Reflections on the Coming of the Christ.
The 1st Century saw a number of prophets and messiahs wander through the deserts of Galilea ranting against the Romans and calling for the end of the world. Among them was Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish rabbi from a small town who challenged imperial authority and was tried for treason and crucified by Pontius Pilate. Rome had become accustomed to the zealots who walked the desert at the time of Jesus.
Prophets and False Prophets
The Bible records the fate that met Theudas, a false prophet with over four hundred disciples. He preached his own apocalyptic version before the Roman centurions hunted him down and beheaded him in the desert. A shepherd named Athronges crowned himself “King of the Jews” and was killed by the Roman soldiers. A prophet calling himself the “Samaritan” was crucified by Pontius Pilate in 4 BC, shortly before the birth of Jesus himself. |
| Jesus of Nazareth |
History has forgotten the false prophets and second-rate zealots and exalted Jesus. Shortly after his crucifixion, he was deified by his disciples, who considered him a divine being. And centuries later the Christian church that had grown up around this prophet elevated him to the level of God Himself. He was no longer merely a prophet or a wise man; much more than an angel descended from heaven. Jesus was the Christ, God Himself made flesh. What was the nature of this evolution?
For the purpose of this article I have consulted Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, by Reza Aslan; and How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee by Bart D. Ehrman. These are two new well-documented bestselling books on the subject of the historical Jesus. I have also re-read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and consulted the Imitation of Christ by Tomas á Kempis.
 |
| The Compassionate Christ Jesus of the Sacred Heart |
Both take up the question of how Jesus became the Lord of Heaven and Earth. How was it that an apparently common man, Jesus, Son of Mary and Joseph of Nazareth, became elevated in the imagination and faith of Christendom to the level of God Himself.
Please do not take offense with me if you are offended by considering the historical aspects of the life of Jesus. Read no further. I am making no argument as an advocate here, but am interested in the implications that this evolution in faith had for the development of culture and civilization both in Europe as well as in the Americas as for example in the Conquest of the Mayas by Catholic missionaries who carried the faith to this continent.
But it is a curious question. How is it that divinity becomes recognized? How did the consciousness of the West go from registering Jesus as a jewish rabble rouser guilty of sedition and punishable by execution to being a great prophet with brilliant wisdom teachings to being the Lord of Heaven and Earth?
 |
| Jesus as Lord |
The idea that a man transforms into a god has fascinated mythologists for centuries.
In Greek mythology gods transform into men and men often become gods, as celebrated in the poetic tales found in the Metamorphosis of Ovid. When does a prophet become a saint? And when does a saint become a god? How does a civilization move from polytheistic with many gods to Henotheistic where a God predominates gods and angels to Monotheistic where there is no God but God? Perhaps a look into the historical Jesus and the religious faith which grew up around him will prove illustrative.
How did Jesus go from being a man to being “The Son of Man,” to the “Son of God,” the “Right Hand of God,” to “God Himself?”
Again, if you are hesitant to challenge your faith, go no further.
Jesus, according to the biblical version is “Begotten not made...came down from heaven through the power of the holy spirit...was born from a virgin mother.”
So how does the Jesus story evolve? How does the man grow from preacher to legend to myth to religious doctrine? The question interests me since it throws light not only on Christianity but on the development of many religious movements, such as for example Buddhism.
 |
| Jesus with his followers and disciples |
The Evidence of Saints
 |
| Mother Teresa of Calcutta |
 |
| Joan of Arc, The Maid of Orleans |
 |
| Joan, Burned at the Stake for Heresy |
 |
| Saint Joan of Arc, Patron Saint of France |
 |
| Saint Patrick, Uncanonised. |
 |
| Saint Sebastian |
|
| The Compassionate Christ Jesus of the Sacred Heart |
 |
| The Apotheosis of Saint Benedict at the monastic church of Münsterschwarzach, by Johann Evangelist Holzer |
Buddha himself, remember, never promoted himself as a god, much less God Himself. Nevertheless, his image is worshipped for blessings in temples from Śrī Lanka to Thailand. How do a group of followers or religious worshippers come to embrace a man as god? Apart from the Jesus story there are many prophets whose followers later esteem them as divine. How does this process take place. Perhaps the best place to look for an understanding of this cultural phenomenon is in the story of Jesus himself.
It appears that there are two paths to divinity. One is called apotheosis. It means that someone is raised to the level of god or God. The other is called avatara. This is when God or gods descend. Up versus Down. An example of apotheosis in a strict sense would be when Jesus rose up to heaven on the third day. He literally arose into the heavens. But in a broader sense, apotheosis is deification.
Before deification is canonization and before canonization there is beatification. Mother Teresa of Calcutta was born Agnus Gonxhe in Albania. She was considered saintly during her lifetime. Since her death the church has begun the process of beatification, the third step towards possible canonisation as a church-accepted saint.
