptics, to experience God
The important thing for Thomas to remember when it comes to experiencing God is to forget trying to reach him through intellectual questioning alone. There is always a desire to know but the more we know the more we know that we don’t know. When we truly realize this, all our further questions will be quelled and we would know that the horizon can never be reached, and probably then we would realize that wherever we stand there is the horizon!
The question free mind is calm and in the stillness of mind one can better comprehend God. All Christians know the verse that says ‘Be still and know you are God’. A question free mind is therefore a prerequisite for the experience of God; for it is only undisturbed waters which can give a clear reflection of our face. That is why Jesus stresses that, ‘do not let your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.’ For these are the major blocks separating man and God and not really a lack of a total comprehension of God.
Jesus has said ‘happy are those who have not seen, yet believe’. In saying this he told us the way to be happy, the way to the bliss that is God. The statement implies for us Thomases that it would serve us to allow faith to heal the questions that just cannot be resolved by any amount of intellectual efforts. If we are happy to think of God as a caring parent, then let us have faith that we are not wrong. He is that and more. If we could be happier by believing that God is ‘the true self’, then such a belief is not wrong either. He is that and more. For God, cannot be confined within our limited understanding. And so to give room to God we have to make space in our minds for that which is beyond our understanding. We have to allow God to be bigger than all the concepts that are within the grasp of intellect. Having thus given up ‘the insatiable curiosity’, we can move away from the endless road of questioning and finally park within the experience of happiness, everyday, by just opening up to God and asking Him for the joy of His presence. For God is not to be found at the end of the road of questioning. God is found by the daily practice of faith. Answers to questions, only increases the understanding of the ‘body’ about the ‘soul’. To ‘experience the soul’, the body has to recede to the background, which is only possible when we discourage an excessive leaning towards ‘thinking our way to the experience of God’. This is because thinking is a function of the body and of the mind and though it does help to 'understand' the mind of God, but to 'experience' the soul of the universe, the spirit of God, we have to forget our mind. Understanding helps to an extent, but when it stops being helpful, it implies that it is time to change track and give way to unquestioning faith. That is, when we reach near the unseen, guided by the seen, by our intellect, our mind, we have to abandon this ladder, push it away, because only then would we make the leap to reach and hold on to our destination. To push away the ladder and make the leap, the important ingredient is faith. That is why it said that belief is necessary to experience God. That is why Jesus tells us repeatedly in the Bible to 'Believe'
When faith in God puts an end to doubts and when love for God overcomes self love, mastery over the false self (which causes all doubts and selfishness by stressing on thinking rather than being) is achieved. And when one has really learnt to become a mere witness to one's own emotions with the help of any or all sorts of methods, then perhaps, could come the understanding that ‘the body is merely a machine which we have actually now learnt to handle!’ That is when the real self would start becoming obvious to us, and that would bring in moments of exhilaration which is often quite plainly called ‘realization’. The body then becomes the tool to the experiences of the higher energy through any means that we might choose with this one pure intention. Bliss will course through our system and slowly our continued and constant dedication to God gets rewarded by bliss taking over and become a more and more frequent experience. So much so that even the thought of God or any touching moment would raise our spirit to a 'high' till the ‘high spirit or high energy’ becomes a constant state of our being.
We would then know that mortal life is something like a painting. A painting, as we know, is not the reality but it opens our eyes to the beauty in the world that is there before our very eyes but we could never notice. In the same way the world and our body is not the reality, but it is the way to the joy of the experience of the only reality God. He is the deity in the temple of our body and is the truth we need to inroad to . Something like what Picasso said about art…
Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth…Pablo Picasso
In fact music and dance are also powerful forms of meditation. Devotional songs are often considered the best prayer. Guru Nanak is known to have realized his beloved (whom he knew as Ik Onkar which is Punjabi for Om) through music. Shiva represents the energy in dance. Devotional dance brings out the energy in the being, connecting it to the powers of the universe.
On the other hand when there is nothing on which to devote one’s energies; the self and all its concerns come rushing. When the brain is not engaged in some productive work, it spends its energies by being destructive. It is aptly said that an empty mind is the devils workshop. An empty mind does think upon meaningless matters just to keep itself occupied, because it was created to be occupied. It spends its energies in aggression, possession, obsession, addiction, which are the time pass of an unengaged mind.
So whenever we find ourselves engaged in destructive thinking, we should realize that we are trapped in the worldly realm. To move again into the spiritual realm the easiest way is to find the right work and forget the self in the work. And so one can plainly conclude that Spiritual Experience through any approach must be the same as the experience of being immersed in a work of one’s choice! Somebody said very aptly that ‘Work is Worship’
What is the role of prayer in the approach to God?
‘All our libraries and studies are mere emptiness compared with our closets.’ Mr. Spurgeon.
What we seek is a perpetual relationship with God and not merely a one time spiritual experience. Perpetual experience is built by adding in one brick after another where each brick is a spiritual experience.To build a relationship there has to be a daily communication.This daily communication is Prayer. For communication there has to be speaking and also necessarily a period of listening. Prayer is therefore the means to this two way communication with God. Prayer is a daily communication with the unseen energy that drives the world. But prayer has so many ways and aspects that it has to be understood more deeply to become a real door to the unseen and so I am devoting a whole chapter to it.
Gratitude and prayer for others
Though today I believe in the importance of prayer above all research or study, it has not been always so. There has been a period in my life in which I did not pray at all. My prayers before that stage had been entirely for the fulfillment of my wishes or removal of problems that obstructed their fulfillment. I began to feel over time that praying for the removal of personal problems was only reminding me that I am in a problem situation and that it sort of only magnified the problem. Praying was to me like rolling in the gutter called ‘my problem’ leaving me feeling worse after prayer. That made me abandon prayer altogether. I was happier just being absorbed in ‘daily works’. I didn’t realize then that what was hurting me was not prayer but the manner and the topic of my prayer. I had a thinking that God should be giving only what I perceive as good for me. I was too immature to realize then, that believing in God means accepting everything that he chooses for us, even when we perceive it as ‘bad’.
Of course when life adamantly takes its own direction without consulting our wishes or dreams, we are left with no other option but to give up the importance that we accord to “my thinking, my dreams, my aims and myself”! But when that really happens finally, the need to sulk over ‘unpleasant’ happenings is gone, after all now one is not living in some constant expectation from life. When there comes such an acceptance of situations and a sincere gratitude to God for his wise decisions (which are albeit beyond our understanding), everything changes!
Whole hearted acceptance, changes one’s attitude and thereby the reactions to the ‘bad situations’. And suddenly as things change for the better, one may realize with a shock that 'non acceptance of life situations’ was the only thing that had gone wrong”.
Therefore today I believe that prayer becomes most helpful in the approach to God, when it consists of ‘gratitude’ and ‘prayer for others’ rather than mere demands. Gratitude, because it helps us remember that most of the things that happened during the day were good. It helps to realize how we fret over the single unpleasant occurrence in a day and forget the seven pleasant ones! If we think clearly, then the count of blessings each day will definitely be much more than the count of what we consider as unpleasant. These counts each day will surely make us breathe easy and relax, knowing that the day wasn’t that bad after all!
Prayer for others helps us see that our sufferings are so insignificant compared to what others suffer. Looking back into time, I feel that in our childhood we are able to empathize with the suffering of others, but as we grow older, we learn to put to mute our sensitivity to the suffering of others; because suffering is everywhere and we feel we can’t help anyway. But today I feel that we can in fact help. Somebody once asked me ‘how can God allow such suffering, why doesn’t he help?’ I personally feel that God has given us free will and he can help the world only if it is our common will that he interfere. Our will for God’s intervention is put forth when we pray. While reading tragic news in the paper instead of trying to move away our attention, we have to allow our eyes to well up with tears and pause a moment to pray for peace for the concerned people or souls. We may not know what is right for an individual, but prayer for peace and strength can never be an inappropriate prayer. In our own trying circumstances also we must remember that there are countless who might be in similar circumstances, and take our situation as an opportunity from God to pray for all in similar circumstances by using our own intensity of need.
What is the right thing to ask for another? I used to wonder, 'how can I be sure that what I am praying for the other person is proper or not, after all only God knows what is right for him or her'. We may pray for somebody’s recovery from a life threatening disease and it may not happen. And we may also think that anyway everybody has to die one day or the other! Personally, I used to find unanswered prayers very discouraging and therefore avoided praying for sick people. But later, when prayers again became a part of my life, I began to realize that in cases where I had pushed God, asking him to go in accordance to my wishes; I had experienced a definite feeling of despair all through. Whenever I have had such feelings, I have found that the prayer has finally not been answered. On the other hand, there are cases where I have experienced peace after repeated prayers. In such cases the prayers were finally answered. This difference may be because of factors like my own faith while asking something that seemed impossible or the intensity and sincerity of my demand, or even my willingness or unwillingness to accept whatever could be God’s own will in the regard. My personal feeling is that one major factor to it is that when the message, the response from the soul is something I am unwilling to hear, it results in the distress due to the non acceptance of the message by the conscious mind and yet a subconscious awareness that the specific request is not in accordance with God’s will. When the answer from the soul is favorable my conscious mind immediately hears and becomes assured and relaxed! This is where one has to remember that prayer is a two way ‘communication’. One has to keep the heart open for answers, and for that matter, whatever those answers may be! One has to become mature enough to keep in mind at all times that God’s choice is best. It is true that belief powers reality but if all belief turned to reality there would have been no space for God. When a strong belief does not become a reality there is more reason to believe in a God who decides whether what we are asking with our limited awareness, is in concurrence to what experience our soul is actually calling out to, for its growth. For we don’t know what we really are wanting, we can ask only from as far as we can be aware of, but the one who gives sees further into our soul. Therefore though it is true that what we believe has the power to come true, we must also remember that Jesus in his prayers always included “Not by my will but according to your will God be it done”. When the rod and staff of God guides us, we must remember that our pain is an indicator that it is a direction we must not take.
What I am suggesting here is that a check on ‘resultant’ feelings could avoid disappointment over unanswered prayers, as these resultant feelings may be an indication of God’s will in the regard. Having realized this, a subsequent acceptance of God’s will as the best would also prevent further distress and dejection. We should remember that when we pray we are in fact surrendering everything to God’s will. The only thing wrong that can happen after such surrender is our non acceptance of God’s will.
Another thing is that prayer for the sick need not be only for the recovery (as I used to think), but more importantly it should involve a prayer to God to provide the necessary courage to the person undergoing the trial and also to those close to him/her. Finally I have found that, regret for a seemingly unanswered prayer is more bearable than a regret of the like, ‘if only I had at least once prayed for that person’.
Asking for ones needs
Now personal prayer can surely also hold something for ones own person! Prayer helps us to define what we need and faith in god helps us to believe that we can get it. At the same time, surrender to gods will helps to ensure that it is not our limited conscious want but our expanded soul yearnings that find fulfillment. When we ask with this surrender, often we might find that things may happen exactly opposite to our beliefs but in the long run, what it eventually leads to, we realize is what we really needed. Even when we seem to be drifting, that really is not the case. We are always moving in the direction of our inner magnets drive. Remember “ All things work for good of those who love God” That is why giving prime importance to God will always lead us in the best direction possible for our lives however difficult the road might seem.
We can speak to God with abandon, as to a best friend. It could be about joys, worries, expectations, anything. Opening our mind in this way helps us become clear about our problem. But to avoid prayer from becoming just "the wallowing in the gutter called our problem" we should also find a solution and focus on it from that point on, to make the solution our reality.
An experience associated with bringing all the emotions to the fore; anger, envy, sorrow or whatever is that in this state of extreme emotions you might discover occasions of the other extreme within, the unperturbed calm which is like the calm centre within a whirlwind; and with this experience, comes an awareness of a remedy to the problem surrendered. To each person experiences during prayer differ, and no particular experience is supposed to be sought after. Every prayer opens its own doors and so prayer has to be always done for its own sake and not seeking a particular experience. Therefore even if one doesn’t get this awareness after the opening up; just a resolve that, ‘now that I have surrendered all in my mind to God, everything that will happen will be God’s will for me and therefore will be what is proper for me, and I will accept it gracefully’, will lead to the same result as would following the answer of the soul.
Prayer to achieve the communication from the other end for answers can involve silence, a form of meditation which is an effort to switch off the human mind and switch on to the cosmic mind. This can be experienced (as described earlier) as the discovery of the inner calm and silence after a period of mindfulness experiencing all emotions to its intensity; or it can be sought directly by focuusing on a single thing like breathing or chanting.
What about following community prayers and religious rules?
Community prayer is based on the verse that says that where two or more people are gathered in God’s name, there God is in the midst of them.
But of course, if any particular method doesn’t seem to help, one must surely experiment with other methods. On the other hand, once prayer has become a part of one’s daily life, any type of prayer would be of help. It’s like exercise. We find one or the other problem with a form of exercise, when we have just initiated into exercising. Once we get into the mind set of exercising daily, we find any form of exercise enjoyable. It’s also the purpose, that is, which part of our body we want to target, that decides which exercise to choose. So also, each stage of development of an individual may call for a different form of prayer. So it would be wisest to just go with what the mind is prepared for at present, rather than trying to identify with what the community is doing.
Something we should keep reminding ourselves is that we always have the freedom to choose. There might be dilemmas. Just as one might feel bound to say only a particular prayer every night, there might also be a compulsion to follow all the rules of the church to perfection. The rules (as well as the manner of prayers) of the church are to direct a man until he is no longer controlled by the flesh. When the spirit leads the man, the rules are not binding. ‘The Sabbath is for man and woman and not they for the Sabbath.’ The church and its rules are also therefore to serve man in his purpose for realization, not man made for the service of the church.
I am not suggesting that we need not follow the rules of the church, rather I am only suggesting that we do not have to become slaves to the rules. Though we may follow all rules sincerely, we should not become unduly upset or guilty over minor omissions for example missing a Sunday mass for something like attending a close friend’s party or for the preparation of an exam. It may seem unbelievable to some, but there are people who feel compelled to attend mass against all odds. If this is done for the joy that attending a mass provides, fine, but if it is a compulsion, it’s not so healthy. To avoid this compulsion it becomes necessary to be aware of the freedom that we have.
I understand the Christian religion as basically a liberating religion rather than a binding one. There is no ‘should do’ in Christianity because what it teaches is that, ‘it is not what we do but what we are, that is important’. A good heart can only lead to good deeds, for a good tree can bear only good fruit. I personally used to have a compulsion to follow all the sayings in the Bible without fail. But as I proceeded with different sayings, I became confused. Following one, made following some other saying quite impossible! With time I realized that since the different books of the Bible have a compilation of wisdom and wise sayings which sometimes seem to go against each other, obviously these cannot be ‘orders’ to be followed strictly; rather we are supposed to select the one that fits our particular circumstances using our own discretion. For example the Bible does suggest that we should give to the needy, like in Mathew 5:42- ‘When someone asks you for something, give it to him; when someone wants to borrow something, lend it to him’. And yet the Bible also warns in parts of its other books that discretion should be maintained in the dealings with wealth. Therefore the call to help others need not compel us to give to every other person and probably get cheated and bankrupt in the process. The Bible does ask us to be innocent as a dove, but it also advices us to be wise as a snake. We have a duty towards ourselves also, and we do need to protect our interests by being discreet in our dealings and by being wary of people who may cheat. For it is also the Bible that says, ‘Give to the devout, but do not help the sinner. Do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly…..for by means of it they might subdue you; then you will receive twice as much evil for all the good you have done to them.’ Sirach12:4and5. Therefore if the Bible says at one place that we should give to everybody whatever they ask of us, it also at a different page reminds us of our duty to protect our own interests. We are asked to love our neighbour as ourselves and not more than ourselves. We need to take care we are not cheated or that we are not getting hurt in any obsessive philanthropy.
Jesus said that the commandments given by Moses; do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not murder and so on can be summarised as loving the neighbour as oneself. In saying so Jesus does not defy the commandments conveyed by Moses, but it can be seen that just as Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman to stoning, Jesus, I would believe, does not condemn acts where we have loved ourselves as much as our neighbour; where a self defence has led to murder, where hunger has led to taking bread from a shop, where preserving sanity in a difficult marriage drove a non lustful person to seek solace in a different relation. Laws and directives are where an act can be from clearly “black” or “white” intentions; whereas in reality the terms used to describe any act do not cover the intentions. Jesus said "You judge according to the flesh. I Judge no one" We judge according to who we are and not according to a wide perspective or our spirit's understanding, and so we can be often wrong. Jesus could see a person from human and from a spirit perspective, which is a complete perspective and if he ever judged, his judgement was correct. I feel scriptures only put directives for black and white issues and not for the grey areas because of the possibility of people using it as an excuse to sin. We have to always check that the equations are balanced where preserving one's body, soul and sanity led to an act which is otherwise a sin, rather than selfish intensions leading us, for God will check our hearts in all things.
