The Civilization Big Bang

Re-reading Jesus

Mudra Rakshasa
To
Mr. Ben Marshal
For the way you stopped visa
To the nazi of Gujrat Genocide
 Preface

It was perhaps the year of 1963 or 64 and I was writing a radio play about
the life of a great musician, who was mortally sick. His faithful Christian maid
servant suspected some foul play in her master’s serious sickness. I procured a
copy of Bible from a bookshop and went through it. The radio drama was
completed and broadcast but the book called Bible left some indelible marks upon
my consciousness. The marks are hardly to do anything with faith or spirituality.
Upto the age of sixteen, I have had extensive Hindu religious training in my
family, follower of swami Dayanand, a reformist Hindu and founder of a puritan
preacher but then I came into contact with some communist students. The same
year, my university teacher of philosophy Dr. Devraj, an anticommunist but highly
rational scholar also had deep influence upon me. I became an atheist and a non-
believer, shortly afterwards. I never had any respect for any religious founder or
leader. I had read the critical comments on Bible by Dayanand in his famous book
knows as “Satyartha praksha” but the writing as immature and highly subjective.
That is where I strongly disagreed with this Hindu Sadhoo. I, as a student of
Philosophy and sociology and my discipline in creative literature, had trained me
to appreciate good writing with genuine human feelings. The Hindu scriptures,
that were taught to me, never influenced me. Rather the major part of it was highly
detestable to retained their impact upon any consciousness.
Working as a social activist, specifically an communal conflict, I decided to
re-read Hindu scriptures. Strangely the European thinks like Max Mullar or
Zineer, I found quite impressed by Hindu thought. I shall try to find the reasons of
their alchemy of so called Hindu philosophy.
I had an opportunity to re-read Bible, particularly the New Testament, after
my friendship with Mr. Joseph De Soua and Mr. Moses Parmar of Om India while
working for suffers of Hindu Cartelism. I entitled Re-Reading Hindu Scriptures
already published in Gospels. This writing was still more necessary in view of
increased Hindu communal violence against Christians in India. I hope the Hindus
shall also read this book objectively.
 1. Giving space to culture growth
A Roman physician Aesculapius Cultellus wrote a letter to his nephew in
62 A.D. which I quite here. His nephew was posted in Roman army at Syria. The
text of the letter was as follows –
My dear nephew,
A few days ago I was called in to prescribe for a sick man named Paul. He
appeared to be a Roman Citizen of Jewish percentage, well educated and of
agreeable manners. I had been told that he was here in connection with a law-suit
and appeal from one of our provincial courts, Caesarea or some such place in the
eastern Mediterranean. He had been described to me as a ‘wild and violent’ fellow
who had been making speeches against the people and against the law. I found
him very intelligent and of great honesty.
A friend of mine who used to be with the army in Asia Minor tells me that
he heard something about him in Ephesus where he was preaching sermons about
a strange new God. I asked my patient if these work true and whether he had told
the people to rebel against the will of our beloved emperor. Paul answered me that
the kingdom of which he had spoken was not of this world and he added many
strange utterances which I did not understand, but which were probably due to his
fewer.
His personality made a great impression upon me and I was sorry to hear
that he was killed on the Ossian road a few days ago. Therefore I am writing this
letter to you. When next you visit Jerusalem, I want you to find out something
about my friend Paul and the strange Jewish prophet, who seems to have been his
teacher. Our slaves are getting much excited about this so-called Messiah, and a
few of them, who openly talked of the new kingdom (whatever that means), have
been crucified. I would like to know the truth about all these rumors and I am
Your devoted uncle
Acsculapins Cultellus

The answer by his nephew, received after a few works, contains some
significant facts about the life of Jesus. I must mention here that some western
scholars, working on Christian Theology, have contested the life story of Jesus as
told by authors of Gospels. These scholars so as far as to say that Jesus was
crucified in ague of his friends garden and not at Golgotha and that the crucifixion
itself was a mock affair meaning Jesus was never never actually crucified. Some
others have observed that Jesus was not the son of a Carpenter. Most of such
writings have appeared in twentieth century A.D. Now we must read the reply by
the nephew of cultillus sent to him in 62 A.D. that is, very shortly after Jesus was
crucified. The said reply reads as follows –
My Dear Uncle,
I received your letter and I have obeyed your instructions. Two weeks ago
our brigade was sent to Jerusalem. There have been several revolutions during the
last century and there is not much left of the old city. We have been here now for a
month and tomorrow we shall continue our march to Petra, where there has been
trouble with some of the Arab tribes. I shall use this evening to answer your
questions, but pray do not expect a detailed report.