If saintly life is a virtue, perhaps we might do well to study the example of the saints. Certainly beatification might be a step towards further apotheosis.
St. Joan of Arc of France is an interesting case of how an ordinary girl becomes a prophet, then is tried for heresy and burned at the stake as a heretic by the church in 1431, later declared a martyr, a symbol of France and finally be beatified and canonized as a saint centuries later in 1920.
St. Patrick, the patron saint of the Irish was not so lucky. The missionary, who may have preached in Roman Britain somewhere between 496 and 508 is said to have driven all the venomous snakes and serpents from the emerald isle. He used the shamrock to teach the Holy Trinity. His walking stick famously grew into a tree. Unfortunately St. Patrick was never canonized as a saint. He has never been recognized by the Catholic Church and, sadly for the Irish, is a saint in name only.
A number of saints are martyrs. Saint Sebastian was tied to a tree and shot full of arrows. St. Bartholomew was skinned alive. St. Stephen was stoned to death. St. Andrew was crucified on an X shaped cross on the northern coast of Peloponnese. Simon was crucified upside down. He is said to have refused to be executed in the same manner as Christ because he was unworthy to be executed in the same way as the Lord. Saint Polycarp was sentenced to burn at the stake for his refusal to light incense to the Roman gods. Tradition has it that the flames did not burn him so he was stabbed to death.
Imitation of saints, evidently, is dangerous. To follow in the footsteps of the above-mentioned saints is to be branded as a heretic or traitor and executed by fire, crucifixion or worse.
For others, however, imitation is a virtue. Thomas á Kempis, was a Dutch prelate in the 15th Century. He wrote an influential book called, “The Imitation of Christ.”
Tomas á Kempis
According to my version which follows the 1603 English Translation, Kempis writes:
“ON THE IMITATION OF CHRIST AND CONTEMPT OF ALL THE VANITIES OF THE WORLD
‘He that followeth Me, walketh not in darknes’(JOHN 8.12) saith the Lord. These are the words of Christ, by which we are admonished how we ought to imitate His life and manners, if we will be truly enlightened, and be delivered from all blindness of heart. Let, therefore, our chiefest endeavour be, to meditate upon the life of Jesus Christ.”
My meditation here is on the question of Apotheosis vs. Avatar. If we begin our meditation by a close study and appreciation of the Gospels, we find shades of difference in the Apotheosis vs. Avatara interpretation of the divinity of Christ.
The Gospel of the Apostle Mark seems to hold the view that Jesus has become exalted during his lifetime through his example of sacrifice. His supreme sacrifice was to accept upon himself the sins of the world. And yet, even before the crucifixion he reveals himself as human. His moment of desperation in the Garden of Gethsemane defines him as human with all the foibles and doubts that humans are err to. Knowing that he faces a grave test ahead, the test or execution by cruficixion, Jesus asks the Lord, “O my Father! Why hast thou forsaken me?” This is an all-too-human moment. A divine avatar, knowing his eternal place at the right hand of God the Father, would have no such misgiving. Why does Jesus doubt, if not to give hope to all of us who lose our faith? And if the Garden of Gethsemane shows us Jesus in a human moment, the crucifixion shows a divine moment. By sacrificing himself for the sins of the world Jesus becomes exalted to the divine plane. His compassion is superhuman and godly. Christ’s mercy upon our sins is a divine act that raises him to the highest level of divinity according a critical reading of Mark’s version of the Gospel.
John seems to view Jesus through a different lens. He defines Jesus as an avatar, who was born holy, who is the earthly manifestation of the logos, the divine word. The Logos which is one with God Himself descends in a compassionate form as Jesus, Mercy Incarnate, Virgin Born.
So which is the correct version? Are saints made or born? Do men become godly or does God become Man? Apotheosis or Avatar?
A good place to start in understanding the dichotomy between avatar and apotheosis is the life of Jesus himself. By examining the historical Jesus we may arrive at a better understanding of the Christ. We may have some insight into how the Jesus story evolved. How does the story of Jesus develop from preacher and prophet to mystical legend, from mythical hero to religious doctrine? Is he the adopted son of God through apotheosis? Or was he divine to begin with; descended from heaven, in other words, an avatar?
The best source, in fact the only source, for a true understanding of the historical Jesus is the Gospels themselves.
According to textual analysis, scholars have determined that the synoptic Gospels are the most reliable. The time between the historical Jesus and the earliest synoptic biography is probably somewhere between 40 and 50 years. Most scholars argue that the gospel of Mark is probably no later than about 70 AD. While they contain little historical material, the letters of the apostle Paul expand the teachings of Christ and are supposed to appear about 20 years after the crucifixion. We know that the books attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written by the apostles themselves. They are written by later followers as a collection of stories handed down through an oral tradition. As such they are hardly reliable as historical sources. And the gospel of John is heavily weighted with Christian theology and undoubtedly written at a later date.