It should also be noted that Jesus was firm that all laws of Moses should be kept and no word should be added to it. This firmness of Jesus should be seen in the context of the “new teachings” that Pharisees and Sadducees at the time were teaching which went round the laws creating loopholes by adding to the word of God and thereby even allowing for perversions and some forms of murder and abuse. This was why Jesus never minced any words while speaking against them.
Here it should be noted as mentioned earlier that even the Qur’an which suggests stern measures for certain acts goes ahead and says that if the person is regretful, be merciful. Therefore what one requires is not one word, one scripture, but rather the spirit to understand all conflicting words from the backdrop of context. Each person and each scripture has to be read with one’s spirit, with our hearts attuned to God, with knowledge of the context. A pure and clean heart is led in spirit and sees the truth beyond the veil of words. That is what being pure and clean while reading scriptures is all about, as without clarity we could be ‘hearing and hearing but never understanding’. We may wrongly follow words out of fear of going against written words even if it means going against what our spirit directed. But we must understand that our spirit knows all words from all contexts than we may ever read in a lifetime, and so it is to be trusted. In understanding a scripture in its spirit, we are not adding words to it. Yet fear is necessary to follow rules until our hearts are attuned to God. But only until that, for fear should not remain part of our nature when we love God truly.
I feel that the unhealthy ‘compulsion’ to follow rules and directions without using one’s own discretion, is due to an undue fear of God and also therefore everything concerned with God. This fear may also lead some to be unkind to a neighbor! Sometimes it leads an orthodox Christian to disrespect or put down another who has a different faith or who follows a different path. Or there might be occasions when a devout, disregard the needs of a visiting friend or neighbor in an obsession to follow all the religious rules. In occasions like these it is wise to remember the concept of ‘attithi devo bhava’ (the guest is God) and also ‘If you cannot love the neighbour whom you can see, how can you claim to love God whom you cannot see?’ as the bible tells us.
There is freedom from all laws for those led by the spirit. ‘Freedom is what we have- Christ has set us free. Galatians 5:1.’ And so, whatever one does with a good intention is good. It is not your act but rather the thought behind the act that counts. For example sexuality is not a sin, it is part of our natural instinct but if we follow lustful expression of sexuality it become sin because it is selfish, whereas if we are pulled by our love for another to this expression, then it can lead one to a higher energy state, connecting us more to the positive energies of the universe. It is the intention with which sex is approached and not the act in itself that is good or bad. Tantra Shastra also affirms regarding sex that it only degrades the degraded, only harms the harmful, is only evil to the evil, but is a joy to the joyful, healthful to the healthy, illuminating to those who seek illumination. One should meditate before and after sex for the energy of sex to direct one to illumination. In everything, as ye seek, so shall ye find.
Even something like vegetarianism or even hardcore fasting can be considered under this freedom. Christianity has it that the non vegetarian is praising God by accepting what God has provided and the vegetarian is praising God by respecting the life that God created as sacred. Therefore the one who eats and the one who does not eat flesh are both at heart glorifying God. But when a vegetarian shuns a neighbour, just for being a non vegetarian, would that be really pleasing to God?
Likewise one can fast as long as it helps in the worship. In fact fasting has been used for ages to help in making prayer more effective. Denying food to the body is a deliberate denial of the body as the real self and thereby attention is shifted to the spirit. Fasting prods all our faculties to focus more on prayer and commune with God through the awareness of the real self. The whole purpose of the day of fasting becomes prayer and thereby the prayer becomes unceasing and immensely powerful. And yet, even Buddha gave up fasting when he found it was not helping. If a person is able to worship better on a full stomach, then that is what should be done. In everything we do, we should never lose sight of the purpose. Keeping a fast should not become more important than worshiping. Isaiah chapter 58 speaks about false and true worship. In verse 5 of the chapter, the people complain, that though they fast, God does not seem to notice. The answer given to them further in the chapter is, ‘Look you fast only to quarrel and to fight and to strike with a wicked fist. Such fasting as you do today will not make your voice heard on high. Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice…., is it not to share your bread with the hungry.…, when you see the naked to cover them. Then you shall call and the Lord will answer….. Isaiah 58: 4, 6, 7 and 9.’ And therefore if we can do such service to our neighbour, if we can give something of what we have to others, we are in a way fasting.
But though we have freedom and though the rules of church or a procedure of prayer need not be followed out of a compulsion, it does not mean that we can ignore them totally. These should still be followed, keeping in mind the common good. Saint Paul has implied that though you (strong in faith) do not need to follow any rituals, yet you must do it for those who are weaker in faith. They should not become disturbed by your (a devout Christian’s) attitude and wander away even further.
Also following rituals are not always merely only the initial steps, towards the goal of realization, but one who enjoys prayer, can enjoy them and find them useful even when he has gone much beyond the stage of rituals. In fact there are some situations where ritualistic prayer becomes necessary. There can be occasions when all our belief power and all our prayers for peace or release from any issue goes unanswered. We do not know what is causing this relentless torment in our lives. We might not have done any grave sin to deserve the evil that we observe in our lives. On such occasions we must remember that god does not hear when there is sin in the family line and so we could even conclude that there are curses in the family. Here ritualistic prayer (like chaplets of mercy) for forgiveness of ancestral sin done with sincerity for a duration with fasting and faith helps to free from the binding powers of evil that is brought into a family line on account of ancestral sins.
Therefore the road to realization need not be like a ladder, it can be a peculiar web of a road where everything is enmeshed together, at every point. That is, where new learning is added on and yet the essence of the old remains, thus creating a more wholesome realm.
To get a hold of the core of this chapter, it would be good to look again at the example of the monkey who could not take his hand out of the surahi because he was not willing to let go of the peanuts. This example is such a powerful pointer and is packed with so many meanings that it can be used to understand the essence of this chapter as well. We want to think clearly and freely but we are afraid to let go of what we have been taught. We are afraid to let go of what has been drilled into our minds as ‘must believe’, ‘must do’. Unless we keep aside what we think we need to believe, because our church teaches us or the religion tells us, how can we think freely? What freedom do we have? What one’s religion, one’s church teaches or directs one to do, may be absolutely true but our belief would be so much stronger if we thought with freedom and found that what we have been taught is true. Doing with faith is always better than doing out of fear. Doing with freedom is better than doing out of compulsion.
Freedom helps in getting the right answers to all our questions. Answer to every question is buried deep within the soul. Whenever a question plagues the mind, shed all the ideas that the world has so far put in the brain and with a fresh slate ask the soul for the answer. The answer the soul gives is the one to be taken. But how do we know the Soul when it speaks? I do believe that the soul is always speaking to us but we choose not to hear it when we choose to follow preexisting beliefs and outside information. If one takes the exactly opposite course, that is, make a regular practice of discounting answers provided from the outside then soon one could be hearing from the soul!
For the Thomases, the skeptics, to experience God
The important thing for Thomas to remember when it comes to experiencing God is to forget trying to reach him through intellectual questioning alone. There is always a desire to know but the more we know the more we know that we don’t know. When we truly realize this, all our further questions will be quelled and we would know that the horizon can never be reached, and probably then we would realize that wherever we stand there is the horizon!
The question free mind is calm and in the stillness of mind one can better comprehend God. All Christians know the verse that says ‘Be still and know you are God’. A question free mind is therefore a prerequisite for the experience of God; for it is only undisturbed waters which can give a clear reflection of our face. That is why Jesus stresses that, ‘do not let your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.’ For these are the major blocks separating man and God and not really a lack of a total comprehension of God.
Jesus has said ‘happy are those who have not seen, yet believe’. In saying this he told us the way to be happy, the way to the bliss that is God. The statement implies for us Thomases that it would serve us to allow faith to heal the questions that just cannot be resolved by any amount of intellectual efforts. If we are happy to think of God as a caring parent, then let us have faith that we are not wrong. He is that and more. If we could be happier by believing that God is ‘the true self’, then such a belief is not wrong either. He is that and more. For God, cannot be confined within our limited understanding. And so to give room to God we have to make space in our minds for that which is beyond our understanding. We have to allow God to be bigger than all the concepts that are within the grasp of intellect. Having thus given up ‘the insatiable curiosity’, we can move away from the endless road of questioning and finally park within the experience of happiness, everyday, by just opening up to God and asking Him for the joy of His presence. For God is not to be found at the end of the road of questioning. God is found by the daily practice of faith. Answers to questions, only increases the understanding of the ‘body’ about the ‘soul’. To ‘experience the soul’, the body has to recede to the background, which is only possible when we discourage an excessive leaning towards ‘thinking our way to the experience of God’. This is because thinking is a function of the body and of the mind and though it does help to 'understand' the mind of God, but to 'experience' the soul of the universe, the spirit of God, we have to forget our mind. Understanding helps to an extent, but when it stops being helpful, it implies that it is time to change track and give way to unquestioning faith. That is, when we reach near the unseen, guided by the seen, by our intellect, our mind, we have to abandon this ladder, push it away, because only then would we make the leap to reach and hold on to our destination. To push away the ladder and make the leap, the important ingredient is faith. That is why it said that belief is necessary to experience God. That is why Jesus tells us repeatedly in the Bible to 'Believe'
When faith in God puts an end to doubts and when love for God overcomes self love, mastery over the false self (which causes all doubts and selfishness by stressing on thinking rather than being) is achieved. And when one has really learnt to become a mere witness to one's own emotions with the help of any or all sorts of methods, then perhaps, could come the understanding that ‘the body is merely a machine which we have actually now learnt to handle!’ That is when the real self would start becoming obvious to us, and that would bring in moments of exhilaration which is often quite plainly called ‘realization’. The body then becomes the tool to the experiences of the higher energy through any means that we might choose with this one pure intention. Bliss will course through our system and slowly our continued and constant dedication to God gets rewarded by bliss taking over and become a more and more frequent experience. So much so that even the thought of God or any touching moment would raise our spirit to a 'high' till the ‘high spirit or high energy’ becomes a constant state of our being.
We would then know that mortal life is something like a painting. A painting, as we know, is not the reality but it opens our eyes to the beauty in the world that is there before our very eyes but we could never notice. In the same way the world and our body is not the reality, but it is the way to the joy of the experience of the only reality God. He is the deity in the temple of our body and is the truth we need to inroad to . Something like what Picasso said about art…
Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth…Pablo Picasso
Monday, December 10, 2007
Section II-chr10 Intercession in the approach to God
Chapter 10
Intercession in the approach to God
Using intercessory prayers is not exclusively a Christian practice but is in fact also practiced by Buddhists! For Christians Jesus is the prime mediator between Man and God. But intercession for specific helps is also asked of those who have been declared as Saints by the Church. And of course, the most favoured intercessor is Mother Mary. There are many objections that are put forward against this approach to God. The major objection is that God can hear our prayers directly then why an intercessor. I looked for an answer to this and found it in the Bible. It says that the prayer of the pure is always heard. The prayer to the mother gives a confidence that there is someone full of grace and purity and also blessed by God who is praying with us; and therefore it also gives the confidence that our prayers will be heard, for the prayer of the pure is always heard.
Another thought that Thomases like me face is that, how can we be sure that mother Mary or the Saints are praying all the time for us at our request? But we Thomases also know the answer within our hearts that- if the courage to still believe, in what cannot be seen or known for sure, gives an assurance that for the rest of the 23 and a half hours in which one is not praying, the prayers are still vibrating in the universe, then why not believe in all of that! If one believes, then it is so, for to each man as he believes. But if one doesn’t believe, then it is not so. The prayer then rises half hearted and unsure and dies the death it calls to itself. Religion and rituals call on one to be brave. The brave decision to believe in any ritual can only bring benefits. It is an ‘only courage and all benefits equation’.
This is what I have understood. But there is also another strong objection that I personally held with respect to the reciting of the Rosary to Mother Mary.
What better way to explain this objection than putting down a typical prayer scenario in Kerala…….
The children have a get together at the ancestral home. It is evening and the oldest member Kuttiamma calls everyone to come to the prayer hall to recite the rosary. ‘Ooh, not today’, says little James. ‘No excuses’, says the man of the house Joyachhan. He is very strict and is very particular about reciting the rosary every night. So the prayer begins. Little Elsie starts the prayer and it takes the speed of a super fast express. ‘Slow down’, says Kuttiamma. ‘I don’t get the words if I slow down’, says Elsie and saying that she takes of again. After the prayer Joyachhan gets hold of his niece little Sara and tells her. ‘You were wringing your fingers and looking at them all through while reciting the prayer. You were not really concentrating on the prayer’. ‘Uncle’, says the little Sara with an expression of surprise on her face, ‘so you were looking at what I was doing all through the prayer! That means you were not praying either!’
Reciting the rosary is such an important part in a Catholic’s daily prayer life, but why not try something else when most participants are usually yawning through it all! What is the use of any prayer if it is done half heartedly, and just out of an obligation to do it? Why not try something different whenever established methods fail? Why do we adamantly hold on to methods even when it is obviously not serving its purpose? Are we afraid of giving up God’s supposedly ‘favoured’ method of prayer? Why are we not affected by the fact that the mind has already given up and the tongue is the only thing stuck with the words of the prayer?
Does the rosary really help in experiencing God?
Whatever the method of prayer it should obviously serve the purpose of praying. It is implied by Kabir Das in one of his couplets that just repeating some words like a parrot does not become prayer. This is what I always agreed with and therefore never really believed in reciting the rosary. I did not understand the rosary either. The words of the prayers were memorized to me, but, are mere words, all that one need know about any prayer? Someone has to give a glimpse to the import of the words and the spirit of the prayer. The assumption that it comes naturally is wrong. At least it was wrong in my case.
I first understood the spirit of the rosary a few years back, when somebody told me that, ‘when you surrender everything at God’s feet one by one with each bead of the rosary, then how can you avoid concentrating through it all.’ I realized then that the rosary need not be really an ineffective method of prayer; rather my state of mind and my lack of understanding while reciting the rosary was making the prayer ineffective. After that, I made a deliberate attempt at understanding the rosary (rosary for prayer help from mother Mary).
Prayer is a method of meditation, which holds both a process of coming closer to God and the means of experiencing Him. A proper prayer according to me has three steps. The first is gratitude. A grateful heart is closer to God, for it acknowledges God as the giver of all the blessings in our lives. The second step is unburdening. All our worries, wrongs, needs, pains, fears, we unburden at the feet of God. Then our problems are no longer ours but His and we can free our minds from them. God is the best listener. He does not judge our burdens, so we can unload our hearts without adding the worry of being judged! So the first step brings us closer to God, the second step frees our mind and heart and makes it ready for the third step. The third step is, being still and experiencing the glory of God within us!
I discovered that the rosary too holds these three steps! It calls us to meditate upon the joyful, sorrowful and glorious mysteries. While meditating on the joyful mysteries, I believe that there should be a moment of silence in which we thank God for the joys in our life. While meditating upon the sorrows that Jesus underwent, we should pause and unburden our own sorrows. Then while meditating upon the glorious mysteries like the resurrection, we should pause and experience the stillness that is the result of a free mind.
The rosary is often the part of daily prayer for Christians. When we recite the rosary daily what we will need is concentration, which is sharpest when we have an intense urge, desire in life and immense faith in rosary. We may also (in case of lack of any needs or sorrows) possibly get focus by saying the prayers super fast, and that is fine as long as we still get the import of the words. That is, if we are saying the Hail Mary.., we should feel the glory of the mother even if we rush through the words. And when we follow it with the Holy Mary.., we should feel our mother praying for humanity. Similarly for the first part of the prayer to God ‘Our Father..’,we should feel the Father’s will descend upon the world and the flesh, and for the second part of the same prayer ‘Give us today..’,we should feel God’s healing descend upon us. In the prayer to the Holy Trinity.., Gods fullness and power should be felt. When asking Jesus for his gift of forgiveness, we just have to believe that our sins are forgiven. And while reciting ‘The Apostles’ Creed’ at the very start of the rosary, it is utmost important to shed any new found doubt ant declare that we do believe! This prayer is important as it decides whether the rosary will bring to us what it promises. We have to believe to receive! And the most important thing required to believe, I feel is courage.
There is a poem in which the poet says…
I’d rather walk in the dark with God than go alone in the light,
I’d rather walk by faith with him than go alone by sight.
And yet as every human has the freedom to think and question, Thomas too has the right, to still wonder if mother Mary is important. Here it would be relevant to know that apart from the Bible, the holy book Qur’an too speaks of Mary. Not only that, she is the only woman figure mentioned in Qur’an! That makes her important! The name of the 19th chapter in Qur’an is Surat Mariam. When two holy books accord importance to one person, that person must be important!