I have talked with most of the older men in this city but few have been able
to give me any definite information. A few days ago a peddler came to the camp. I
bought some of his olives and I asked him whether he had ever heard of the
famous Messiah who was killer when he was young. He said that he remembered
it very clearly, because his father had taken him to Golgotha (a hill just outside the
city) to see the execution and to show him what because of the enemies of the laws
of the people of Judaca. He gave me the address of aue Jospeh, who had been a
personal friend of Messiah and told me that I had better go and see him if I wanted
to know more.
This morning I went to call on Joseph. He was quite an old man. He had
been a fisherman on one of the freshwater lakes. His memory was clear and from
him atlast I got a fairly definite account of what had happened during the
troublesome days before I was born.
Tiberius, our great and glorious emperor, was on the throne, and an officer
of the name of Portius Pilates was Governor of Judaca and Samaria. Joseph knew
little about this Pilatus. He seemed to be an honest enough official who left a
decent reputation as procurator of the province. In the year (Joseph did not
remember the exact year) Pilatus was called to Jerusalem an account of a riot. A
certain young man (the son of a carpenter of Nazareth) was said to be planning a
revolution against the Roman government. Strangely enough our own intelligence
officers, who are usually well informed, appear to have heard nothing about it and
when they investigated the matter they reported that the carpenter was an excellent
citizen and that there was no reason to process against him. But the old fashioned
leaders of the Jewish faith, according to Joseph, were much upset, they greatly
disliked his popularity with the masses of the poorer Hebrews. The Nazarene (so
they told Pilatus) had publicity claimed that a Greek or a Roman or even a
philistine who tried to live a decent and honourable life, was quite as good as a
Jew who spent his days studying the ancient laws of Moses. Pilatus does not seem
to have been impressed by this argument, but when the crowds around the temple
threatened to lynch Jesus, and kill all his followers, he decided to take the
carpenter into custody to save his life.
He does not appear to have understood the real nature of the quarrel.
Whenever he asked the Jewish priests to explain their grievances, they shouted
heresay and Treason and to terribly excited. Finally, so Joseph told me, Pilatus
sent for Joshua (that was the name of the Nazarene, but the Greeks who live in this
part of the world always refer to him as Jesus) to examine him personally. He
asked him about he dangerous doctruis which he was said to have preached on the
shores of the sea of Galilee. But Jesus answered that he never referred to policies.
He was not so much interested in the bodies of men as in man’s soul. He wanted
all people to regard their neighbours as their brothers and to love aue single God,
who was the father of all living beings.
Pilatus who seem to have been well versed in the doctrines of the stories
and the other Greek Philosophers, does not appear to have discovered anything
seditious in the talk of Jesus. According to my informant he made another attempt
to save the life of kindly prophet. He kept putting the executing off. Meanwhile
the Jewish people, lashed into fury by their priests, got frantic with rage.
There have been many riots in Jerusalem before. This and there were only a
few Roman soldiers within calling distance. Reports were being sent to roman
authorities in Caesarea that Pilatus had fallen victim to the teaching of the
Nazarene. Petitions were being circulated all through the city to have Palatus
recalled because he was an enemy of the emperor. You know that our governors
have strict instructions to avoid an open break with their foreign subjects. To save
the country from civil war. Pilatus finally sacrificed his prisoner, Joshua who be
halved with great dignity and who forgave all those who hated him. He was
crucified amidst the howl and laugher of the Jerusalem mob.