In addition, there are many discrepancies between the different Gospels. Leaving aside for a moment the question of the historical veracity of these accounts, it is possible to reconstruct a more or less objective view of the historical Jesus based on the internal evidence of the synoptic Gospels and textual analysis. In his book, “Zealot: the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth” Biblical Scholar Resa Azlan points out that the gospels are the earliest and best most reliable sources available to us about the life of the Nazarene:
“… The methodological tools for determining the historical accuracy of any given passage in the Gospels have been in place for nearly 2 centuries. For example, there is broad consensus among scholars that earlier passage (say, from the Gospel of Mark) is more reliable than a later one (say, from the Gospel of John). If the passage appears in all four canonized Gospels – a phenomenon known as “multiple attestations” – that it, too, is more likely to be historically accurate. The same is true of aversive passage that seems to contradict basic church doctrine. For instance, those passages in which Jesus emphasizes the exclusivity rather than the universality of this message are widely acknowledged to be historically reliable because they conflict with the early church’s emphasis on the universality of Christianity. There are many more worlds that have been adopted by scholars to help place the Gospels in their historical context, but to put it in the simplest way possible: those passages that coincide with what we know about the political, social, and religious milieu first century Palestine are generally accepted as historical, while those that do not are rejected. Although it is almost unanimously agreed that, with the possible exception of Luke-Acts, the Gospels were not written by the people for whom they are named, for the ease and sake of clarity, I will continue to refer to the gospel writers by the names by which we now know and recognize them.”
Furthermore, it may be that the version of the Gospels is mere legend. Perhaps the Christ story is entirely mythological. It certainly incorporates many mythological elements such as the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the temptations of the devil in the desert, and the resurrection of Christ himself.
But before grappling with the mythical and legendary aspects of the Christ story, and putting them in context, I want to understand more about who Jesus was, what he taught, and the motivation for this ministry. His followers, even in the early days of the church, insisted on the transcendental event of his resurrection. In many ways his death and resurrection have become more important symbolically that his life. But for the moment, I wish to consider the life of Jesus and how it is that he became exalted in the imagination of generations of Christians. And I believe that we may get a more cogent idea of the Jesus biography by going through the synoptic Gospels in an attempt to understand at least what his earlier followers believed about his life.
And yet, even after stripping away obvious hyperbole and supernatural events in the Christ story, a close study of the Synoptic Gospels in the accepted Bible canon reveals shades of difference in the apotheosis versus avatar interpretation of Christ’s divinity.
The gospel of Mark, for example, views Christ as one who became exalted through his sacrifice. He gives us a more human portrait of Jesus. His moment of doubt in the Garden of Gethsemane where he asks God in anguish “why hast thou forsaken me?” seems to define Jesus as human. By sacrificing himself the sins of the world, he becomes exalted. His compassion and sacrifice even in the face of his own doubt in suffering are divine acts that raise him to the godly level. If Jesus is human before his crucifixion, his sacrifice has elevated him to heaven. The proof of this, for Mark as well as other early Christians, is found in his resurrection.
The Gospel of John goes further. John defines Jesus as avatar or one who descends from on high. He identifies Jesus with the logos or the word of God:
“ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. To him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born out of a natural descent, not of human decision or husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only son, who came from the father, full of grace and truth. (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “this is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘he who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only son, who is himself God and his closest relationship with the father, has made him known.”
Here at the beginning of his Gospel John identifies Jesus as avatar. He is one with the word of God. He was with God in the beginning. He says, “the true light has come into the world.” His meaning is clear: Jesus is the true light. The word of God, the light of God became flesh in order that his grace and truth may come through Jesus Christ. Avatar is a Sanskrit word. An Avatar is a manifestation, embodiment, or incarnation of God or an important deity who takes flesh for a specific reason usually to restore religious principles.
Thousands of years before Christ the concept of avatar was defined by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita:
यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर् भवति भारत अभ्युत्थानम् अधर्मस्य तदात्मनम् सृजम्य् अहम् (yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmanam sṛjamy aham) B.G. 4.7
“Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion-at that time I descend Myself. परित्रणाय साधुनम् विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम् धर्म-संस्थापनर्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे (paritraṇāya sādhunam vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām dharma-saṃsthāpanarthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge) B.G 8
“In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.”
John’s version of the Gospel clearly defines Christ as an Avatara. He is the holy word of God made flesh, descended into this world to re-establish the principles of religion, just as prophesied by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita. And John’s theology carries a lot of weight among the different schools of Christianity that are founded on his Gospel. Still, Mark seems to advance the point of view that Jesus becomes transcendent by dint of his sacrifice. According to John, God’s compassion descends in the form of Jesus who is mercy incarnate, virgin-born. He began as the Word who was “with the Father,” and ends at the “Right hand of the Father.”