And yet again Thomas can ask, ‘but a prayer especially to mother Mary?’ It is important that in reciting the rosary we do not forget that we are actually worshipping and praying to God the Father. We say the Lords prayer first, which is addressed to God the Father, following which we ask our mother Mary to take up our prayers addressed to God and finally we ask Jesus to lead all souls into heaven by the forgiveness of sins. Reciting the prayer with closed minds may make us feel that the prayer involves worshipping mother Mary. Our mother Mary is our help in prayer. She is the most pure and compassionate mother of Jesus ‘the Word Incarnate’ and thereby is our mother too. These factors make a sincere rosary a powerful prayer. And yet it is very important to know what the church has to say of prayer mediation through mother Mary. For that we should refer the Vatican II. ‘No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the Goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source’ (The Church, 62). Therefore it is my interpretation that the church apart from approving intercession is also expressing that it is alright to prefer to have only Jesus as the mediator. So we needn’t feel guilty if we do not recite the rosary and prefer other forms of prayer.
Though ‘the rosary’ generally is used to refer to ‘the rosary for prayer help from mother Mary’, there are also other prayers said with beads like ‘the rosary (to the Father) for mercy’ which can also prove to be very powerful. This Chaplet of Mercy is a prayer to Father, requesting Him to remember the suffering of Jesus on the cross and thereby have mercy on us and the world.
The rosary,can also be especially useful to concentrate where a personal prayer is found to fail, for example personal prayer said on bed sometimes could make the mind wander especially when thinking up occurrences of the day for which to be thankful, or for which one might need some guidance. So, one could use the rosary when not at the regular prayer corner and speak of needs or convey gratitude after every ten beads, to keep focus. After being unconvinced to use the rosary for a good many years, it was a period of distress that led me to the rosary and finally faith in the Mother and the beads and I found that intense need, leads to immense focus on every word of the rosary and the 15 minutes of rosary can lead to trance and brings out immense power. What I am trying to say is that it depends on each person as to what will suit him or her, the spiritual stage of the person, the level of devotion and need or even the time or place. The person is therefore the primary factor that determines the effectiveness of the prayer rather than the actual method of prayer. And so every possible approach to God, be it Intercession or any other, is absolutely effective as long as the seeker intends it to be!
Finally I wish to share why today I absolutely believe in mother Mary and the mercies of the rosary. The reason is mainly in the answer to these questions. What effects you more, your child's illness or your own? Which is easier to bear, your child's physical suffering or your own? My son broke a bone of his hand and I cried. I broke a toe bone in five pieces and I did not cry. All mothers will feel that mother Mary bore the sufferings of the cross as much if not more than Jesus. It wouldn't be wrong if I feel that mother Mary is in a way a partaker in the suffering for our sins."And a sword shall pierce through your soul also, (that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed..)" Luke 2:35, were the words of Simeon to Mary when he spoke of the sign Jesus would be. Another fact is that a woman's, a mother's heart is more compassionate, more affected when it sees others suffer. When the wine was finished at the wedding in Canna, Mother, a compassionate woman, wanted to help but Jesus born a Man was not affected and asked, "Woman what is it to you and me". Reflect that at that point Jesus addressed mother as 'woman'and I believe that address held meaning. At that point Jesus put the question to the point of view of a woman! Our sufferings is often bigger in Mothers eyes, than in Jesus' eyes. I therefore am led to believe that God who intended to understand mankind through a human birth,would not forget to consider a woman's view too. And so Mother, blessed among women, has all ears when she puts her, a woman's view, a mother's view to Jesus and he would then listen respecting her perspective as he did at the wedding in Canna.
Also in one of my most trying times, it was my mother and a whole lot of women who flocked to me, many uncalled, and prayed for me unasked. And when I then saw the vision of the protector cross, the first thing I felt and with conviction was that the vision was the result of the prayers, the intercession of the compassionate women hearts....
Intercession in the approach to God
Using intercessory prayers is not exclusively a Christian practice but is in fact also practiced by Buddhists! For Christians Jesus is the prime mediator between Man and God. But intercession for specific helps is also asked of those who have been declared as Saints by the Church. And of course, the most favoured intercessor is Mother Mary. There are many objections that are put forward against this approach to God. The major objection is that God can hear our prayers directly then why an intercessor. I looked for an answer to this and found it in the Bible. It says that the prayer of the pure is always heard. The prayer to the mother gives a confidence that there is someone full of grace and purity and also blessed by God who is praying with us; and therefore it also gives the confidence that our prayers will be heard, for the prayer of the pure is always heard.
Another thought that Thomases like me face is that, how can we be sure that mother Mary or the Saints are praying all the time for us at our request? But we Thomases also know the answer within our hearts that- if the courage to still believe, in what cannot be seen or known for sure, gives an assurance that for the rest of the 23 and a half hours in which one is not praying, the prayers are still vibrating in the universe, then why not believe in all of that! If one believes, then it is so, for to each man as he believes. But if one doesn’t believe, then it is not so. The prayer then rises half hearted and unsure and dies the death it calls to itself. Religion and rituals call on one to be brave. The brave decision to believe in any ritual can only bring benefits. It is an ‘only courage and all benefits equation’.
This is what I have understood. But there is also another strong objection that I personally held with respect to the reciting of the Rosary to Mother Mary.
What better way to explain this objection than putting down a typical prayer scenario in Kerala…….
The children have a get together at the ancestral home. It is evening and the oldest member Kuttiamma calls everyone to come to the prayer hall to recite the rosary. ‘Ooh, not today’, says little James. ‘No excuses’, says the man of the house Joyachhan. He is very strict and is very particular about reciting the rosary every night. So the prayer begins. Little Elsie starts the prayer and it takes the speed of a super fast express. ‘Slow down’, says Kuttiamma. ‘I don’t get the words if I slow down’, says Elsie and saying that she takes of again. After the prayer Joyachhan gets hold of his niece little Sara and tells her. ‘You were wringing your fingers and looking at them all through while reciting the prayer. You were not really concentrating on the prayer’. ‘Uncle’, says the little Sara with an expression of surprise on her face, ‘so you were looking at what I was doing all through the prayer! That means you were not praying either!’
Reciting the rosary is such an important part in a Catholic’s daily prayer life, but why not try something else when most participants are usually yawning through it all! What is the use of any prayer if it is done half heartedly, and just out of an obligation to do it? Why not try something different whenever established methods fail? Why do we adamantly hold on to methods even when it is obviously not serving its purpose? Are we afraid of giving up God’s supposedly ‘favoured’ method of prayer? Why are we not affected by the fact that the mind has already given up and the tongue is the only thing stuck with the words of the prayer?
Does the rosary really help in experiencing God?
Whatever the method of prayer it should obviously serve the purpose of praying. It is implied by Kabir Das in one of his couplets that just repeating some words like a parrot does not become prayer. This is what I always agreed with and therefore never really believed in reciting the rosary. I did not understand the rosary either. The words of the prayers were memorized to me, but, are mere words, all that one need know about any prayer? Someone has to give a glimpse to the import of the words and the spirit of the prayer. The assumption that it comes naturally is wrong. At least it was wrong in my case.
I first understood the spirit of the rosary a few years back, when somebody told me that, ‘when you surrender everything at God’s feet one by one with each bead of the rosary, then how can you avoid concentrating through it all.’ I realized then that the rosary need not be really an ineffective method of prayer; rather my state of mind and my lack of understanding while reciting the rosary was making the prayer ineffective. After that, I made a deliberate attempt at understanding the rosary (rosary for prayer help from mother Mary).
Prayer is a method of meditation, which holds both a process of coming closer to God and the means of experiencing Him. A proper prayer according to me has three steps. The first is gratitude. A grateful heart is closer to God, for it acknowledges God as the giver of all the blessings in our lives. The second step is unburdening. All our worries, wrongs, needs, pains, fears, we unburden at the feet of God. Then our problems are no longer ours but His and we can free our minds from them. God is the best listener. He does not judge our burdens, so we can unload our hearts without adding the worry of being judged! So the first step brings us closer to God, the second step frees our mind and heart and makes it ready for the third step. The third step is, being still and experiencing the glory of God within us!
I discovered that the rosary too holds these three steps! It calls us to meditate upon the joyful, sorrowful and glorious mysteries. While meditating on the joyful mysteries, I believe that there should be a moment of silence in which we thank God for the joys in our life. While meditating upon the sorrows that Jesus underwent, we should pause and unburden our own sorrows. Then while meditating upon the glorious mysteries like the resurrection, we should pause and experience the stillness that is the result of a free mind.
The rosary is often the part of daily prayer for Christians. When we recite the rosary daily what we will need is concentration, which is sharpest when we have an intense urge, desire in life and immense faith in rosary. We may also (in case of lack of any needs or sorrows) possibly get focus by saying the prayers super fast, and that is fine as long as we still get the import of the words. That is, if we are saying the Hail Mary.., we should feel the glory of the mother even if we rush through the words. And when we follow it with the Holy Mary.., we should feel our mother praying for humanity. Similarly for the first part of the prayer to God ‘Our Father..’,we should feel the Father’s will descend upon the world and the flesh, and for the second part of the same prayer ‘Give us today..’,we should feel God’s healing descend upon us. In the prayer to the Holy Trinity.., Gods fullness and power should be felt. When asking Jesus for his gift of forgiveness, we just have to believe that our sins are forgiven. And while reciting ‘The Apostles’ Creed’ at the very start of the rosary, it is utmost important to shed any new found doubt ant declare that we do believe! This prayer is important as it decides whether the rosary will bring to us what it promises. We have to believe to receive! And the most important thing required to believe, I feel is courage.
There is a poem in which the poet says…
I’d rather walk in the dark with God than go alone in the light,
I’d rather walk by faith with him than go alone by sight.
And yet as every human has the freedom to think and question, Thomas too has the right, to still wonder if mother Mary is important. Here it would be relevant to know that apart from the Bible, the holy book Qur’an too speaks of Mary. Not only that, she is the only woman figure mentioned in Qur’an! That makes her important! The name of the 19th chapter in Qur’an is Surat Mariam. When two holy books accord importance to one person, that person must be important!
And yet again Thomas can ask, ‘but a prayer especially to mother Mary?’ It is important that in reciting the rosary we do not forget that we are actually worshipping and praying to God the Father. We say the Lords prayer first, which is addressed to God the Father, following which we ask our mother Mary to take up our prayers addressed to God and finally we ask Jesus to lead all souls into heaven by the forgiveness of sins. Reciting the prayer with closed minds may make us feel that the prayer involves worshipping mother Mary. Our mother Mary is our help in prayer. She is the most pure and compassionate mother of Jesus ‘the Word Incarnate’ and thereby is our mother too. These factors make a sincere rosary a powerful prayer. And yet it is very important to know what the church has to say of prayer mediation through mother Mary. For that we should refer the Vatican II. ‘No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the Goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source’ (The Church, 62). Therefore it is my interpretation that the church apart from approving intercession is also expressing that it is alright to prefer to have only Jesus as the mediator. So we needn’t feel guilty if we do not recite the rosary and prefer other forms of prayer.
Though ‘the rosary’ generally is used to refer to ‘the rosary for prayer help from mother Mary’, there are also other prayers said with beads like ‘the rosary (to the Father) for mercy’ which can also prove to be very powerful. This Chaplet of Mercy is a prayer to Father, requesting Him to remember the suffering of Jesus on the cross and thereby have mercy on us and the world.
The rosary,can also be especially useful to concentrate where a personal prayer is found to fail, for example personal prayer said on bed sometimes could make the mind wander especially when thinking up occurrences of the day for which to be thankful, or for which one might need some guidance. So, one could use the rosary when not at the regular prayer corner and speak of needs or convey gratitude after every ten beads, to keep focus. After being unconvinced to use the rosary for a good many years, it was a period of distress that led me to the rosary and finally faith in the Mother and the beads and I found that intense need, leads to immense focus on every word of the rosary and the 15 minutes of rosary can lead to trance and brings out immense power. What I am trying to say is that it depends on each person as to what will suit him or her, the spiritual stage of the person, the level of devotion and need or even the time or place. The person is therefore the primary factor that determines the effectiveness of the prayer rather than the actual method of prayer. And so every possible approach to God, be it Intercession or any other, is absolutely effective as long as the seeker intends it to be!
Finally I wish to share why today I absolutely believe in mother Mary and the mercies of the rosary. The reason is mainly in the answer to these questions. What effects you more, your child's illness or your own? Which is easier to bear, your child's physical suffering or your own? My son broke a bone of his hand and I cried. I broke a toe bone in five pieces and I did not cry. All mothers will feel that mother Mary bore the sufferings of the cross as much if not more than Jesus. It wouldn't be wrong if I feel that mother Mary is in a way a partaker in the suffering for our sins."And a sword shall pierce through your soul also, (that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed..)" Luke 2:35, were the words of Simeon to Mary when he spoke of the sign Jesus would be. Another fact is that a woman's, a mother's heart is more compassionate, more affected when it sees others suffer. When the wine was finished at the wedding in Canna, Mother, a compassionate woman, wanted to help but Jesus born a Man was not affected and asked, "Woman what is it to you and me". Reflect that at that point Jesus addressed mother as 'woman'and I believe that address held meaning. At that point Jesus put the question to the point of view of a woman! Our sufferings is often bigger in Mothers eyes, than in Jesus' eyes. I therefore am led to believe that God who intended to understand mankind through a human birth,would not forget to consider a woman's view too. And so Mother, blessed among women, has all ears when she puts her, a woman's view, a mother's view to Jesus and he would then listen respecting her perspective as he did at the wedding in Canna.
Also in one of my most trying times, it was my mother and a whole lot of women who flocked to me, many uncalled, and prayed for me unasked. And when I then saw the vision of the protector cross, the first thing I felt and with conviction was that the vision was the result of the prayers, the intercession of the compassionate women hearts....
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Section 1: Ch 5: Other Doubts linked to Jesus
Chapter 5
Other doubts linked to Jesus
Though this book (and this chapter too of course) is for all, still I want to approach this chapter keeping in mind the travails and insecurities of people following Christianity to address those who have found themselves intimidated and are insecure due to the controversies surrounding their basic religious beliefs.
For the Christian, a synthesis to the conflicting philosophies about God does not clear everything; for there still remain controversies regarding Jesus to contend with and so I will deal it here before proceeding to the next section.
It is true that there are many controversies surrounding Jesus which can be quite disturbing to the unprepared young Christian minds, but one must remember that controversies regarding Jesus are inevitable. There has to be a difference of opinion when we are talking of matters that are extraordinary and seem unbelievable. People will come up with explanations to make the whole life of Jesus more believable. This attitude is quite understandable. So our thinking need not be kicked around by more than a billion comments (of the billions of minds analyzing the one person) that are thrown into our thinking space, Of course we have the freedom to argue it in our minds or seek the truth behind such things, for if our belief is true, it has the power to prove itself to us in time.
What could be quenchers to major controversies?
There is a controversial suggestion that Jesus may have been one of the free spirits who took human form. I find this suggestion strange because if a free spirit can come in the world, why can’t the first begotten? If one can be considered possible, what makes the other seem impossible? Is it, that Parama Purusha , the eternal Word himself should come in the world, seems an impossibility? Or is it that the concept of a cosmic Purusha, itself seems impossible? If the existence of free spirits is believable, what is unbelievable about the cosmic Purusha !.Our personal logic may make certain concepts seem unbelievable. But then if we were an ant that had never seen a man, wouldn’t existance of man seem unbelievable to us? Wouldn’t it have been too wonderful a concept to imagine? If at all a non living could think, a wonder called life would be an unthinkable idea until, it met life!
If such wonders have been possible, if it is possible for the existence of the wonder called man, or the wonder called reproduction and so on, then why not the wonder called reincarnation and resurrection. And why not the wonder called the Son of God of whom there were prophesies not one or two but near a hundred all of which came true with Jesus’ life and death. What can be definitely said is that ‘it is possible, if every other wonder has been possible.’
I would like to suggest to all Christians to keep a level head while dealing with questions and controversies. There are people who would tell you (as I was told), ‘What about those books of the time of Jesus that are not included in the Standard versions of Bible and which suggest that Jesus had a bad temper?’ “Bad temper! Unbelievable!” would be the reaction of a devout Christian. Why not change this defensive stance and think what the Bible suggests, ‘In your anger do not sin.’ It is obviously alright to have emotions like anger. It is how we use anger that determines whether we have sinned or not. In fact it is abnormal not to have emotions. Emotions aid us in protecting the purposes of the body we are in. Emotions should be used with a control so as to avoid sin. For example, jealousy is a natural emotion which alerts us to safeguard what is for us and prods us to use our intelligence and take measures to protect the threatened possession. At the same time if the measures involve something like the killing of Desdemona in Othello, it suggests the clouding of judgment under the influence of the emotion Jealousy; which serves no one. In short, we need to keep in mind that not everything that sounds wrong has to be actually wrong.
Whenever faced with questions just avoid seeing a threat in them. The only threat in any statement is put in by either the manner of its presentation or by our own prejudices. Be sure to strip every question off its wrappings before analyzing it. This would help avoid the defensive stance and instantly make the statement crystal clear. Such a clear view will help us face every question boldly. Questions like the irrelevant ones for example- Was Judas in fact only doing what Jesus asked him to do? The answer is that does it really matter whether it was the master’s order or his own will? It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus was willing to die for our sins. On the other hand such a possibility highlights Jesus’ willingness to pay for our debts with his life.