That is what Joseph told me, with tears running down his old checks. I gave
him a gold peace when I left him, but he refused it and asked me to hand it to one
poorer than himself. I also asked him a few questions about your friend Paul. He
had known him slightly. He seems to have been a tent maker who gave up his
profession that he might preach the words of a loving and forgiving God who was
so very different from that Jehovah of whom the Jewish priests are telling us all
the time. Afterwards, Paul appears to have traveled much in Asia minor and in
Greece, telling the salve that they were all the children of loving father and that
happiness awaits all, both rich and poor, who have tried to live honest lives and
have done good to those who were suffering and miserable.
I hope that I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. The whole
story seems very harmless to me as far as the safety of the state is concerned. But
then, we Romans never have been able to understand the people of this province. I
am sorry that they have killed young friend Paul. I wish that I were at home again
and I am as ever,
Your dutiful nephew,
Gladius Elsa

I came across quite a few writing by Christian scholars who have doubted
certain important facts mentioned in Gospels. Some very interesting stories about
the private life of Jesus have been ‘discovered’ by the authors of books like ‘Holy
Grail’ or ‘The Da’Vinci Code’. I do not wish to present a critique of these writings
here, though I must admit that I have ignored the contentions therein. I have
followed the life sketches as laid down by the authors of four Gospels. I also
believe that the 62 A.D. letter by Gladius Ensa quite strongly supports the Gospel
story. The said letters written in 62 A.D. as quoted by Hendrik Willem Van Loon
in his book ‘The story of Mankind’, Washington Square Press, 26th printing 1968,
pages 110 to 114 are very strong archaeological evidence for the purpose of my
work here. My effort is to re-read the man known to human history as JESUS or
JOSHUA or The Christ from the point of view of a rational thinker outside the
Christian spirituality. I came across the New Testament for the first time in 1964
while writing a radio play. Then again I read the four Gospels in 1978, closely. It
was astonishing to see that the person who deeply influenced more than half the
world population during a period of two millennia or more is said to have spoken
not more than a few thousand words only. The human civilization has seen quite a
few personalities who founded great religious and almost each one of them is
know to have produced massive writings like the Old Testament of the Jews, the
Tripitaka of the Buddhists, the Vedas of the Hindus, the Guru granth Sahib of the
Sikhs, the Zendavest of the Parasis and so an, while the Christian scriptures are the
smallest of all. The massive scriptures of other religious contain detailed socio-
spiritual laws of the lives of human beings. The Christian scriptures do not contain
any detailed doe’s and don’ts
It is really surprising that Jesus never put forward any principles or rules
and regulations for human beings. This phenomenon of the absence of dogma in
Christian scriptures has to be studied carefully to identify its impact an civilization
of man.
When I published ‘The Re-reading Hindu Scriptures’ in Hindu in the year
of 2004. The critics of the said book asked me why I have not written critical
studies of the Bible and the Quran also. The taunting notes of the critics prompted
me to undertake the studies of the New Testament. The project was exciting in
many ways. While studying the Hindu scriptures it was baffling to see that the
authors, whosoever they were, stand for shameful social inequality. Hindu
scriptures do not tolerate the concept of social equality. They believe that the man
is born in equal and that the God himself created this antisocial system. Gita, the
holy book of the Hindus supposed to have been authored unequal by him (GITA-
4.13). Each and every Hindu scripture subscribes to social inequality, while the
New Testament and Quran, both stand boldly for equality amongst the human
beings. Christians and the Muslims both have honoured the people who earn their
livelihood by physical labour, while the Hindus hate antigens and workmen.
It was surprising so see that quite a few European intellectuals, including
some Christian scholars have equated Gandhi of India with Jesus. I do not know
what promoted them to treat Gandhi at par with Christ while Gandhi stood for
social inequality and subscribed naked social discrimination. Jesus offered himself
to an extremely painful death. Gandhi did not offer to be killed by a bullet. Then
there is definitely hell of a differences between death by crucifixion and the
sudden death by a bullet. No depressed class Indian can forgive Gandhi for what
he did in 1937.