It might be useful at this point to consider who Jesus spoke of himself. Did he refer to himself as divinity? Did he teach his followers that he himself was God?
Notwithstanding the version found in the Gospel of John, which does not form part of the “synoptic gospels” and is, admittedly from a later date, many early Christians writing in the apocryphal gospels considered Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet predicting the end of the world. They felt that God’s intervention would overthrow the forces of evil represented by the despotic Romans and usher in the Kingdom of God through a Day of Judgment. The Day of Judgment would be presided over by the “Son of Man.” But when Jesus refers to the “Son of Man,” he does so in the third person. Only in John does he refer to himself as “The Son of Man,” and we have discounted John as being unreliable historically.
Jesus did not represent himself as God Himself. He spoke of “God the Father,” or “My Father in Heaven,” but did not equate himself with the father. The trinitarian doctrine that says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One came much later. If Jesus did not represent as a divine being, as an angel, or as a god, what changed historical perspectives? Perhaps it was the belief in his resurrection. According to the biblical stories the disciples of Jesus insist that after his crucifixion and burial Jesus rose again. In fact without this belief in Jesus having risen from the dead, few would have accepted his divinity. But resurrection is an argument for apotheosis. An avatar who descends from heaven cannot be killed. Neither does he need a burial. The divinity of the avatar is seen in his descent, not in his asset. If resurrection is the single most important aspect of belief in Christ, then it would seem that Mark’s version of apotheosis trumps John’s version of avatar.
The second or third century on, views on the nature of Christ’s divinity continued to evolve. finally in the fourth century, the Emperor Constantine codifies Christianity at the Nicene Council where certain doctrines, such as reincarnation, are rejected and others such as resurrection are incorporated as holy doctrine.
Apart from the use of gospel as insight into the historical Christ, a study of the early Christian church and its culmination in the Nicene Council affords us a glimpse into the deification of Christ. How was it that his position evolved from street preacher to apocalyptic prophet, saint and martyr, to Messiah and son of God, to being one with God himself? The Nicene Council rejected and anathematized what became known as heresies while codifying doctrine and sacred dogma.
Remember too, that the concept of God was also evolving. The Romans lived in a pantheistic world. They had gods for sun, wind, rain, and war. Apollo, Jupiter, Juno, Mars, Venus, and Minerva are the heavens from the heights of Mount Olympus. But Pantheism gave way to Henotheism, where one god in particular is ascendant over the others, to Monotheism where there is no God but God, as in the Hebrew model.
How was it that the West came to embrace monotheism as a guiding principle of civilization? And how is it that Jesus Christ took the place of the one God and occupied his throne?
These are not easy questions and are obviously beyond the scope of this blog. But before moving on to consider the decline of our own civilization I think it’s important to reflect on how we got here. And monotheism is often cited as one of the most important aspects of modern civilization.
An important aspect of the teachings of Jesus Christ that any study of the historical Jesus reveals is his interest in apocalyptic prophecy. This extended article is called “the end of the world as we know it.” I’m interested in the decline of civilizations. Christianity is so much at the center of our own civilization that I’m giving it a close look. But it seems that Jesus Christ himself was very much interested in the decline of his own civilization In the end of the world.
Leaving aside the theological questions about the divinity of Christ raised by John, let’s take a quick look at the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as they were recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the synoptic Gospels for between the three of them we may ferret out a synopsis of the life of Jesus.
We know the story of the three wise men and the star that prophesied the birth of the Messiah. We know the story of the virgin birth.
But leaving aside the question of divine birth for a moment, the story of the life of Jesus according to the Gospels follows a simple path. The beginning of his story seems clear. All three synoptic Gospels record that Jesus was born in humble circumstances as the a son of a carpenter in Bethlehem, a tiny hamlet not far from Nazareth in Galilee. As a young man, Jesus seeks out John the Baptist, an apocalyptic prophet.
John the Baptist preaches that the end of the world is coming, when the “son of man” will judge evildoers and set up a new kingdom with a new rule. So much has been credibly documented. The middle part of the story is complicated. There are many questions and contradictions about the message of Jesus during his ministry, but the end of his story coincides in the different versions: after betrayal by Judas, Jesus is accused of sedition against the state. His lead before Pontius Pilate who condemns him to death by crucifixion after a summary trial. We know that crucifixion was reserved for enemies of the state and that a placard affixed to the cross proclaimed INRI, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. The accusation against him was that he had promoted himself as King of the Jews against both the authority of the Jewish Sanhedrin and Roman Emperor. While technically speaking, when challenged on the issue of tribute and taxes Jesus had replied, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” at the same time the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, or the King of the new reign that would be proclaimed after the end of the world had circulated among his followers, giving credence to the accusation.