Okay, but here comes another question with it- Shouldn't Jesus have assured Judas that he is only a medium for the fulfillment of the will of God? That could have avoided his repentance of the act, which finally lead him to commit suicide (as was argued in an article of a newspaper). This is in fact not a question to be bogged by. There are numerous prophesies regarding the promised messiah, his death and resurrection, so that their fulfillment in Jesus would leave us in no doubt that Jesus is the foreordained messiah. One of these prophesies (of prophet Jeremiah) has it that the messiah will be betrayed by a friend, for 30 pieces of silver and that will be cast on the floor of the temple and used to buy a potters field. (Refer Matthew chapter 27). Unless Judas had repented, he would not have cast the 30 coins into the temple which the chief priests used to buy the potters field. Just as the fulfillment of prophesies required that Jesus should die as a payment for our sins, it also required that Judas should repent. What matters is not ‘what could have been done’, but rather ‘what had to be.’ Instead of wondering on all the current analysis, look whether they are relevant in terms of the truth of the promise of salvation through Jesus.
Then there is that other question- Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? There are said to be some writings that, as claimed, speak of Jesus as married to Mary Magdalene. There was a time in my life when any such allegation would have made me lose my faith in Jesus. But today having matured in my thinking, such a possibility does not affect my faith. After all, it is God who gave man this world and created in him the basic needs. We find nothing bad about eating, drinking, and taking care of the needs of the body and therefore we do not worry about what Jesus ate or what were his daily habits. Jesus enjoyed life. He ate meat and drank wine as we can understand from the Bible (the last supper he shared wine). The Word had created life to enjoy and so when the Word became flesh and dwelt in the world of his creation, why should he have abstained from a prime pleasure of starting a family? We who do not worry about what he ate or what games he played in his childhood, need not worry ourselves about whether or not he married. I feel that it is only as important as the other pleasures of life. What matters is that he did not go overboard with any sort of pleasure in a way that it be called sin, in a way that he was bound to the pleasures. What matters is that he was willing to give up everything to do God’s will. Moreover I feel that it would have been a much greater sacrifice on the part of Jesus if it involved giving up a love and a family choosing to die for God's will. There is another factor that I want to add. Lust is definitely one of the seven sins as per Christianity but it should also be remembered that the union between man and woman is considered sacred. When the union between man and woman happens out of true love (not lust) it is sacred and Indian Philosophy considers it as one of the numerous ways of experience of the divine bliss. It is the negative view about sex that Christians carry that makes them apprehensive about the possibility that Jesus was married to Mary Madalene. If Jesus prayed and meditated, why wouldn’t he also experience sacred sex?
Also, one may wonder, why the books selected by the church to be part of the Bible do not mention any such thing. My personal opinion is that history is vaster than any book that speaks of it. The church has taken what it finds as relevant. Just as the textbooks in our schools, the Bible is the textbook of our religion and we refer it for basic and authentic understanding. But of course there might be other writings that may or may not be true. I personally would not support any story as true or untrue for neither have I personally read any such book nor do I have any hard evidence to suggest either way.
There are also stories about how Jesus used to scare his friends with his powers. The Qur’an also has stories of Jesus’ childhood which are not there in the Bible, like the one about how he made a bird from mud and breathed life into it. The paradox is that these stories, (true or not) instead of making me skeptical, make me feel the ‘person Jesus’ that is, Jesus in totality. To me, these stories make Jesus walk out of the two dimensional photograph, the picture perfect Jesus, to become the three dimensional, complete being who experienced all that he had come to experience, fun, mischief, play, the working with the hands, the powers of the body, and also love. Strangely, such aspects to Jesus’ life make Jesus more human and therefore more real, a person who really walked on this earth, and yet more Godly (to me)! Man is called to a total experience of being God, then if ever God has come down on earth, then I do feel that it has also been for a total experience of being human. It is often said in sermons that Jesus experienced what it was to be human and so he can understand us better and is an advocate for us to God. If that is so then I believe that only a complete experience of being human could help the Word Incarnate Jesus to empathize with all of mankind (majority of which chooses marriage over life long celibacy) and therefore it is quite possible that the above mentioned stories about Jesus are true and that he possibly also had a love.
These stories have in fact been helpful to me; they persuade me to forgive myself for being human and loving life. It also gives me a greater conviction that it is possible to overcome the love for the world, because after all Jesus too loved life. He asked God to take away the cup that he was supposed to drink (death on the cross), but he also asserted that not his will but the will of God be done. This episode from the Bible points out that we should not hide or repress our weaknesses or desires but rather we should accept them and bring them to the open before God. It also shows us how to overcome self love, namely by loving God’s will more, giving it more importance than personal will. Therefore, maybe the revealing of such episodes from Jesus’ life, that show more of his human side, is meant to help the Christian rather than to harm his faith. Kahlil Gibran has said that when you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight! So just look again in your heart; maybe it really helps to know the Human side of the Son of God rather than harms the faith?!
Another thing I would like to bring to note here is that such matters, like the marriage of Jesus, did not come to much focus for around 2000 years. Assuming that all such stories could be true, I often feel that, the ‘truth’ probably lay hidden for a reason, and also that it is for a reason that now it has been brought to light. Probably, in 2000 years, the general thinking of common man has matured in a way to accept such possibilities and know its real implications, without being shaken in terms of the identity of Jesus as the Son of God; whereas that would not have been the case had it come to light earlier?. The world, its people, the thinking is growing each era, the way that we all grow ..from childhood to adulthood. Have you noticed that often the problem is not in the truth but rather in our level of maturity, for the very truth that bothered us at one age, say in childhood, does not bother us at all at another age,... in adulthood.
The effort here, has been to provide an honest personal analysis of all such ‘troubling questions’ and thereby help by providing a scaffold to all the minds that may not have matured enough to be unaffected by such matters. My suggestion to every such young Christian therefore, is that they should be bold, honest, clear, logical and analytical in their thinking so that they can spot the irrelevant questions and issues which do nothing but confuse and have no real implication in terms of the larger truth. This clarity will bring in fearlessness and peace. The peace that is not touched by any questions…
If there is nothing wrong about Christianity then why did God have to send another messenger, around 600 years later and seemingly clarify that there is only one God and that Jesus is a prophet ?
This has been a very baffling question to me. It isn’t logically possible that what the prophets had to say about Jesus even before his birth through the biblical books (also according him a special status above their own) was untrue as why would all prophets speak about Jesus anyway if he was not somehow more important than them! Then is it because of something that happened in the 500 or 600 years between two great books; the Bible and the Qur’an that led to the requirement of another book speaking about Jesus? Or was it that each message, each path was meant for two different groups of people and not for a universal community? But both though centrally speaking about Jesus, hold two contradictory truths. One calls Jesus the Son of God and another calls Jesus a prophet. How can that be resolved?
Frankly, the only thing I knew for sure to start with is that they both have to be true since they are both inspired by God and therefore denying one would mean doubting the other too. I accepted them both, though logically arriving at a synthesis for these two contradictions seemed difficult. All I could proceed from that point for a time was a mere comparision that, two people may be sitting in the same room and yet to one, a table may seem to the right side, while to the other the table may seem to the left. It would not serve them to argue regards the position of the table. On the other hand if they just walk around the room and view the table, they would know that the table is not really to any particular side with regards to them. And if they could imagine themselves as the room, then the table would go beyond their view and beyond the measure of direction by just being within. Maybe there is some such justification for the different outlooks of the two religions with regard to Jesus. In such cases, it would be best said that ‘even you are being true and I am being true and yet there may be more to the truth than we have yet perceived. Though our truths may look contradictory, it is only because we look at it from two different points. A wider perspective would allow for both of us to see each other as right’.
It was at this stage of thinking that I chanced upon certain statements in an article by Iqbal Ansari in The Times of India, of 15th April 2006, ‘Mohammed would say that it is not the fact of belonging to any particular religious fold that would guarantee salvation. Instead the emphasis was shifted to sincerity of belief in God, human fraternity and righteous conduct, based on the core values of justice and compassion. Qur’an validates religious pluralism as part of Gods will, and accepts places of worship built by other faiths as those where God is remembered.’
What am I getting at? Well, the above article does show that the Muslim faith is not one of intolerance; rather it is based upon tolerance and acceptance of different ways of approaching God! I may seem to be deviating from the topic at hand, but I am not. In fact I believe that this quoted paragraph speaks out exactly the reason as to why the Qur’an was needed 600 years after the Bible.
I had made a choice to accept Qur’an(being a scripture) as the word of God. But one factor that troubled me was, as to why so many followers of this holy book believe that their religion accords them the right to be intolerant and unforgiving and the right to meet out the harshest of verdicts to whomsoever they consider as ‘wrong’. I had wondered many a time that how could ‘God’ (whom the common man relies on, especially because he thinks that God forgives and protects) be said to be encouraging non tolerance or supporting acts of violence (against what is perceived by man as intolerable) through any of His religions? I got my answer to this in the article, that the religion on the other hand encourages acceptance and compassion. But at the same time if the prophet’s traditions are really of tolerance going by what has been stated in the above article, then how could the followers end up being so intolerant? I got my answer to this question too in the same article. It was explained that it was circumstances of the time of Prophet Mohammed, namely the building up of defenses against the hostility of the pagan tribes of Mekkah, that had brought in a military attitude among the followers and that this attitude would have been shed over time had it not been taken up by rulers over the ages for political reasons, by using religion as a pretext.
These views by a learned man of the faith leads me to believe that there has been a lot of misunderstanding breeding in the minds of many followers of this religion which has multiplied over time and that this misunderstanding has been responsible for the acts of cruelty in the name of religion. This conclusion is not just based on this single article. Qur’an does prescribe stern measures for certain acts but it goes ahead each time and says that if the person is regretful, be merciful. A scripture has to be read for its spirit and not judged by the surface. Moreover if I have a clear understanding of the words of one of their prophets and if the Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of all their prophets then I would say with cent percent surety that Qur’an encourages forgiving others and that it also says that ‘by what measure you judge others by the same measure you will be judged’. If you forgive you will be forgiven. If you punish others for their sins you will be punished for your sins. These are the teachings of their prophet Jesus and what the above mentioned article does is to assure me, that prophet Mohammed did not think differently either. Christianity speaks at one point of a jealous God, but I have always understood it instinctively to mean jealousy against the 'hold of the world' (the God of the world as in 2:corinthians4:4) which prevents a person from seeking God. The Christian and the Muslim are supposed to wage a war against their own love of the world rather than misunderstand statements and look down on the approach to God of the rest of Humanity. The fact that the rest of the world has its own scripture itself is proof about their own personal struggle to escape the hold of the world, the God of the world!
There is never anything wrong with the teachings in any religion that seeks to escape the hold of the world. The problem begins when mindsets begin to influence what the teachings actually mean. Problem results when man refuses to see the words of God in terms of his ever growing understanding. Therefore going by similar lines I would say that the need for a different message through Prophet Mohammed may have arisen to counter the influence of mindsets on the practices of Christianity. After all, when no scripture can be wrong then one scripture cannot be talking against another, but rather against the faulty understanding/wrong practices of the people of the particular time frame.
I learnt through my research (Nineyum Thedi, by Mario Joseph[a former muslim]) a crucial and supporting fact to the above view. The fact is that the revelations to Prophet Mohammed are categorized into two, as those given to him in Makkah and those given to him in Madina. The revelations in Makkah do not go against the Christian beliefs but rather have positive statements regarding Christians whereas it is the teachings in Madina that have been the reason for scepticism about Christian beliefs. The book also mentioned that the attitude of Christians was good in Mekkah and bad in Madina and the difference in the writings about Christians could be accounted to that. It does seem the only logical explanation for the paradox existing in the two writings. It is possible that the Christians in Madina might have been harboring wrong beliefs and so the admonishing might have been against their beliefs rather than against Jesus. The positive statements in the Qur’an regarding Christians, as mentioned in the book include chapter 61, verse 14 which says in essence that Jesus calls his followers to be his helpers in leading people to God. It also says that all believers of God should also become helpers of God. In chapter 57, verses27 the suggestion is that the followers of Jesus are blessed by God with grace and mercy. These verses are positive in terms of Christianity; then what could it be that was found wrong in the Christian religion?
Possibly the admonishing was required because of the ‘I am Right’ attitude that some Christians developed due to their orthodox ideas; rejecting everything that is not within the accepted books of the Bible, rejecting even their own minds to grow the natural growth from childhood to adulthood, fearing any change whatsoever in terms of what is once (and for all) understood as the meaning of the words of the Bible.
It is important here to look again at the fact that Jesus has come for a section of people. As discussed earlier, He has come for the lost sheep. ‘Come to me, all of you who are tired from carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke and put it on you, and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in spirit; and you will find rest. For the yoke I will give you is easy, and the load I will put on you is light. Mathew 11: 28-30.’ It is obvious that those who are not being able to carry the burden of the Law are called. Jesus does not reject the way shown by the Law but rather he calls the weak saying that he can lighten their burden(of the Law).
The wise and the learned are strong and therefore have the capacity to bear the burden of the Law by following all directions with the help of discretion and wisdom, but for the simple man who cannot understand God or reach out to him through the practice of wisdom in daily living, but who has the will and the power of faith, that is the capacity to ‘have not seen and yet believe’ there is the easier way. For such simple folks was foreordained the messiah, the saviour believing whom one could attain liberation. The ‘saviour’ is the truth that is not evident to the wise, probably because they do not need it, and is revealed to the simple. This might be what Jesus meant when he said to the Father, ‘I thank you because you have shown to the unlearned what you have hidden from the wise and learned. Luke 10:21.’
Therefore, in giving Jesus as the Son and Savior, God could not have meant to be made to seem a ‘property’, to be possessed only by those who call out to Jesus. Suppose a man has two sons, each brought up in a different land. One learns to call the father baba, and another addresses father as dad. When they meet and hear the different address to the father, would they be right to think that they are sons to two different fathers? Christians of certain period and some denominations addressed different religions as false or 'incomplete' without understanding their core meanings and messages, leading to a situation as in the above example.
Also, in utter ignorance some may have misinterpreted the teachings of the Christian religion and given the place to Mother Mary as a Goddess apart from the one God, and Jesus also as another God. Jesus has said, ‘He (Father) is greater than I. John 14: 28’. Jesus is the Word Incarnate of God, and Jesus has said that it is enough for the student to be like his master, as he can never be greater. Though the Word is a part of the one God, we Christians are also taught that this position was given up by Jesus in being born as a human. We are taught that Jesus gave up his Godly nature and became human because that was what the Father had chosen for his first begotten. Of course we are also taught, that because Jesus gave up his Godly nature willingly, for the sake of the Father, his name was raised above all names. And yet we also know that in having been born a human, he has been like all of us. A creation can never be greater than the creator. Jesus cannot be greater than God the Father or even a separate God. Jesus also says that do not call me good, for only God is good. It is clear then that Jesus never tried to create a separate identity for himself or his mother, as Gods apart from the one and only God. He did say that he has authority to forgive sins, but the prayer he taught us was addressed to God the Father. In giving this prayer he pointed out that God is only one, the one creator of all things. Yet when the simple minds misunderstood the teachings of the Bible, Prophet Mohammed was given the message for the people, not to make Mother Mary and Jesus two Gods apart from Allah. This could be why it is asked in the Holy Qur’an whether Jesus said that they should be worshipped as two Gods apart from Allah? Jesus of course never said that. It is evident therefore that the problem is again of mindsets influencing the core meaning of scriptural teachings which must have led to the making of two separate Gods out of them. Simplicity here had now become the vice that prevented the truth to be seen in its context. It does seem to me then that these, the wrong practices, are condemned and asked to be discouraged through the revelations to Prophet Mohammed.
I would say therefore that it is time for the Christian to stop running away from Qur’an (just because it ‘seems’ to attack basic Christian beliefs) and rather try to understand what the good God may be trying to say to us, the followers of Christianity, through it. Probably we should reflect on our attitude in prayer, and question ourselves. Could I be forgetting the Father albeit unintentionally in my devotion to mother Mary or even Jesus? But the Christian may argue that we are praying indirectly to the Father, when we pray to Jesus and that Jesus has said, ‘I and my Father are one.’ I would say then that you are not the ones in wrong with God as long as you realize that you are praying to the Father and as long as you know that Jesus is the ‘visible way’ for the common man to understand and pray to the ‘invisible God’(The multi approach religion, Hinduism accepts this approach to God). Knowledge gives freedom, whereas ignorance needs to be guided and bound in rules till the light of wisdom opens the doors to freedom. It is ignorance that needs to be corrected. The ignorance that makes one view God the Father and Jesus as two different Gods. If any practice in the Christian prayer is breeding ignorance related to the true nature of God as the one and only, then it is time to assess what is being conveyed to the young generation, through the medium of the prayers we stress upon or the messages we convey through our preferences in prayer. Do we teach (through personal interpretations or imply through any of our Christian denominations) that God is only of those who pray to Jesus? Then what about those who pray to the Father? Does the Father disregard their prayer? If no, then what about those, who call the Father ‘Allah’ or the Word as ‘Om’? Does calling the Father ‘Allah’ and calling the Son ‘Omkaara’ change the attitude of the one and only God to our prayer? Does a sincere prayer get rejected because the same God was addressed differently? When man in all sincerity, pleads to God for liberation, it is up to God as to how he reaches out to man or what ‘way’ he prescribes for each one, but listen, he surely will as he has implied through Matthew 7:7.