The foreign intelligentsia may rather be surprised to know that a large part
of Indian population, instead of hating the British rule, welcomed it. They
welcomed the schools and law courts. Where a low caste untouchable and so
called high castes were treated equally. The high class Hindus. At one stage, the
British Government in India tried to introduce the communal Award granting the
low caste a separate identity, from the high caste Hindus. The award had a
provision of granting right of separate electorate to them. The Hindus, after the
implementation of this award, would have been reduced to minority, but the low
caste population welcomed it. The said Communal Award was to restore self-
respect and dignity that was denied to them for the last more than three thousand
years. The western civilization might be unaware of the fact that the Hindu leader
Gandhi, a stomach orthodox Hindu, strongly believed in caste discrimination. In
response to the said communal Award he declared that he shall not allow the low
caste people to be liberated. It is painful to see that a perpetual social-Darwinist
and supporter of social inequality, Gandhi has been equated with Jesus by some of
European scholars.
As a rational thinker I have respect for some European thinkers like Jean
Paul Sartre or Bertrand Russell. But it is interesting to see that these philosophers
have been strongly criticized by the Christian theologist because of their atheism.
But we must also appreciate the greatest thinkers and scientists who made massive
contributions to human history, were the products of Christian culture. It is the
Christian domain that saw the emergence of enlightenment modern
industrialization, scientific inventions and discoveries, at times, in contradiction to
the Christian faith. The Christian world, even at the cost of faith must be credited
to have made incontestable contributions to the art, culture, literature, science and
philosophy. It must be studied closely why and how the Christian world has
surpassed all other cultures during the last two millennia in discoveries, inventions
and even on the fronts of economic, political and stralagic power. Has this
phenomenon something directly to do with very brief character of whatever was
spoken by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament? It has astonished me to see
that unlike other founders of religions Jesus does not make long statements. He
uses very few words leaving ample of space with dotted lines giving man the
opportunity to FILL UP THE BLANKS according to his unrestrained genius.
Though Jesus said-Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass
away (Mathew 24:35) but his words never make any thesis like massive Vedas of
Hindus. The Quoran of the Islam or bulky Tribitaka of the Buddhists. The words,
lots and lots of words were being spilled by the preachers and the teachers of law
in Jewish land for whom Jesus said-beware of the teachers of the law. They like to
walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the market places and have
the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at banquets.
They devour widow’s houses and for a show make lengthy prayers (Luke 20:46-
47). Jesus was extremely miser in the use of words but by carefully meant by
careful and rational reading we can understand what he actually meant by sowing
the words-others like seed. Sown of good soil, hear the word, accept it and
produce a crop-thirty sixty or even a hundred times what was sown (Mark 4:20).
Now what is the meaning of sowing aue and harvesting twenty, thirty, sixty
or hundred ? When we sow our seed it does not mean that the result should be the
growth of hundred identical seeds. Each resultant seed is different from the other.
The emergent evolution is also possible that gives us, sometimes absolutely
different species. This is what happened with the seeds sown by Jesus. And this is
the most revolutionary and radical significance of what was given by Jesus. The
seed of Christianity produced a large number of religious priests but it produced
Galileo, Bumo, Newton, Kaut, Einstein, Sartre or Russell also. Some of these
thinkers contradicted the Genesis of the Bible also, no doubt, but they made the
invaluable contribution of human thought. As we know, Jesus hated most The
Jewish priests who closed the doors because you have taken away the key to
knowledge. You yourselves have not entered and you have hindered those who
were entering (Luke 11:52). Jesus never hindered the door to knowledge and he
allowed the free growth of human inquisitiveness. When Jesus said that because to
give freedom he only meant this. It was his objective to make men free thinkers
and this is what he did. He gave the man freedom to transcend…., to break the
limits and go beyond. The principal objective of Jesus was to create a
comprehensive being and it was his idea that this human comprehensibility cannot
be achieved without giving him a freedom of intellect. This is what Jesus did and
this is where he succeeded. He empowered the man even to transcend the dicta of
Jesus himself. He made the man eager to ask questions and eager to find the truth.