We know that after the crucifixion of Jesus, his followers maintain that he rose from the dead. They taught that the end of the world would soon come and that Jesus would rule over the new kingdom.
These seem to be the basic facts of the Jesus story. The apocalyptic views of the early Christians are well-known. But since the end of the world hasn’t come yet, even 2000 years after the coming of the Christ, these doctrines are largely forgotten for the new theology based on the Gospel of John and the divinity of Jesus: He was God Himself, descended to save the people of the world from their sins. The new doctrine began downplaying the teachings, message, and ministry of Christ, especially his emphasis on end-of-the-world scenarios in favor of the idea that by believing in Jesus and by praying to him one would gain salvation. The ascension of John’s version took centuries to completely unfold. But the historical preacher of Nazareth lost his ethnic characteristics. No longer was he a dark-skinned, long-nosed Jew from a backwater town in the desert. He becomes a tall, fair-skinned, blue-eyed handsome man with a halo. He becomes “The Christ” or the “Anointed One,” the “Messiah,” and finally God Himself, the “King of Heaven and Earth.”
And as this theological shift took place over the years, there was a struggle among his followers. Gospels and accounts treating Jesus as a man or a prophet were discounted, lost, banned or censored. The Nicene council dismissed a number of historical versions that did not tally with the official doctrine. The Gnostic gospels became “lost books,” as did the Coptic gospels of the Egyptians with their own peculiar view of the life of Christ. The teachings of Jesus were no longer as important as his avatar. Less emphasis was placed on his message and greater value placed on salvation by appeal to his divinity. In this way, the teachings of Jesus became lost. Was he a soldier of God who raged against the money-changers in the temple and called for holy war? Or a man of peace who blessed the humble and the meek? Was he a vegetarian saint who eschewed violence and slaughter? A yogi who had visited India in his lost years? Or a rabble-rousing zealot who advocated the overthrow of an oppressive regime with the use of liberation theology?
We wrote about the rise and fall of Buddhism in India in a separate piece. The apotheosis of Jesus parallels that of Buddha in important ways. The Buddha began as a truth-seeker who achieved enlightenment and taught his realizations to a small band of disciples. Later legends deify him and claim that he was virgin-born. Even today, people worship gold statutes of the Buddha and pray to him for blessings.
Jesus began as a teacher who felt he had an important revelation to make about the end of the world and the coming kingdom of heaven. Today he is worshipped by people who make pilgrimages on their knees to churches filled with gold crosses. Just as Buddha’s image was cast in gold, the crucifixion of Jesus which symbolizes both his suffering and resurrection has been cast in gold to be worshipped by millions.
My mother used to muse ironically, “If Jesus were executed today would we all wear little gold electric chairs around our necks?”
John’s doctrine of Avatar obliges Christians to worship him as God. But what of the teachings of Jesus?
Another way to try to understand the historical Jesus is through his teachings. But since there are so many Gospels where different sermons are preached, and since Jesus is often found preaching in parables, it is sometimes difficult to understand the essence of his message.
This is often a problem when a great saint, teacher, or prophet passes away from this world. His disciples create schisms and wrangle over the meaning of his words, parsing every expression that the master taught. The master’s sermons seem to contradict what he has written in his books and letters. And his personal instructions often show him to be more liberal or conservative in interpreting what he has written or said. How to understand the real teachings? I suppose this is what is meant by cultivating a “personal relationship with Christ.” In the end, everyone has his own version of Christ. In Africa he is seen as a black man. In Norway he is blonde. In China, Jesus Christ is shown as an oriental man with almond eyes. In Mexico he is brown-skinned. Perhaps this is testimony to his universal appeal.
Apart from the idea of accepting Jesus as God and praying to him for blessings, the matter of his teachings has always had more interest for me.
The worship of God in churches seems to be filled with hypocrisy. In Mexico a majority of the population believes in the Catholic version of Jesus. Churches are always full. I live and write 100 meters from a charming church where the bells ring on the hour. Multitudes turn out for mass to get forgiveness for their sins. And yet Mexico is a violent country where drug barons execute people with impunity. A famous narco-traficante and ruler of various drug cartels, Beltran Leyva, was surrounded by federales and arrested another hundred meters from the church, having fish on Friday after receiving communion. Chapo Guzman worships Jesus. Whose side is God on? It is rare that the priests will preach from the pulpit against violence, murder, and drugs. Some of the gold crosses have been bought and paid for with drug money by narcos seeking to expiate their sins. But what has this to do with the teachings of Christ himself?
Ironically, there are many similarities between the ideas of Buddha and the teachings of Christ, although this is scarcely remarked on by either Christians or Buddhists. “The Imitation of Christ,” by Tomas á Kempis offers many principles for daily practice based on the teachings of Christ. These principles parallel the Buddha´s eight principles. For example, here´s the Buddha from the Dhammapada on vanity:
“Fools follow after vanity, are ignorant and careless. The wise keep awareness as their best treasure. Do not follow after vanity nor after sensual pleasure nor lust.”