And thereby, I believe, must have arisen, the need for clarification that God is not a property to be possessed by only those who pray to Jesus; because it is the destination that makes any path important and not vice versa. The message basically is that God has always held out his hand in a different way to a different people, a way involving the strict following of the Law, a way involving the purification of the self through rituals and rigorous fasting. Therefore the truth seems to be what Iqbal Ansari points out in his article that, Qur’an in fact carries God’s message that validates religious pluralism as part of Gods will, and accepts places of worship built by other faiths as those where God is remembered.’
Therefore, God is not the property of the Christian. God can be reached by all sincere seekers. The way to Him is his Word, but the seeker can seek a cleansing from sins through the Word incarnate Jesus or even cleansing through a strict adherence to the Law, severe fasting and penance and by austerely following the teachings of all prophets, one of whom is Jesus. Though Qur'an stresses that Jesus is only a prophet it does not seem to deny that there is salvation through Jesus! As implied by the following verse in it "And all of the people of the scripture must believe in him(Jesus) before his death, and on the Day of resurrection, he will be a witness against them" chapter an-Nisaa(4):159.
And so assuming that Qur'an has not got any descrepancies, all believers in salvation through Jesus can take heart because the book reveals that, 'Allah stressed the importance of belief in Jesus in numerous places in the Qur'an. For example, in chapter an-Nisaa(4):159, He said:
"And all of the people of the scripture must believe in him(Jesus) before his death, and on the Day of resurrection, he will be a witness against them"
Though the need to believe in Jesus to avail of his grace is stressed in Qur'an, the book by Dr. A.B. Philips also stresses ofcourse that Qur'an denies Jesus' divinity despite affirming his grace. In the chapter al-Maa'idah, (5):75 (says)
"The Messiah, Son of Mary, was no more than a messenger and many messengers passed away before him. His mother was exceedingly truthful,and they both ate food. See how I have made the signs clear for them, yet see how they are deluded."
The Virgin birth of Jesus is affirmed in Qur'an but ofcourse inspite of this unique birth, Jesus was flesh and blood. Yet, which other prophet had such a unique birth! It is only logical to conclude that definitely there is 'something' unique to this messenger when compared to all other messengers!
I quote again John 10:34-36 (revised version is quoted in chapter 4) what Jesus said when he was accused 'of blashphemy ( being a man, making himself God), 'Jesus answered them,'Is it not written in your law, 'I said you are Gods"? If he called them Gods, to whom the word of God came(and the scripture cannot be broken). Do you say of Him whom the father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? John 10:34-36
I found it really odd therefore that the concerned book by Dr. A.B. Philips says that Jesus made no claims of divinity firstly because there is such a clear verse as the above which he does mention in his book but only upto " I said you are Gods' (not stating whether or not the rest of the statement was later added on)and explains it as metaphorical language of prophets. In fact this verse should have been analyzed in entirety and it required to be proved 'untrue or added on' to prove that Jesus never claimed any form of divinity. He only mentions discrepancies in a lot of irrelevant statements (like; in one Biblical text where it says 'while it was still dark' another text says 'when the sun had risen' !)to show unreliabilty of the Biblical books.
Moreover if the author wants to imply that the Jews mistook his metaphorical language when he said that, 'Is it not written in the your law ,"I said Ye are gods"(Jesus is quoting psalms 82:6), then why didn't Jesus simply clarify himself when he was questioned (many times)? Even statements of claims to divinity in the Bible may be someday proved as 'added on' but even then, what justification is there then for Jesus' crucifixion 'after questioning'! According to the Bible, the accusation for arrest was 'Blasphemy'. The Bible (luke chapter 23:2)says that he was accused of having claimed that he himself is Christ, a King. Furthermore, the men who held Jesus mocked him. Luke 22:71, 'And they said, "Are you then the Son of God?' So He said to them, " You rightly say that I am". He could have saved himself from crucifixion by saying 'I only meant it metaphorically (just like all the other prophets)!' Was Jesus in a hurry to be crucified then!? Why did he brush away the numerous opportunities after arrest to explain Himself? Ofcourse he did not lack the intelligence to explain himself well.
Even if we don't consider all these statements and only use logic, then Historically speaking, why would a pious man who performs miracles and heals people be arrested, questioned and crucified by the peoples wish(not the then Kings, for Pilate was reluctant to crucify Jesus and gave him many opportunities to explain himself). What sort of King did he claim himself to be or admitted to have claimed?
The book by Dr. A.B. Philips had lots of information and research, though study and analysis of the few crucial points mentioned above would have given his book the critical strength sought by lay readers like myself. The message of Qur'an as mentioned by the author is that all revealed scriptures are to be followed. All the major ancient scriptures have origin in the Aryan Vedic texts (discussed in earlier chapters), but the author does not seem to believe in the 'core' Vedic message (that God is present in his creation) obvious from what he says in his book- 'Jesus is worshipped under the false belief that God is present in His creation'. The author accepts one message of Qur'an and to prove it he invalidates another aspect of Qur'an (obviously because of mistaken belief that Hinduism is only related to idolatory; or is it that 'all scriptures' only intends a select convenient three?). The author also explains that the concept defined by the term Logos is found in Indian, Egyptian and Persian philosophical and theological systems. He says that, 'The Greek term used by the anonymous author of the fourth Gospel (Gospel of John) for Word is logos. In doing so the author identifies Jesus with the Pagan logos of Greek philosophy, who was the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.' Dr.A.B Philips says that the church further developed this philosophy and stated that Christ was the ancient Logos to impress the hearers that Christianity was heir to all that was best in Pagan philosophy. I don't find any flaw of logic on the part of the 'anonymous' author of the Gospel of John in that he may have found certain similarities of Jesus' claims to the power called Logos found in all ancient theological systems across the world. For example, in John 14:10 Jesus says, 'In that day you will know that I am in my father and you in me and I in you'. This statement can be clearly understood through the Logos philosophy of all creation being part of the Word, which is the first form of God. But Dr. A.B. Philips explanation is that it is a symbolic statement of oneness of purpose (not oneness of essence) that Jesus shares with his disciples. Why would the disciples have to wait till 'That day' to understand something as simple as oneness of purpose?! Moreover I can accept logic of a writer (like that of the Gospel of John) better than I can accept inspired writing because history abounds with people who have claimed to have prophetic powers or even died and resurrected(Mithra, the sun God, of Mithraism) but gives no clear guidelines (except their success or failure) to detect the false from the true! We can only use an assumption that the Universal spirit that spoke to true prophets has the power to make it reach out to all, and those who succeeded in being heard, succeeded because they have the backing of the 'Power'?
Those who are reading my book will note that, what I am only stressing on, is that for a rational mind scriptures can be true only if there is a unifying thread in all scriptures. All are creations of the one God and so God cannot favor a certain group over another. His love, mercy and forgiveness and outreach has to be for all groups of people...., just as the rain falls on everybody and all regions (rather than falling only on one piece of land and reaching others only as the run off!) . Qur'an says believe in the 'messenger' Jesus as a grace from God. Authentic Christian belief should be and is 'Jesus as Grace of God'. God is One 'the Father/Allah', who is the one to be sought and worshipped. Hinduism accepts the need of a Guru who can take the Karmic doom of the seeker. Scriptures, semitic or otherwise are speaking of an easy way to be freed from the hold of the World.
Qur'an validates all scriptures before it. Christianity validates the Vedic message through the verse John 10:34, for Vedic scriptures also say, 'you are Gods'. And it is obvious therefore that understanding Hinduism can surely be a helpful way to understand the Identity of Jesus (analysed in chapter 4).
I want to add here as an after thought that a seeker needs the hand of religion (any religion) as long as he is a child in terms of spiritual understanding. When he becomes an adult, that is, when his spirit is awakened and when his heart is opened up to God, he must remember to let go the hand of religion and start tapping his own inward connection to the one God for answers. Many scriptures speak on issues that other scriptures do not speak about (like suggesting that it is improper to listen to music!). Therefore, it is my belief that scriptures are to be referred for core understanding. That is, it should be referred for topics that are central to each scripture and for topics common to all scriptures. The topics that are not common I believe are like road marks for the specific community (to which the specific scripture was given probably as per the particularities of the community) to help notice the real destination. But once the destination is approached, it is important to not get distracted by mere road marks or else though near the destination, the seeker may never be able to reach it.
Once the spirit is awakened, all the steps leading to it are no more of any consequence.
Therefore though I accept all scriptures as true (because doubting one is doubting all others), yet whenever beset with a conflict between any two of the four aids to reasoning mentioned in the second chapter (sight/intuition, inference,similee/comparision, trusted source/scripture)-for example, the answer given by the heart or intuition or the answer in a trusted source like scriptures, and I would trust the former, because firstly all messengers and inspired writers are still Humans; secondly, though divine power is possible in Humans, but divine power can also be overwhelming in the system of a mere Human; thirdly, scriptures are rewritten a thousand times every century and can get distorted in content or in interpretation or in terms of the context of particular directives, but the conscience, the heart, the spirit is in direct connect and it would be unwise to disregard the latter out of fear or respect for the former.
Did Jesus die on the cross or not?
Jesus willfully entered Jeruselem and chose the suffering on the cross to pay for the sins of all mankind when he could just as easily have chosen to escape from it. There is no argument anywhere about it. And that is the basis of my faith in Jesus (and does not rely on resurrection), because ‘I’ can’t even willingly go to the dentist for ‘my own’ benefit!
One argument some put in is that Jesus did not suffer pain because he knew yoga! Which yogi would willingly have holes drilled in his hands and foot or would have his face and body disfigured with punches and flogging even perchance he does not feel pain owing to the help of yoga? Has anybody done that? Ask yourself, dont we all love our body, however spiritual? It is natural. "Father if it is your will, take this cup away from me, nevertheless not my will but yours" Luke 22:42 "And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" Luke 22:44. This shows clearly the enormity of the suffering that Jesus knew he had to go through. The awareness brought such agony to him and also made him pray making the same request not once but three times and each time he found his disciples had failed to pray and had slept which seems to have made it clear to Jesus that the cup is for him to drink. Finally, what more evidence to the immensity and unbearableness of Jesus' suffering, than the lament from the one who knew the Father "My God, My God,why have You forsaken Me" Mark 15:34. All efforts at denying the suffering of Jesus with explanations just show how little such a big sacrifice is valued when instead of being grateful, the world is forever busy trying to find some or other factor to reduce the magnitude of the sacrifice.
The controversy we now look into further is; that Jesus did not die (on the cross), but rather he escaped death and went to India and lived there till he was 120 years of age and died in Srinagar. It is also said that the three wise men who came to see the messiah when he was born took him and family to Egypt and India. These are also the findings presented in the book ‘Jesus Lived in India’ by Holger Kersten’ and he states it with arguments and proofs.
It is quite flattering for a Christian of Indian origin to be told that Jesus may have been in India and that he has benefited from the rich philosophy of this land before returning to Jerusalem. I find nothing objectionable about that in terms of Christian belief about Jesus’ identity, therefore I have not tried to ever analyse it. It may or may not be true and it doesn’t matter to me. But of course I have thought over the controversy that Jesus did not in fact die on the cross. Before reading the book by Holger Kersten, the following four points were my arguments based on what I had mostly heard of the basis of this controversy.
1. What I gather about Jesus from the statements in the Bible is that he knew that he would be crucified and he spoke openly about it. The book of Mathew, Luke and Mark, tell us that Jesus spoke about his death three times. ‘Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 8:31.’ ‘Killed’ and ‘after three days rise again’ are the terms used all the three times and in all the three books. Jesus did not say that, they will 'try' to kill me but I will survive and will appear to you three days after the rescue. Neither did he just say that he will be crucified and buried in a tomb but will come out still alive from it after three days. Rather he was specific that he would be killed and will rise after three days. Did he then lie not one not two but three times? Does it seem possible that a man, prepared to suffer inhuman treatment, would back away from being honest to his disciples?
2. ‘Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say-‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. John 12:27’ Jesus obviously had no intention of running away in any possible way from what he had been assigned by the Father and therefore he did not run away from the killing of the body which fulfilled the scriptures; and when the body was brought back to life after three days, that was also to fulfill the scriptures, rather than a planned escape from death. If he had wanted to save his life, he would have also saved himself from the mocking, the flogging and the nailing (after all he knew what was awaiting him in Jerusalem). If Jesus was trying to cheat us into believing that his escape from death was actually resurrection, a rising from death to life, then what were the scriptures, which prophesied this death and resurrection, trying to do?
3. Now here are certain verses that I feel are relevant in understanding the purpose of crucifixion. According to the book of John, Jesus says to the Jews, (while foretelling his death) that where I am going, you cannot come and also that, you are from below, I am from above; you are of the world, I am not of this world. He also says; when you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that ‘I am he’ (John 8:21-28). It is obvious from this statement that the crucifixion and death on the cross was an important event which was also meant to prove to the people that Jesus was not of this world. This could be proved only through the resurrection and also ascension with the body (described in Luke 24:46,47 and 51).
4. I am also compelled to believe that the Jesus, who said that his food is to do the work of God, could not have lingered on in the world after the important Hour for which he had come, had been carried out to perfection. The single minded approach of Jesus to his purpose on earth, imply that it would go against the character of Jesus to stay on after the mission and lead aimless years. And therefore if Jesus had really come to India after finishing his God assigned work, then he wouldn’t have just tied his hands, spread his legs and relaxed. Jesus would not have ignored the salvation of the people amongst whom he was living. We Indians would surely have heard of a great sage of Srinagar who healed the people there or gave them the forgiveness of sins, and who had a great following and thus was the founder of a new religion. We all know how India opens its heart and follows great Men. Since no such thing happened, then possibly the one buried in Srinagar was someone else from (could be) Jerusalem.
After having written these four points, I had to go to my hometown for two months due to unavoidable circumstances, and guess what! I was given this book by my relation who also happened to be there during that very period. I had in hand a similar book four years ago in a book stall but decided against buying it for I felt emotionally unprepared for any such argument. But when now, four years later the book was put in my hand, I knew I was ready.
The following are the arguments in the book ‘Jesus Lived in India’ by Holger Kersten; and my analysis of them in comparision to the earlier four points
1 The book has used the Gospel itself to point to the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross. What is heartening is that the scripture is nowhere doubted by the author, but only its interpretation.In the book we are told that Theologian Gunther Schwarz has revealed that the terms ‘rise’ and ‘coming back to life’ in the Original Aramaic derive from a verbal root meaning to ‘resuscitate’ (and not resurrection). Schwarz is said to have suggested this meaning deriving from a root word of the ‘synonymous words achajuta and techijjuta one of which Jesus would have used’. Quite amusing was the fact that my thesaurus gave me also a meaning ‘resurrect’ for resuscitate! What then remained the argument!
Also, a major flaw to this analysis of root words is that Schwartz does not seem to have worried about the word ‘Killed’ used by Jesus as mentioned in the Bible(refer point 1). But unless all such words are considered and clarified in a likewise manner, the analysis is not a satisfactory proof (if at all).
2 Now let us consider point 2 that I made, and in that context, analyse the statements in the book.
The author of the book admits that ‘the entry into the city of Jeruselem was an act of unprecedented provocation.’ And yet again that ‘why he should then go to Jeruselem, and by so doing give himself up to his persecutors, remains a mystery. (page 131).The explanation for the ascention given is that Jesus might have just been quickly lost to sight when he walked over and down the summit of the peak of Ascention. Another argument given is that even after that he appeared to Paul.
Somehow these explanations regarding ascension do not feel very sound. The arguments against resurrection or rather that Jesus lived in Kashmir after the crucifixion, I must say are well researched and appreciable. And quite surprising and helpful is a discovery facilitated by the book! According to the author ‘For the Ahamadiya sect, Jesus’ ‘overcoming of the torment of crucifixion’ is (also) a fulfillment of prophecies in the old testament.’ But the scripture passage which is said to be fulfilled is from Ishiah 53, which also contains verses which say very clearly that God allowed Jesus to be bruised and that he was put to grief for the iniquity of us all. “..when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” it is clear that the ‘soul’ was an offering. ‘for he was cut out from the land of the living’, ‘he made his grave with the wicked’ and ‘he hath poured out his soul unto death’ all imply death.
‘…he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the lord shall prosper in his hand’ This is the verse that the author is suggesting from the passage and is ‘the only verse’ while he ignores the above three statements that imply death. He is suggesting that it was God’s will that Jesus should live for a long time after rising from his ‘overcoming the torment of crucifixion.
3 Did Jesus experience pain, die and was he resurrected.
The author suggests Yoga to assume that Jesus did not feel any pain. It is also known that a yogi can enter a dead body and make it move. Though I do not the truth to it but I have also heard that a yogi can leave his body and then take it up again. If such a state is a possibility then would the body during that duration without the spirit be called dead or alive? Would such a body pass all tests proving clinical death? The author has not considered this possibility and unless he considers all possibilities, the proofs given by him (of ‘fresh blood’ stains on the shroud wrapped around Jesus' "dead body",said to be possible only if the body is alive, ) to support his assumption that Jesus did not actually ‘give up the Ghost’ as a payment for sins, obviously become irrelevant. What I am suggesting is that Jesus must have given up his spirit and yet the body might not have show signs of death possibly because God willed to breathe life anew into the same body. The author does not debate miracles of Jesus like the bringing to life of Lazurus; then surely the above possibility will not be seen as beyond God.. But even having taken account of his doubts, the truth is that doctors tell us that blood and water coming out of the spear wound proved Christ was already dead.Piercing the side was also intended so that in case the person is not dead he should bleed to death.
4 In context of point 4 the argument of the author of the book is that Jesus was saved from an accursed death (by the will of God) that would have been unworthy of him.
Now there are certain proofs given by the author to suggest that Jesus was in India after the crucifixion. For example he provides the copy of a page of one of the Puranas (of Hinduism) written between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD which mentions Isha Maseeha. With reference to some other ancient books he provides certain episodes and tells us that Jesus (on coming to India after crucifixion) did not ‘spread his legs and relax’ but was in fact doing miracles and was revered. He was known by a different name Yuz Asaf in Kashmir but the author says that an old manuscript of Kashmir describes the shrine (of Yuz Asaf) as that of Isha Rooh Allah. If we have not heard much of him, then (author suggests) that it is because early Indian historians did not write about foreigners. This does give a reasonable enough argument for point 4.
So let me for a time assume that God did prolong the days of Jesus by say 80 more years. Even when I think in the lines of the author, I would conclude that Krishna, Buddha, Jesus (the three lives that are similar as per the authors analysis) all fulfill the words from the Geeta that say that ‘where dharma diminishes there I am born’. The striking similarity of certain events and teachings of their lives is accorded (by the author) to Jesus having been influenced by their teachings while in India. But I have a different take. In ethnic botony it is said that nature has provided with clues for man in the form of shape of the parts of plants which are useful in one or other way to correspondingly shaped part of the human body. In a similar manner, it does seem very much a possibility that the striking similarities of these lives and teaching are pointers that each of this life is ‘the divine in the human form’. The difference is that Jesus went one step ahead of Buddha by suffering to pay off the sins of the world. The concept of Bodhisattva of Mahayana philosophy is considered in Holger Kirstens book as follows. ‘The Bodhisattva is the Enlightened one who defers his merging with the universal Being, who postpones his entry into nirvana, for as long as it takes for him to lead every person and being to salvation. The earthly existence of a Bodhisattva has the single purpose of leading all souls on to the path of release (moksha), the path that constitutes liberation from the cycle of rebirths and from the distractions of the world and physicality. All those qualities that characterize a Bodhisattva are to be found in Jesus, down to the last detail. Jesus is by himself the epitome of the Bodhisattva ideal.”
I would (very importantly) also like to point out that the aim of the author does not seem to be to diminish Jesus, for I only found that all statements and stories collected by him regarding Jesus in India only exalt Jesus even further. The aim of the author seems to be merely to suggest that we should focus on Jesus’s message rather than that of any of his followers. Also astounding is the statements that he has picked from the Bible which show the belief in reincarnation; for example, Jesus’ implication that John the Baptist is actually Elias(Elijah). ‘But I say unto you, that Elias has come already, and they knew him not…’then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist’ Mathews17:12-13.’ Such statements have been staring point blank at our faces and we couldn’t make that simple conclusion! The author also says that some parts (like book of John) of the new testament are written on two different levels, one obvious and the other cryptic, so that only the discerning eye can read between the lines. This does seem possible (whatever be the reason behind it).
My personal suggestion to all Christians is; why worry whether Jesus gave up his spirit; at least for a split second or for three days or not at all before rising the third day; or whether he ascended bodily or his body had the same end as that of Krishna or Buddha. My question is; is it not enough that Jesus willingly accepted suffering. If his suffering was accepted as enough (payment for sins) by God ('He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied' Isaiah 53:11) and therefore if God held back the axe, as from Isaac’s neck, then shouldn’t we rejoice for Jesus, who had cried the tears of blood for us!
Holger explains that the Gospel available to us are only four (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) from a larger collection of Gospels. These, that are not available, are called apocryphal which means hidden. These apocryphal books seemingly shed ‘a very ambiguous and intriguing light on the person of Jesus of Nazareth’(as per Holger Kersten). Let us assume this as true; but at the same time let us look again at the fact that the authors, of the four Gospels available to us, felt only a certain part of Jesus’ life as relevant for all of us common folk who look on with hope in the mercy of God. For some reason they did not include any other information. The reason cannot be an effort to hide any information or paint a glorified picture of Jesus, because the apocryphal Gospels(as is said) had all other detailed information about Jesus which must have been available during that period, for those who were more interested in the person Jesus. But these four Gospels I believe were written for those who were interested in the mercy of God. It is for those who were interested in that part of Jesus’ life that fulfilled their hope in forgiveness of their sins. And so we now need to turn back to what is truly relevant as we, ‘need not search all that is too difficult or too much of a secret. For all that we require has been given unto us’
Other doubts linked to Jesus
Though this book (and this chapter too of course) is for all, still I want to approach this chapter keeping in mind the travails and insecurities of people following Christianity to address those who have found themselves intimidated and are insecure due to the controversies surrounding their basic religious beliefs.
For the Christian, a synthesis to the conflicting philosophies about God does not clear everything; for there still remain controversies regarding Jesus to contend with and so I will deal it here before proceeding to the next section.
It is true that there are many controversies surrounding Jesus which can be quite disturbing to the unprepared young Christian minds, but one must remember that controversies regarding Jesus are inevitable. There has to be a difference of opinion when we are talking of matters that are extraordinary and seem unbelievable. People will come up with explanations to make the whole life of Jesus more believable. This attitude is quite understandable. So our thinking need not be kicked around by more than a billion comments (of the billions of minds analyzing the one person) that are thrown into our thinking space, Of course we have the freedom to argue it in our minds or seek the truth behind such things, for if our belief is true, it has the power to prove itself to us in time.
What could be quenchers to major controversies?
There is a controversial suggestion that Jesus may have been one of the free spirits who took human form. I find this suggestion strange because if a free spirit can come in the world, why can’t the first begotten? If one can be considered possible, what makes the other seem impossible? Is it, that Parama Purusha , the eternal Word himself should come in the world, seems an impossibility? Or is it that the concept of a cosmic Purusha, itself seems impossible? If the existence of free spirits is believable, what is unbelievable about the cosmic Purusha !.Our personal logic may make certain concepts seem unbelievable. But then if we were an ant that had never seen a man, wouldn’t existance of man seem unbelievable to us? Wouldn’t it have been too wonderful a concept to imagine? If at all a non living could think, a wonder called life would be an unthinkable idea until, it met life!
If such wonders have been possible, if it is possible for the existence of the wonder called man, or the wonder called reproduction and so on, then why not the wonder called reincarnation and resurrection. And why not the wonder called the Son of God of whom there were prophesies not one or two but near a hundred all of which came true with Jesus’ life and death. What can be definitely said is that ‘it is possible, if every other wonder has been possible.’
I would like to suggest to all Christians to keep a level head while dealing with questions and controversies. There are people who would tell you (as I was told), ‘What about those books of the time of Jesus that are not included in the Standard versions of Bible and which suggest that Jesus had a bad temper?’ “Bad temper! Unbelievable!” would be the reaction of a devout Christian. Why not change this defensive stance and think what the Bible suggests, ‘In your anger do not sin.’ It is obviously alright to have emotions like anger. It is how we use anger that determines whether we have sinned or not. In fact it is abnormal not to have emotions. Emotions aid us in protecting the purposes of the body we are in. Emotions should be used with a control so as to avoid sin. For example, jealousy is a natural emotion which alerts us to safeguard what is for us and prods us to use our intelligence and take measures to protect the threatened possession. At the same time if the measures involve something like the killing of Desdemona in Othello, it suggests the clouding of judgment under the influence of the emotion Jealousy; which serves no one. In short, we need to keep in mind that not everything that sounds wrong has to be actually wrong.
Whenever faced with questions just avoid seeing a threat in them. The only threat in any statement is put in by either the manner of its presentation or by our own prejudices. Be sure to strip every question off its wrappings before analyzing it. This would help avoid the defensive stance and instantly make the statement crystal clear. Such a clear view will help us face every question boldly. Questions like the irrelevant ones for example- Was Judas in fact only doing what Jesus asked him to do? The answer is that does it really matter whether it was the master’s order or his own will? It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus was willing to die for our sins. On the other hand such a possibility highlights Jesus’ willingness to pay for our debts with his life.
Okay, but here comes another question with it- Shouldn't Jesus have assured Judas that he is only a medium for the fulfillment of the will of God? That could have avoided his repentance of the act, which finally lead him to commit suicide (as was argued in an article of a newspaper). This is in fact not a question to be bogged by. There are numerous prophesies regarding the promised messiah, his death and resurrection, so that their fulfillment in Jesus would leave us in no doubt that Jesus is the foreordained messiah. One of these prophesies (of prophet Jeremiah) has it that the messiah will be betrayed by a friend, for 30 pieces of silver and that will be cast on the floor of the temple and used to buy a potters field. (Refer Matthew chapter 27). Unless Judas had repented, he would not have cast the 30 coins into the temple which the chief priests used to buy the potters field. Just as the fulfillment of prophesies required that Jesus should die as a payment for our sins, it also required that Judas should repent. What matters is not ‘what could have been done’, but rather ‘what had to be.’ Instead of wondering on all the current analysis, look whether they are relevant in terms of the truth of the promise of salvation through Jesus.
Then there is that other question- Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? There are said to be some writings that, as claimed, speak of Jesus as married to Mary Magdalene. There was a time in my life when any such allegation would have made me lose my faith in Jesus. But today having matured in my thinking, such a possibility does not affect my faith. After all, it is God who gave man this world and created in him the basic needs. We find nothing bad about eating, drinking, and taking care of the needs of the body and therefore we do not worry about what Jesus ate or what were his daily habits. Jesus enjoyed life. He ate meat and drank wine as we can understand from the Bible (the last supper he shared wine). The Word had created life to enjoy and so when the Word became flesh and dwelt in the world of his creation, why should he have abstained from a prime pleasure of starting a family? We who do not worry about what he ate or what games he played in his childhood, need not worry ourselves about whether or not he married. I feel that it is only as important as the other pleasures of life. What matters is that he did not go overboard with any sort of pleasure in a way that it be called sin, in a way that he was bound to the pleasures. What matters is that he was willing to give up everything to do God’s will. Moreover I feel that it would have been a much greater sacrifice on the part of Jesus if it involved giving up a love and a family choosing to die for God's will. There is another factor that I want to add. Lust is definitely one of the seven sins as per Christianity but it should also be remembered that the union between man and woman is considered sacred. When the union between man and woman happens out of true love (not lust) it is sacred and Indian Philosophy considers it as one of the numerous ways of experience of the divine bliss. It is the negative view about sex that Christians carry that makes them apprehensive about the possibility that Jesus was married to Mary Madalene. If Jesus prayed and meditated, why wouldn’t he also experience sacred sex?
Also, one may wonder, why the books selected by the church to be part of the Bible do not mention any such thing. My personal opinion is that history is vaster than any book that speaks of it. The church has taken what it finds as relevant. Just as the textbooks in our schools, the Bible is the textbook of our religion and we refer it for basic and authentic understanding. But of course there might be other writings that may or may not be true. I personally would not support any story as true or untrue for neither have I personally read any such book nor do I have any hard evidence to suggest either way.
There are also stories about how Jesus used to scare his friends with his powers. The Qur’an also has stories of Jesus’ childhood which are not there in the Bible, like the one about how he made a bird from mud and breathed life into it. The paradox is that these stories, (true or not) instead of making me skeptical, make me feel the ‘person Jesus’ that is, Jesus in totality. To me, these stories make Jesus walk out of the two dimensional photograph, the picture perfect Jesus, to become the three dimensional, complete being who experienced all that he had come to experience, fun, mischief, play, the working with the hands, the powers of the body, and also love. Strangely, such aspects to Jesus’ life make Jesus more human and therefore more real, a person who really walked on this earth, and yet more Godly (to me)! Man is called to a total experience of being God, then if ever God has come down on earth, then I do feel that it has also been for a total experience of being human. It is often said in sermons that Jesus experienced what it was to be human and so he can understand us better and is an advocate for us to God. If that is so then I believe that only a complete experience of being human could help the Word Incarnate Jesus to empathize with all of mankind (majority of which chooses marriage over life long celibacy) and therefore it is quite possible that the above mentioned stories about Jesus are true and that he possibly also had a love.
These stories have in fact been helpful to me; they persuade me to forgive myself for being human and loving life. It also gives me a greater conviction that it is possible to overcome the love for the world, because after all Jesus too loved life. He asked God to take away the cup that he was supposed to drink (death on the cross), but he also asserted that not his will but the will of God be done. This episode from the Bible points out that we should not hide or repress our weaknesses or desires but rather we should accept them and bring them to the open before God. It also shows us how to overcome self love, namely by loving God’s will more, giving it more importance than personal will. Therefore, maybe the revealing of such episodes from Jesus’ life, that show more of his human side, is meant to help the Christian rather than to harm his faith. Kahlil Gibran has said that when you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight! So just look again in your heart; maybe it really helps to know the Human side of the Son of God rather than harms the faith?!
Another thing I would like to bring to note here is that such matters, like the marriage of Jesus, did not come to much focus for around 2000 years. Assuming that all such stories could be true, I often feel that, the ‘truth’ probably lay hidden for a reason, and also that it is for a reason that now it has been brought to light. Probably, in 2000 years, the general thinking of common man has matured in a way to accept such possibilities and know its real implications, without being shaken in terms of the identity of Jesus as the Son of God; whereas that would not have been the case had it come to light earlier?. The world, its people, the thinking is growing each era, the way that we all grow ..from childhood to adulthood. Have you noticed that often the problem is not in the truth but rather in our level of maturity, for the very truth that bothered us at one age, say in childhood, does not bother us at all at another age,... in adulthood.
The effort here, has been to provide an honest personal analysis of all such ‘troubling questions’ and thereby help by providing a scaffold to all the minds that may not have matured enough to be unaffected by such matters. My suggestion to every such young Christian therefore, is that they should be bold, honest, clear, logical and analytical in their thinking so that they can spot the irrelevant questions and issues which do nothing but confuse and have no real implication in terms of the larger truth. This clarity will bring in fearlessness and peace. The peace that is not touched by any questions…
If there is nothing wrong about Christianity then why did God have to send another messenger, around 600 years later and seemingly clarify that there is only one God and that Jesus is a prophet ?
This has been a very baffling question to me. It isn’t logically possible that what the prophets had to say about Jesus even before his birth through the biblical books (also according him a special status above their own) was untrue as why would all prophets speak about Jesus anyway if he was not somehow more important than them! Then is it because of something that happened in the 500 or 600 years between two great books; the Bible and the Qur’an that led to the requirement of another book speaking about Jesus? Or was it that each message, each path was meant for two different groups of people and not for a universal community? But both though centrally speaking about Jesus, hold two contradictory truths. One calls Jesus the Son of God and another calls Jesus a prophet. How can that be resolved?
Frankly, the only thing I knew for sure to start with is that they both have to be true since they are both inspired by God and therefore denying one would mean doubting the other too. I accepted them both, though logically arriving at a synthesis for these two contradictions seemed difficult. All I could proceed from that point for a time was a mere comparision that, two people may be sitting in the same room and yet to one, a table may seem to the right side, while to the other the table may seem to the left. It would not serve them to argue regards the position of the table. On the other hand if they just walk around the room and view the table, they would know that the table is not really to any particular side with regards to them. And if they could imagine themselves as the room, then the table would go beyond their view and beyond the measure of direction by just being within. Maybe there is some such justification for the different outlooks of the two religions with regard to Jesus. In such cases, it would be best said that ‘even you are being true and I am being true and yet there may be more to the truth than we have yet perceived. Though our truths may look contradictory, it is only because we look at it from two different points. A wider perspective would allow for both of us to see each other as right’.