Here’s Thomas á Kempis on vanity:
“What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.
This is the greatest wisdom -- to seek the kingdom of heaven through contempt of the world. It is vanity, therefore, to seek and trust in riches that perish. It is vanity also to court honor and to be puffed up with pride. It is vanity to follow the lusts of the body and to desire things for which severe punishment later must come. It is vanity to wish for long life and to care little about a well-spent life. It is vanity to be concerned with the present only and not to make provision for things to come. It is vanity to love what passes quickly and not to look ahead where eternal joy abides.
Often recall the proverb: "The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear filled with hearing." Try, moreover, to turn your heart from the love of things visible and bring yourself to things invisible. For they who follow their own evil passions stain their consciences and lose the grace of God.”
Teachings of Jesus and Krishna
|
| The Compassionate Christ Jesus of the Sacred Heart |
I was sixteen years old in 1970.
After my mother’s divorce with my stepfather I had fallen through the cracks in
a dysfunctional family. My grandparents had given me shelter long enough to
graduate high school, but made it clear that I was to find a job and support
myself. My mother was in Mexico, pursuing the life of an artist. And so, after
a summer with my grandparents I was on my own. I had missed the summer of love
1969, and felt that it was my time. So with 5 dollars in my jeans I set out
with my friend “Flash” to discover the world.
We had seen the movie “Easy
Rider,” the famous road film about the search for freedom. The heroes ended up
taking LSD in New Orleans and finding their own version of the American dream.
Inspired by our madcap ideas, Flash and I decided we would hitch-hike to New
Orleans for the Mardi Gras and follow in the footsteps of our heroes.
Five dollars was a lot of money
back then, but it didn’t go too far. We got a couple of rides out of Los
Angeles, got as far as the Mohave Desert and were stranded out in the middle of
nowhere. We slept in our clothes by some tumbleweeds beneath the stars and in
the morning a friendly truck-driver got us to Phoenix. The plan was to take
Interstate 10. It goes all the way from L.A. to Florida, by way of Phoenix and
El Paso. When teaching English, sometimes I have to teach the present perfect:
have done, has done... One of the questions we ask the students to explore is
“What is the most dangerous thing you have ever done?” Or “What is the craziest
thing you have ever done?” My own life is so filled with crazy and dangerous
events its hard to pick one, but the road trip to New Orleans was one of them.
As luck would have it, Flash and
I were picked up by a pink VW bus filled with hippies on the way to New
Orleans. The driver was Fred, a Hell’s Angel on the way to Boca Raton, Florida.
He rode up front with Jennifer, a blond flower child. Eddie had a mustache and
played guitar. Suzie was his girlfriend. We listened to Crosby, Stills, and
Nash and Jimi Hendrix and rode all the way to New Orleans.
Once there, our plan was simple.
We would hit the streets by day and discover the surrealistic scene of the
Mardi Gras. By night, we would crash at the Hare Krishna temple. We had heard
that they were kind.
We got to New Orleans at night
and said our goodbyes to our new friends. Lost in New Orleans we asked
directions from an elderly gentleman of the African-American community.
“Where you folks going?” He
asked.
“We’re looking for the Krishna
temple.”
The old man smiled, displaying a
gold tooth with a diamond in it. He pointed toward an row of wooden houses.
“You don’t want to go down there, son. That’s black town son. You don’t want to
go down there. You in the wrong place.”
We wandered the streets of New
Orleans.
We stumbled upon the Mardi Gras
parade. Drunken people caroused in weird costumes. Decorated floats moved
through the downtown, where pirate kings throwing beaded necklaces presided
over throngs of debauched madmen stoned on drugs. Halfclad women hooted from
the balconies of the French Quarter exposing their breasts and demanding
tribute in beaded necklaces. Men dressed as women caroused with bottles of
whiskey.
We stood, shocked in amazement.
Suddenly on the street corner ten paces from where we stood a brawl exploded.
We watched as ten fat white policemen formed a protective circle around a black
man they were beating with their billy clubs. They grabbed a few black
bystanders and began rousting them against a wall, slamming their faces into
the brick and screaming, “Kiss the wall! Kiss the wall!”
Stunned, we wandered through the
French Quarter for a while. We asked for directions again and got lost.
Wandering the back alleys where
drunken vagabonds slept in piles of rubbish, we found our way and followed the
streetlights until we came upon the Krishna temple.
It was an charming wooden house,
an old two-story Victorian in a neighborhood within walking distance of Bourbon
Street. We could hear some strange music and went upstairs. This must be the
place.