It was at this stage of thinking that I chanced upon certain statements in an article by Iqbal Ansari in The Times of India, of 15th April 2006, ‘Mohammed would say that it is not the fact of belonging to any particular religious fold that would guarantee salvation. Instead the emphasis was shifted to sincerity of belief in God, human fraternity and righteous conduct, based on the core values of justice and compassion. Qur’an validates religious pluralism as part of Gods will, and accepts places of worship built by other faiths as those where God is remembered.’
What am I getting at? Well, the above article does show that the Muslim faith is not one of intolerance; rather it is based upon tolerance and acceptance of different ways of approaching God! I may seem to be deviating from the topic at hand, but I am not. In fact I believe that this quoted paragraph speaks out exactly the reason as to why the Qur’an was needed 600 years after the Bible.
I had made a choice to accept Qur’an(being a scripture) as the word of God. But one factor that troubled me was, as to why so many followers of this holy book believe that their religion accords them the right to be intolerant and unforgiving and the right to meet out the harshest of verdicts to whomsoever they consider as ‘wrong’. I had wondered many a time that how could ‘God’ (whom the common man relies on, especially because he thinks that God forgives and protects) be said to be encouraging non tolerance or supporting acts of violence (against what is perceived by man as intolerable) through any of His religions? I got my answer to this in the article, that the religion on the other hand encourages acceptance and compassion. But at the same time if the prophet’s traditions are really of tolerance going by what has been stated in the above article, then how could the followers end up being so intolerant? I got my answer to this question too in the same article. It was explained that it was circumstances of the time of Prophet Mohammed, namely the building up of defenses against the hostility of the pagan tribes of Mekkah, that had brought in a military attitude among the followers and that this attitude would have been shed over time had it not been taken up by rulers over the ages for political reasons, by using religion as a pretext.
These views by a learned man of the faith leads me to believe that there has been a lot of misunderstanding breeding in the minds of many followers of this religion which has multiplied over time and that this misunderstanding has been responsible for the acts of cruelty in the name of religion. This conclusion is not just based on this single article. Qur’an does prescribe stern measures for certain acts but it goes ahead each time and says that if the person is regretful, be merciful. A scripture has to be read for its spirit and not judged by the surface. Moreover if I have a clear understanding of the words of one of their prophets and if the Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of all their prophets then I would say with cent percent surety that Qur’an encourages forgiving others and that it also says that ‘by what measure you judge others by the same measure you will be judged’. If you forgive you will be forgiven. If you punish others for their sins you will be punished for your sins. These are the teachings of their prophet Jesus and what the above mentioned article does is to assure me, that prophet Mohammed did not think differently either. Christianity speaks at one point of a jealous God, but I have always understood it instinctively to mean jealousy against the 'hold of the world' (the God of the world as in 2:corinthians4:4) which prevents a person from seeking God. The Christian and the Muslim are supposed to wage a war against their own love of the world rather than misunderstand statements and look down on the approach to God of the rest of Humanity. The fact that the rest of the world has its own scripture itself is proof about their own personal struggle to escape the hold of the world, the God of the world!
There is never anything wrong with the teachings in any religion that seeks to escape the hold of the world. The problem begins when mindsets begin to influence what the teachings actually mean. Problem results when man refuses to see the words of God in terms of his ever growing understanding. Therefore going by similar lines I would say that the need for a different message through Prophet Mohammed may have arisen to counter the influence of mindsets on the practices of Christianity. After all, when no scripture can be wrong then one scripture cannot be talking against another, but rather against the faulty understanding/wrong practices of the people of the particular time frame.
I learnt through my research (Nineyum Thedi, by Mario Joseph[a former muslim]) a crucial and supporting fact to the above view. The fact is that the revelations to Prophet Mohammed are categorized into two, as those given to him in Makkah and those given to him in Madina. The revelations in Makkah do not go against the Christian beliefs but rather have positive statements regarding Christians whereas it is the teachings in Madina that have been the reason for scepticism about Christian beliefs. The book also mentioned that the attitude of Christians was good in Mekkah and bad in Madina and the difference in the writings about Christians could be accounted to that. It does seem the only logical explanation for the paradox existing in the two writings. It is possible that the Christians in Madina might have been harboring wrong beliefs and so the admonishing might have been against their beliefs rather than against Jesus. The positive statements in the Qur’an regarding Christians, as mentioned in the book include chapter 61, verse 14 which says in essence that Jesus calls his followers to be his helpers in leading people to God. It also says that all believers of God should also become helpers of God. In chapter 57, verses27 the suggestion is that the followers of Jesus are blessed by God with grace and mercy. These verses are positive in terms of Christianity; then what could it be that was found wrong in the Christian religion?
Possibly the admonishing was required because of the ‘I am Right’ attitude that some Christians developed due to their orthodox ideas; rejecting everything that is not within the accepted books of the Bible, rejecting even their own minds to grow the natural growth from childhood to adulthood, fearing any change whatsoever in terms of what is once (and for all) understood as the meaning of the words of the Bible.
It is important here to look again at the fact that Jesus has come for a section of people. As discussed earlier, He has come for the lost sheep. ‘Come to me, all of you who are tired from carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke and put it on you, and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in spirit; and you will find rest. For the yoke I will give you is easy, and the load I will put on you is light. Mathew 11: 28-30.’ It is obvious that those who are not being able to carry the burden of the Law are called. Jesus does not reject the way shown by the Law but rather he calls the weak saying that he can lighten their burden(of the Law).
The wise and the learned are strong and therefore have the capacity to bear the burden of the Law by following all directions with the help of discretion and wisdom, but for the simple man who cannot understand God or reach out to him through the practice of wisdom in daily living, but who has the will and the power of faith, that is the capacity to ‘have not seen and yet believe’ there is the easier way. For such simple folks was foreordained the messiah, the saviour believing whom one could attain liberation. The ‘saviour’ is the truth that is not evident to the wise, probably because they do not need it, and is revealed to the simple. This might be what Jesus meant when he said to the Father, ‘I thank you because you have shown to the unlearned what you have hidden from the wise and learned. Luke 10:21.’
Therefore, in giving Jesus as the Son and Savior, God could not have meant to be made to seem a ‘property’, to be possessed only by those who call out to Jesus. Suppose a man has two sons, each brought up in a different land. One learns to call the father baba, and another addresses father as dad. When they meet and hear the different address to the father, would they be right to think that they are sons to two different fathers? Christians of certain period and some denominations addressed different religions as false or 'incomplete' without understanding their core meanings and messages, leading to a situation as in the above example.
Also, in utter ignorance some may have misinterpreted the teachings of the Christian religion and given the place to Mother Mary as a Goddess apart from the one God, and Jesus also as another God. Jesus has said, ‘He (Father) is greater than I. John 14: 28’. Jesus is the Word Incarnate of God, and Jesus has said that it is enough for the student to be like his master, as he can never be greater. Though the Word is a part of the one God, we Christians are also taught that this position was given up by Jesus in being born as a human. We are taught that Jesus gave up his Godly nature and became human because that was what the Father had chosen for his first begotten. Of course we are also taught, that because Jesus gave up his Godly nature willingly, for the sake of the Father, his name was raised above all names. And yet we also know that in having been born a human, he has been like all of us. A creation can never be greater than the creator. Jesus cannot be greater than God the Father or even a separate God. Jesus also says that do not call me good, for only God is good. It is clear then that Jesus never tried to create a separate identity for himself or his mother, as Gods apart from the one and only God. He did say that he has authority to forgive sins, but the prayer he taught us was addressed to God the Father. In giving this prayer he pointed out that God is only one, the one creator of all things. Yet when the simple minds misunderstood the teachings of the Bible, Prophet Mohammed was given the message for the people, not to make Mother Mary and Jesus two Gods apart from Allah. This could be why it is asked in the Holy Qur’an whether Jesus said that they should be worshipped as two Gods apart from Allah? Jesus of course never said that. It is evident therefore that the problem is again of mindsets influencing the core meaning of scriptural teachings which must have led to the making of two separate Gods out of them. Simplicity here had now become the vice that prevented the truth to be seen in its context. It does seem to me then that these, the wrong practices, are condemned and asked to be discouraged through the revelations to Prophet Mohammed.
I would say therefore that it is time for the Christian to stop running away from Qur’an (just because it ‘seems’ to attack basic Christian beliefs) and rather try to understand what the good God may be trying to say to us, the followers of Christianity, through it. Probably we should reflect on our attitude in prayer, and question ourselves. Could I be forgetting the Father albeit unintentionally in my devotion to mother Mary or even Jesus? But the Christian may argue that we are praying indirectly to the Father, when we pray to Jesus and that Jesus has said, ‘I and my Father are one.’ I would say then that you are not the ones in wrong with God as long as you realize that you are praying to the Father and as long as you know that Jesus is the ‘visible way’ for the common man to understand and pray to the ‘invisible God’(The multi approach religion, Hinduism accepts this approach to God). Knowledge gives freedom, whereas ignorance needs to be guided and bound in rules till the light of wisdom opens the doors to freedom. It is ignorance that needs to be corrected. The ignorance that makes one view God the Father and Jesus as two different Gods. If any practice in the Christian prayer is breeding ignorance related to the true nature of God as the one and only, then it is time to assess what is being conveyed to the young generation, through the medium of the prayers we stress upon or the messages we convey through our preferences in prayer. Do we teach (through personal interpretations or imply through any of our Christian denominations) that God is only of those who pray to Jesus? Then what about those who pray to the Father? Does the Father disregard their prayer? If no, then what about those, who call the Father ‘Allah’ or the Word as ‘Om’? Does calling the Father ‘Allah’ and calling the Son ‘Omkaara’ change the attitude of the one and only God to our prayer? Does a sincere prayer get rejected because the same God was addressed differently? When man in all sincerity, pleads to God for liberation, it is up to God as to how he reaches out to man or what ‘way’ he prescribes for each one, but listen, he surely will as he has implied through Matthew 7:7.
And thereby, I believe, must have arisen, the need for clarification that God is not a property to be possessed by only those who pray to Jesus; because it is the destination that makes any path important and not vice versa. The message basically is that God has always held out his hand in a different way to a different people, a way involving the strict following of the Law, a way involving the purification of the self through rituals and rigorous fasting. Therefore the truth seems to be what Iqbal Ansari points out in his article that, Qur’an in fact carries God’s message that validates religious pluralism as part of Gods will, and accepts places of worship built by other faiths as those where God is remembered.’
Therefore, God is not the property of the Christian. God can be reached by all sincere seekers. The way to Him is his Word, but the seeker can seek a cleansing from sins through the Word incarnate Jesus or even cleansing through a strict adherence to the Law, severe fasting and penance and by austerely following the teachings of all prophets, one of whom is Jesus. Though Qur'an stresses that Jesus is only a prophet it does not seem to deny that there is salvation through Jesus! As implied by the following verse in it "And all of the people of the scripture must believe in him(Jesus) before his death, and on the Day of resurrection, he will be a witness against them" chapter an-Nisaa(4):159.
It is obvious then that the contradiction is not about Jesus as a saving grace, but rather only regarding whether Jesus was the Son of God or was he just a prophet. The Bible does speak of Jesus as the Son of God.
Recently I happened to read 'The true message of Jesus' by Dr.A.B. Philips. According to it only Qur'an represents an accurate means of determining who Jesus was and what his message was because 'there is no one christian manuscript that contains the original unaltered version in its entirety'. He states in his book that according to the Qur'an all muslims are to believe in 'all' the revealed scriptures, but that Qur'an also states that all scriptures revealed before it have not remained as they were revealed.
And so assuming that Qur'an has not got any descrepancies, all believers in salvation through Jesus can take heart because the book reveals that, 'Allah stressed the importance of belief in Jesus in numerous places in the Qur'an. For example, in chapter an-Nisaa(4):159, He said:
"And all of the people of the scripture must believe in him(Jesus) before his death, and on the Day of resurrection, he will be a witness against them"
Though the need to believe in Jesus to avail of his grace is stressed in Qur'an, the book by Dr. A.B. Philips also stresses ofcourse that Qur'an denies Jesus' divinity despite affirming his grace. In the chapter al-Maa'idah, (5):75 (says)
"The Messiah, Son of Mary, was no more than a messenger and many messengers passed away before him. His mother was exceedingly truthful,and they both ate food. See how I have made the signs clear for them, yet see how they are deluded."
The Virgin birth of Jesus is affirmed in Qur'an but ofcourse inspite of this unique birth, Jesus was flesh and blood. Yet, which other prophet had such a unique birth! It is only logical to conclude that definitely there is 'something' unique to this messenger when compared to all other messengers!
In John 8:58 Jesus says-Before Abraham was, I am. Dr. A.B. Philip has tried to explain it away saying that Jesus is speaking of 'God's Knowledge of Prophets which predates the creation of this world.' The major flaw in this logic is that, Abraham is also a prophet, therefore the statement could only mean that Jesus is rather distinguishing himself from even the prophets!
I quote again John 10:34-36 (revised version is quoted in chapter 4) what Jesus said when he was accused 'of blashphemy ( being a man, making himself God), 'Jesus answered them,'Is it not written in your law, 'I said you are Gods"? If he called them Gods, to whom the word of God came(and the scripture cannot be broken). Do you say of Him whom the father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? John 10:34-36
I found it really odd therefore that the concerned book by Dr. A.B. Philips says that Jesus made no claims of divinity firstly because there is such a clear verse as the above which he does mention in his book but only upto " I said you are Gods' (not stating whether or not the rest of the statement was later added on)and explains it as metaphorical language of prophets. In fact this verse should have been analyzed in entirety and it required to be proved 'untrue or added on' to prove that Jesus never claimed any form of divinity. He only mentions discrepancies in a lot of irrelevant statements (like; in one Biblical text where it says 'while it was still dark' another text says 'when the sun had risen' !)to show unreliabilty of the Biblical books.
Moreover if the author wants to imply that the Jews mistook his metaphorical language when he said that, 'Is it not written in the your law ,"I said Ye are gods"(Jesus is quoting psalms 82:6), then why didn't Jesus simply clarify himself when he was questioned (many times)? Even statements of claims to divinity in the Bible may be someday proved as 'added on' but even then, what justification is there then for Jesus' crucifixion 'after questioning'! According to the Bible, the accusation for arrest was 'Blasphemy'. The Bible (luke chapter 23:2)says that he was accused of having claimed that he himself is Christ, a King. Furthermore, the men who held Jesus mocked him. Luke 22:71, 'And they said, "Are you then the Son of God?' So He said to them, " You rightly say that I am". He could have saved himself from crucifixion by saying 'I only meant it metaphorically (just like all the other prophets)!' Was Jesus in a hurry to be crucified then!? Why did he brush away the numerous opportunities after arrest to explain Himself? Ofcourse he did not lack the intelligence to explain himself well.
Even if we don't consider all these statements and only use logic, then Historically speaking, why would a pious man who performs miracles and heals people be arrested, questioned and crucified by the peoples wish(not the then Kings, for Pilate was reluctant to crucify Jesus and gave him many opportunities to explain himself). What sort of King did he claim himself to be or admitted to have claimed?
The book by Dr. A.B. Philips had lots of information and research, though study and analysis of the few crucial points mentioned above would have given his book the critical strength sought by lay readers like myself. The message of Qur'an as mentioned by the author is that all revealed scriptures are to be followed. All the major ancient scriptures have origin in the Aryan Vedic texts (discussed in earlier chapters), but the author does not seem to believe in the 'core' Vedic message (that God is present in his creation) obvious from what he says in his book- 'Jesus is worshipped under the false belief that God is present in His creation'. The author accepts one message of Qur'an and to prove it he invalidates another aspect of Qur'an (obviously because of mistaken belief that Hinduism is only related to idolatory; or is it that 'all scriptures' only intends a select convenient three?). The author also explains that the concept defined by the term Logos is found in Indian, Egyptian and Persian philosophical and theological systems. He says that, 'The Greek term used by the anonymous author of the fourth Gospel (Gospel of John) for Word is logos. In doing so the author identifies Jesus with the Pagan logos of Greek philosophy, who was the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.' Dr.A.B Philips says that the church further developed this philosophy and stated that Christ was the ancient Logos to impress the hearers that Christianity was heir to all that was best in Pagan philosophy. I don't find any flaw of logic on the part of the 'anonymous' author of the Gospel of John in that he may have found certain similarities of Jesus' claims to the power called Logos found in all ancient theological systems across the world. For example, in John 14:10 Jesus says, 'In that day you will know that I am in my father and you in me and I in you'. This statement can be clearly understood through the Logos philosophy of all creation being part of the Word, which is the first form of God. But Dr. A.B. Philips explanation is that it is a symbolic statement of oneness of purpose (not oneness of essence) that Jesus shares with his disciples. Why would the disciples have to wait till 'That day' to understand something as simple as oneness of purpose?! Moreover I can accept logic of a writer (like that of the Gospel of John) better than I can accept inspired writing because history abounds with people who have claimed to have prophetic powers or even died and resurrected(Mithra, the sun God, of Mithraism) but gives no clear guidelines (except their success or failure) to detect the false from the true! We can only use an assumption that the Universal spirit that spoke to true prophets has the power to make it reach out to all, and those who succeeded in being heard, succeeded because they have the backing of the 'Power'?