We were greeted with big smiles
and warm hospitality. Flash did the talking. We were welcome to stay the night,
but would have to help pack incense. We found ourselves in a room with a bare
wooden floor and little furniture. There was a record player. The music was the
Hare Krishna mantra, chanted over and over again. The floor was covered with
fine pink dust.
Everything smelled like
strawberry. The incense dust saturated everything. We sat crosslegged on the
floor. Incense was stacked in a huge pile on the floor. We counted out twenty
sticks, placed them in a plastic sleeve and packed the sleeves of strawberry
incense into cardboard packs with an image of Radha and Krishna on one side and
an explanation of the Hare Krishna mantra on the other side. All the while we
listened to the ecstatic sounds of the devotees chanting Hare Krishna. It was a
complete sensual immersion in the sights, sounds and smells of Krishna bhakti
as it was practiced shortly after the summer of love.
The contrast between the two
worlds could not have been starker. Outside, the Mardi Gras was a celebration
of barbarism, madness, ignorance and intoxication. Here we had found shelter
from the storm. They told us it was time for “prasadam,” vegetarian spiritual
food. One of the brothers brought out a long plank and set it on the floor. We
sat around the plank in a line. We were served home-made brown bread and hot
milk.
The devotees sang:
ভাই-রে!
শরীর অবিদ্যা-জাল্,
জোডেন্দ্রিয তাহে কাল্,
জীৱে ফেলে
ৱিষয-সাগোরে
তাঽর মধ্যে
জিহ্wআ অতি, লোভমোয্ সুদুর্মতি,
তাঽকে জেতা
কঠিন সংসারে
কৃষ্ণ বরো
দোযামোয্, কোরিবারে জিহ্wআ জয্,
স্wঅ-প্রসাদ্-অন্ন
দিলো ভাই
সেই অন্নামৃত
পাও, রাধা-কৃষ্ণ-গুণ গাও,
প্রেমে ডাকো
চৈতন্য-নিতাই
bhāi-re!
śarīra abidyā-jāl, joḍendriya tāhe
kāl,
jīve phele viṣaya-sāgore
tā'ra madhye jihwā ati, lobhamoy
sudurmati,
tā'ke jetā kaṭhina saṁsāre
kṛṣṇa baro doyāmoy, koribāre jihwā
jay,
swa-prasād-anna dilo bhāi
sei annāmṛta pāo, rādhā-kṛṣṇa-guṇa
gāo,
preme ḍāko caitanya-nitāi
"O brothers! This material
body is a network of ignorance, and the senses are one's deadly enemies, for
they throw the soul into the ocean of material sense enjoyment. Among the
senses, the tongue is the most voracious and verily wicked; it is very
difficult to conquer the tongue in this world. O brothers! Lord Krsna is very
merciful-just to control the tongue He has given us the remnants of His own
food! Now please eat these nectarean grains while singing the glories of Their
Lordships Sri Sri Radha and Krsna, and in love call out "Caitanya!
Nit!"
I felt I had been lifted up to
paradise. The streets of New Orleans were hell and now I was on a heavenly
planet somewhere. After the plates were cleared we helped in the kitchen for a
while. Too wired to sleep we had a long discussion with the brothers.
I had read the Bhagavad-Gita long
ago in Mexico. I liked Prabhupada’s spiritual message, but there were a few
things I didn’t understand. A devotee there who I will call “Govinda Das”
explained. My concern was about peace. At the time, the Vietnam War was raging
and many of my friends had been called to duty. It didn’t seem fair. I had read
the teachings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. It seemed to me that war was
wrong.
“How is it,” I asked, “that if
your message is for peace, if the Hare Krishna mantra is the chant for peace,
how is it that Krishna wants Arjuna to fight?”
“Well,” Govinda Das said,
“Krishna is just asking Arjuna to do his duty. He is a warrior, so his duty is
to fight. Everyone should do his thing, but do it for Krishna.”
I appreciated his answer while it
did not satisfy me entirely. As it turned out, Flash decided to stay at the
ashram. My life took a million turns before I finally surrendered to Krishna
some time later.
But I have often been asked the
same question, in different forms.
“If Krishna is so spiritual, why
does he advocate violence?” Or “Why does Krishna want war?”
This question may be seen from
different angles. While Prabhupada eschews metaphorical interpretations and
demands that his disciples take a literal view of the Bhagavad-Gita, Shridhar
Maharaja taught me to look for deeper meanings in life as well as in the
scriptures. And while I was formally given Harinam initiation by Prabhupada, I
sought shelter from Shridhar Maharaja after Prabhupada left this world.
Shridhar Maharaja personally taught me and trained me to understand his message.
He put me under the guidance of Bhakti Sudhir Goswami, and together with Bhakti
Sudhir Goswami I published Shridhar Maharaja’s books at Guardian of Devotion
Press in the 1980s. Part of my service was to spend time interpreting Shridhara
Maharaja’s words and the message of the Vedic and Vaishnava literatures before
we published. So I have spent a lot of time thinking about this question.
“Why does Krishna want war?”
The point about duty is
important. Arjuna is a warrior and Krishna advises him to work as such without
attachment to the results, but offering everything in sacrice to a higher
power. Arjuna finds this to be superficial and asks Krishna to go deeper.
Finally Krishna tells him that he should act in love, surrendering to Krishna.
We find that surrender in devotion is the real message of the Gita.
Everything else in the Gita, all
the other dharma is essentially superficial to this one
truth: सर्व-धर्मान् परित्यज्य माम् एकम् शरणम् व्रज
अहम् त्वाम् सर्व-पापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि म शुचः
sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekam śaraṇam vraja aham tvām sarva-pāpebhyo
mokṣayiṣyāmi ma śucaḥ
“Abandon all varieties of
religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful
reaction. Do not fear.” B.G.18.66
I mention this question of mine
since, as I unravel the secrets of the historical Christ in this series of
articles I find a number of mysteries: contradictions that lead to further
questions. In the interest of full disclosure I am revealing something of my
own point of view: I am not a “Christian” in the strict sense of the word. I
have great sympathy for aspects of Christ’s life and teachings. But in the end
I identify myself more as a “Krishna bhakta.”
Still, curiosity and scholarship
have led me to try to get a better understanding of the life of Christ.
And one of the problems I find is
this tension between peace and war in the teachings of Jesus. It is clear that
he felt strongly about the apocalypse. The “end-of-the-world” is a strong
current running throughout the gospel and its traditions, dating back to John
the Baptist. And some of what is spoken by the Prince of Peace is troubling.
Why would Jesus want war?
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus
is recorded as saying, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth;
I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
These are strange words indeed
coming from the “Lamb of God.” If Jesus is truly a peacemaker, how could he say
this. He continues, “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a
daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves his father or
mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more
than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me
is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his
life for my sake will find it. (Mathew 10:34-39)
Isn’t Jesus preaching war here?
Or is there some way of reconciling his words with those of the man of peace
who gave the Sermon on the Mount?
I have a difficult time believing
that Jesus was preaching some kind of armed revolution. He never armed his
followers, nor did they arm themselves. The Jewish Zealots did indeed lead a
rebellion against the Romans in around 70 AD. It was a catastrophe. After the
last Roman Procurator Florus stole vast quantities from the Temple of
Jerusalem, the outraged Jewish masses rioted and wiped out the Roman garrison.
When Cestius Gallus, the Roman ruler of Syria sent reinforcements, the rebels
slaughtered them. But as the Jews celebrated their victory over Rome, the
emperor sent 60,000 heavily armed and well-trained professional soldiers. Some
100,000 Jews were killed or sold into slavery. In part the loss was attributed
to schisms between the Jewish Zealots themselves.
The early followers of Jesus are
not known to have participated in the violence. Indeed, insofar as armed
rebellion against the authority that had so oppressed the Jews, Jesus is
recorded to have said as follows at the moment of his arrest by the Romans.
“Put your sword away. For those
who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my
Father and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of
angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen
in this way?” In tht hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion
that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in
the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But all this has taken
place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the
disciples deserted him and fled.” (Mathew 26. 52-55.)
At the very moment of his arrest,
Jesus admonishes his disciples to use no force to resist the law. It seems
clear that the rebellion of sons against fathers and daughters against mothers
has nothing to do with physical war and violence, but something else. He says
that he “has not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
While much violence has been done
in the name of Christendom, including the bloody conquest of the Americas, I
don’t believe that Jesus advocated violence of any kind. His nonresistance to
the State had to do with his rejection of their authority, but he nowhere calls
for armed rebellion. His rebellion is of a spiritual kind.
He calls for a sword, but he is
more in the line of truth-tellers whose words cut. Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati
used to say that a saintly person or sādhu is someone whose
words cut sharply through our attachments to this material world. It seems that
when Jesus spoke of setting sons against fathers and daughters against mothers,
he was drawing attention to the need to cut material attachments. Fathers and
mothers are generally attached to the traditional ways of doing things. They
want their children to do well materially, to prosper. Jesus was interested in
preaching about the after life.
He exhorted his followers, “Do
not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your
heart will be also. No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one
and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6.19-24)
These ideas are
controversial even today. When their fathers and mothers instruct them, “Work
hard and make money,” their sons and daughters might reply that Jesus said, “Do
not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink, or about your body, what
you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look
at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and
yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not more valuable than they? Can
any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? And why do you worry
about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They neither labor nor
spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like
one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here
today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe
you--you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or
‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all
these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first
his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as
well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.
Each day has enough trouble of its own.” (Matthew 6. 25-34)