This is speculation again but I have to say the stories similar to that of Jesus,mythological or otherwise, though supposed to put the seed of doubt amaze me as to how much virgin birth, death and resurrection is a topic of many societies! Could these be rather pointers to truth in resurrection? After all, there doesn't seem to be an effort to disprove the resurrection of other figures like Mithra? Resurrection is then no lie? Only Jesus' resurrection needs to be argued? Death and resurrection of a Son of God is a truth then whether we call him Mithra or Jesus or whatever? This only proves that we do have hope, doesn't it?
Now the contradiction of whether Jesus is the Son of God or a prophet can end, but only by accepting the truths of the Vedic scriptures. Through it we can understand that it doesn't really matter whether we think of Jesus as the Son of God or as a prophet. What matters is the saving grace that he is. Jesus is a saving grace from God and if thinking about Jesus as Son of God corrupts simple minds to worship him in a way that leads them to forget the real God, then they should think of him only as a prophet, though still accepting him as a saving grace.
We have to study the spirit of all scriptures ( and with our very spirit, not merely with the brain) rather than be lost in human wordings and printing errors, to be able to see the unity and one message in all of scriptures(not merely Jewish, Christian and Islamic) from the very ancient to the most recent scriptures.
Those who are reading my book will note that, what I am only stressing on, is that for a rational mind scriptures can be true only if there is a unifying thread in all scriptures. All are creations of the one God and so God cannot favor a certain group over another. His love, mercy and forgiveness and outreach has to be for all groups of people...., just as the rain falls on everybody and all regions (rather than falling only on one piece of land and reaching others only as the run off!) . Qur'an says believe in the 'messenger' Jesus as a grace from God. Authentic Christian belief should be and is 'Jesus as Grace of God'. God is One 'the Father/Allah', who is the one to be sought and worshipped. Hinduism accepts the need of a Guru who can take the Karmic doom of the seeker. Scriptures, semitic or otherwise are speaking of an easy way to be freed from the hold of the World.
Qur'an validates all scriptures before it. Christianity validates the Vedic message through the verse John 10:34, for Vedic scriptures also say, 'you are Gods'. And it is obvious therefore that understanding Hinduism can surely be a helpful way to understand the Identity of Jesus (analysed in chapter 4).
I want to add here as an after thought that a seeker needs the hand of religion (any religion) as long as he is a child in terms of spiritual understanding. When he becomes an adult, that is, when his spirit is awakened and when his heart is opened up to God, he must remember to let go the hand of religion and start tapping his own inward connection to the one God for answers. Many scriptures speak on issues that other scriptures do not speak about (like suggesting that it is improper to listen to music!). Therefore, it is my belief that scriptures are to be referred for core understanding. That is, it should be referred for topics that are central to each scripture and for topics common to all scriptures. The topics that are not common I believe are like road marks for the specific community (to which the specific scripture was given probably as per the particularities of the community) to help notice the real destination. But once the destination is approached, it is important to not get distracted by mere road marks or else though near the destination, the seeker may never be able to reach it.
Once the spirit is awakened, all the steps leading to it are no more of any consequence.
Therefore though I accept all scriptures as true (because doubting one is doubting all others), yet whenever beset with a conflict between any two of the four aids to reasoning mentioned in the second chapter (sight/intuition, inference,similee/comparision, trusted source/scripture)-for example, the answer given by the heart or intuition or the answer in a trusted source like scriptures, and I would trust the former, because firstly all messengers and inspired writers are still Humans; secondly, though divine power is possible in Humans, but divine power can also be overwhelming in the system of a mere Human; thirdly, scriptures are rewritten a thousand times every century and can get distorted in content or in interpretation or in terms of the context of particular directives, but the conscience, the heart, the spirit is in direct connect and it would be unwise to disregard the latter out of fear or respect for the former.
Did Jesus die on the cross or not?
Jesus willfully entered Jeruselem and chose the suffering on the cross to pay for the sins of all mankind when he could just as easily have chosen to escape from it. There is no argument anywhere about it. And that is the basis of my faith in Jesus (and does not rely on resurrection), because ‘I’ can’t even willingly go to the dentist for ‘my own’ benefit!
One argument some put in is that Jesus did not suffer pain because he knew yoga! Which yogi would willingly have holes drilled in his hands and foot or would have his face and body disfigured with punches and flogging even perchance he does not feel pain owing to the help of yoga? Has anybody done that? Ask yourself, dont we all love our body, however spiritual? It is natural. "Father if it is your will, take this cup away from me, nevertheless not my will but yours" Luke 22:42 "And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" Luke 22:44. This shows clearly the enormity of the suffering that Jesus knew he had to go through. The awareness brought such agony to him and also made him pray making the same request not once but three times and each time he found his disciples had failed to pray and had slept which seems to have made it clear to Jesus that the cup is for him to drink. Finally, what more evidence to the immensity and unbearableness of Jesus' suffering, than the lament from the one who knew the Father "My God, My God,why have You forsaken Me" Mark 15:34. All efforts at denying the suffering of Jesus with explanations just show how little such a big sacrifice is valued when instead of being grateful, the world is forever busy trying to find some or other factor to reduce the magnitude of the sacrifice.
The controversy we now look into further is; that Jesus did not die (on the cross), but rather he escaped death and went to India and lived there till he was 120 years of age and died in Srinagar. It is also said that the three wise men who came to see the messiah when he was born took him and family to Egypt and India. These are also the findings presented in the book ‘Jesus Lived in India’ by Holger Kersten’ and he states it with arguments and proofs.
It is quite flattering for a Christian of Indian origin to be told that Jesus may have been in India and that he has benefited from the rich philosophy of this land before returning to Jerusalem. I find nothing objectionable about that in terms of Christian belief about Jesus’ identity, therefore I have not tried to ever analyse it. It may or may not be true and it doesn’t matter to me. But of course I have thought over the controversy that Jesus did not in fact die on the cross. Before reading the book by Holger Kersten, the following four points were my arguments based on what I had mostly heard of the basis of this controversy.
1. What I gather about Jesus from the statements in the Bible is that he knew that he would be crucified and he spoke openly about it. The book of Mathew, Luke and Mark, tell us that Jesus spoke about his death three times. ‘Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 8:31.’ ‘Killed’ and ‘after three days rise again’ are the terms used all the three times and in all the three books. Jesus did not say that, they will 'try' to kill me but I will survive and will appear to you three days after the rescue. Neither did he just say that he will be crucified and buried in a tomb but will come out still alive from it after three days. Rather he was specific that he would be killed and will rise after three days. Did he then lie not one not two but three times? Does it seem possible that a man, prepared to suffer inhuman treatment, would back away from being honest to his disciples?
2. ‘Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say-‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. John 12:27’ Jesus obviously had no intention of running away in any possible way from what he had been assigned by the Father and therefore he did not run away from the killing of the body which fulfilled the scriptures; and when the body was brought back to life after three days, that was also to fulfill the scriptures, rather than a planned escape from death. If he had wanted to save his life, he would have also saved himself from the mocking, the flogging and the nailing (after all he knew what was awaiting him in Jerusalem). If Jesus was trying to cheat us into believing that his escape from death was actually resurrection, a rising from death to life, then what were the scriptures, which prophesied this death and resurrection, trying to do?
3. Now here are certain verses that I feel are relevant in understanding the purpose of crucifixion. According to the book of John, Jesus says to the Jews, (while foretelling his death) that where I am going, you cannot come and also that, you are from below, I am from above; you are of the world, I am not of this world. He also says; when you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that ‘I am he’ (John 8:21-28). It is obvious from this statement that the crucifixion and death on the cross was an important event which was also meant to prove to the people that Jesus was not of this world. This could be proved only through the resurrection and also ascension with the body (described in Luke 24:46,47 and 51).
4. I am also compelled to believe that the Jesus, who said that his food is to do the work of God, could not have lingered on in the world after the important Hour for which he had come, had been carried out to perfection. The single minded approach of Jesus to his purpose on earth, imply that it would go against the character of Jesus to stay on after the mission and lead aimless years. And therefore if Jesus had really come to India after finishing his God assigned work, then he wouldn’t have just tied his hands, spread his legs and relaxed. Jesus would not have ignored the salvation of the people amongst whom he was living. We Indians would surely have heard of a great sage of Srinagar who healed the people there or gave them the forgiveness of sins, and who had a great following and thus was the founder of a new religion. We all know how India opens its heart and follows great Men. Since no such thing happened, then possibly the one buried in Srinagar was someone else from (could be) Jerusalem.
After having written these four points, I had to go to my hometown for two months due to unavoidable circumstances, and guess what! I was given this book by my relation who also happened to be there during that very period. I had in hand a similar book four years ago in a book stall but decided against buying it for I felt emotionally unprepared for any such argument. But when now, four years later the book was put in my hand, I knew I was ready.
The following are the arguments in the book ‘Jesus Lived in India’ by Holger Kersten; and my analysis of them in comparision to the earlier four points
1 The book has used the Gospel itself to point to the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross. What is heartening is that the scripture is nowhere doubted by the author, but only its interpretation.In the book we are told that Theologian Gunther Schwarz has revealed that the terms ‘rise’ and ‘coming back to life’ in the Original Aramaic derive from a verbal root meaning to ‘resuscitate’ (and not resurrection). Schwarz is said to have suggested this meaning deriving from a root word of the ‘synonymous words achajuta and techijjuta one of which Jesus would have used’. Quite amusing was the fact that my thesaurus gave me also a meaning ‘resurrect’ for resuscitate! What then remained the argument!
Also, a major flaw to this analysis of root words is that Schwartz does not seem to have worried about the word ‘Killed’ used by Jesus as mentioned in the Bible(refer point 1). But unless all such words are considered and clarified in a likewise manner, the analysis is not a satisfactory proof (if at all).
2 Now let us consider point 2 that I made, and in that context, analyse the statements in the book.
The author of the book admits that ‘the entry into the city of Jeruselem was an act of unprecedented provocation.’ And yet again that ‘why he should then go to Jeruselem, and by so doing give himself up to his persecutors, remains a mystery. (page 131).The explanation for the ascention given is that Jesus might have just been quickly lost to sight when he walked over and down the summit of the peak of Ascention. Another argument given is that even after that he appeared to Paul.
Somehow these explanations regarding ascension do not feel very sound. The arguments against resurrection or rather that Jesus lived in Kashmir after the crucifixion, I must say are well researched and appreciable. And quite surprising and helpful is a discovery facilitated by the book! According to the author ‘For the Ahamadiya sect, Jesus’ ‘overcoming of the torment of crucifixion’ is (also) a fulfillment of prophecies in the old testament.’ But the scripture passage which is said to be fulfilled is from Ishiah 53, which also contains verses which say very clearly that God allowed Jesus to be bruised and that he was put to grief for the iniquity of us all. “..when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” it is clear that the ‘soul’ was an offering. ‘for he was cut out from the land of the living’, ‘he made his grave with the wicked’ and ‘he hath poured out his soul unto death’ all imply death.
‘…he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the lord shall prosper in his hand’ This is the verse that the author is suggesting from the passage and is ‘the only verse’ while he ignores the above three statements that imply death. He is suggesting that it was God’s will that Jesus should live for a long time after rising from his ‘overcoming the torment of crucifixion.
3 Did Jesus experience pain, die and was he resurrected.
The author suggests Yoga to assume that Jesus did not feel any pain. It is also known that a yogi can enter a dead body and make it move. Though I do not the truth to it but I have also heard that a yogi can leave his body and then take it up again. If such a state is a possibility then would the body during that duration without the spirit be called dead or alive? Would such a body pass all tests proving clinical death? The author has not considered this possibility and unless he considers all possibilities, the proofs given by him (of ‘fresh blood’ stains on the shroud wrapped around Jesus' "dead body",said to be possible only if the body is alive, ) to support his assumption that Jesus did not actually ‘give up the Ghost’ as a payment for sins, obviously become irrelevant. What I am suggesting is that Jesus must have given up his spirit and yet the body might not have show signs of death possibly because God willed to breathe life anew into the same body. The author does not debate miracles of Jesus like the bringing to life of Lazurus; then surely the above possibility will not be seen as beyond God.. But even having taken account of his doubts, the truth is that doctors tell us that blood and water coming out of the spear wound proved Christ was already dead.Piercing the side was also intended so that in case the person is not dead he should bleed to death.
4 In context of point 4 the argument of the author of the book is that Jesus was saved from an accursed death (by the will of God) that would have been unworthy of him.
Now there are certain proofs given by the author to suggest that Jesus was in India after the crucifixion. For example he provides the copy of a page of one of the Puranas (of Hinduism) written between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD which mentions Isha Maseeha. With reference to some other ancient books he provides certain episodes and tells us that Jesus (on coming to India after crucifixion) did not ‘spread his legs and relax’ but was in fact doing miracles and was revered. He was known by a different name Yuz Asaf in Kashmir but the author says that an old manuscript of Kashmir describes the shrine (of Yuz Asaf) as that of Isha Rooh Allah. If we have not heard much of him, then (author suggests) that it is because early Indian historians did not write about foreigners. This does give a reasonable enough argument for point 4.
So let me for a time assume that God did prolong the days of Jesus by say 80 more years. Even when I think in the lines of the author, I would conclude that Krishna, Buddha, Jesus (the three lives that are similar as per the authors analysis) all fulfill the words from the Geeta that say that ‘where dharma diminishes there I am born’. The striking similarity of certain events and teachings of their lives is accorded (by the author) to Jesus having been influenced by their teachings while in India. But I have a different take. In ethnic botony it is said that nature has provided with clues for man in the form of shape of the parts of plants which are useful in one or other way to correspondingly shaped part of the human body. In a similar manner, it does seem very much a possibility that the striking similarities of these lives and teaching are pointers that each of this life is ‘the divine in the human form’. The difference is that Jesus went one step ahead of Buddha by suffering to pay off the sins of the world. The concept of Bodhisattva of Mahayana philosophy is considered in Holger Kirstens book as follows. ‘The Bodhisattva is the Enlightened one who defers his merging with the universal Being, who postpones his entry into nirvana, for as long as it takes for him to lead every person and being to salvation. The earthly existence of a Bodhisattva has the single purpose of leading all souls on to the path of release (moksha), the path that constitutes liberation from the cycle of rebirths and from the distractions of the world and physicality. All those qualities that characterize a Bodhisattva are to be found in Jesus, down to the last detail. Jesus is by himself the epitome of the Bodhisattva ideal.”
I would (very importantly) also like to point out that the aim of the author does not seem to be to diminish Jesus, for I only found that all statements and stories collected by him regarding Jesus in India only exalt Jesus even further. The aim of the author seems to be merely to suggest that we should focus on Jesus’s message rather than that of any of his followers. Also astounding is the statements that he has picked from the Bible which show the belief in reincarnation; for example, Jesus’ implication that John the Baptist is actually Elias(Elijah). ‘But I say unto you, that Elias has come already, and they knew him not…’then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist’ Mathews17:12-13.’ Such statements have been staring point blank at our faces and we couldn’t make that simple conclusion! The author also says that some parts (like book of John) of the new testament are written on two different levels, one obvious and the other cryptic, so that only the discerning eye can read between the lines. This does seem possible (whatever be the reason behind it).
My personal suggestion to all Christians is; why worry whether Jesus gave up his spirit; at least for a split second or for three days or not at all before rising the third day; or whether he ascended bodily or his body had the same end as that of Krishna or Buddha. My question is; is it not enough that Jesus willingly accepted suffering. If his suffering was accepted as enough (payment for sins) by God ('He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied' Isaiah 53:11) and therefore if God held back the axe, as from Isaac’s neck, then shouldn’t we rejoice for Jesus, who had cried the tears of blood for us!
Holger explains that the Gospel available to us are only four (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) from a larger collection of Gospels. These, that are not available, are called apocryphal which means hidden. These apocryphal books seemingly shed ‘a very ambiguous and intriguing light on the person of Jesus of Nazareth’(as per Holger Kersten). Let us assume this as true; but at the same time let us look again at the fact that the authors, of the four Gospels available to us, felt only a certain part of Jesus’ life as relevant for all of us common folk who look on with hope in the mercy of God. For some reason they did not include any other information. The reason cannot be an effort to hide any information or paint a glorified picture of Jesus, because the apocryphal Gospels(as is said) had all other detailed information about Jesus which must have been available during that period, for those who were more interested in the person Jesus. But these four Gospels I believe were written for those who were interested in the mercy of God. It is for those who were interested in that part of Jesus’ life that fulfilled their hope in forgiveness of their sins. And so we now need to turn back to what is truly relevant as we, ‘need not search all that is too difficult or too much of a secret. For all that we require has been given unto us’
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