Jesus desired the man to have a right to question and to be free to express his
dissatisfaction with whatever was disagreeable to him. Jesus was the only Nabi in
human history who never wished his followers to be his replica because he himself
never hesitated to break away from earlier nabis – I tell you the truth before
Abraham was born, I am! (John 8:58) One Sabath Jesus was going through the
grainfields and as his disciples walked along they began to pick the head of the
grain. Pharisees said to him, look why are they doing what is unlawful on the
Sabath? …. Then he said to them, “The Sabath was made for man, not man for the
Sabath. (Mark 2:23-24, 27) The Pharisees were obviously referring the social Law
of Moses himself. The thinkers outside the Christianity may be surprised to learn
that Jesus never brought any commandments for guiding the society. He rather
expressed strong displeasure over the Pharisees, the experts in moral laws – And
you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burden
they can hardly carry. (Luke 11:46) Jesus was a very radical prophet who never
loaded people with the burden of laws. He himself disliked dogma and did not
leave any set of principles to control guide and regulate the social growth. Jesus in
a way blessed the future generations with moral, social and intellectual, autonomy
that caused unprecedented cultural growth after him. This phenomenon if seen
objectively, keeping emotive spirituality away can throw new lights on the being
of Jesus and his philosophy. It is my firm opinion that Jesus, as known through the
Gospels, himself offers the free, unfettered and limitless space to any thinker,
discoverer or scientist. Even the athiesure, the rejection of Christian spirituality by
a Christian grows out of the environment created by Jesus. Why the modern
cosmology that does not subscribe the Genesis has been discovered by the
Christian culture and by no other society? The credit definite should go to the
intellectual space created by Jesus. Prophets almost always and in any society,
gave elaborate systems to construct the religious. Jesus in this sense is completely
different. And the basic purpose behind it has to be understood carefully.
 2. Jesus : A Creative Genius

Quite often Jesus talks about belief and sometimes he uses the word faith –
“But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us. “Jesus said “If you can,
everything is possible for him who believes” (Mark 9:20-23) I have prayed for
you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. (Luke 22:32).
Jesus was very careful in using the words with extreme precision. He never
mixed up belief with faith. We have to see closely the intrinsic value of both the
words of belief and faith as used by Jesus. First the faith. The real and
fundamental nature of the word faith can better be understood by investing the
said concept. Let us take the words not faithful or unfaithful. When we come
across a faulty interpretation of any classical writing or speech from some other
language we say the rendering is not faithful. It also means it is not true to original
and commitment to the spirit of what was actually communicated – ‘Master’ he
said, you entrusted me with five talents. See I have gained five more.
His master replied “Well done, well done good and faithful servant! You
have been faithful with a few things; I will put you incharge of many things. Come
and share your masters happiness!’ (Mathew 25:20-210
Here it can be conveniently seen what Jesus meant by the word faith. The
servant was faithful with few things meant that he justified the trust. We can take
another example of the use of the world faith by Jesus – The Apostles said to the
Lord, “increase your faith”.
He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to
this mulberry tree. “Be uprooted and planted in the sea” and it will obey you.
(Luke 17:5-6).
Here the word connotes much more than its literal meaning. It obviously
stands for self confidence that was displayed by Jesus himself who struggled for
new civilizational construct of human history and succeeded in his objective. Jesus
used the word faith where again he tries to underline his self confidence-“Have
faith in God” Jesus answered. “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain,
‘Go, throw your self into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that
what he says will happen, it will be done for him.”
Jesus, here uses the other word ‘belief’ also and the contents of both are
absolutely different. Lest I should be misunderstood if has to be kept in mind that
Jesus was not using English language. What I depend upon is the English
translation of the New Testament. The one I refer to is the English translation of
the Greek version. The mother tongue of Jesus might have been Hebrew since he
was a Jew by birth but he might also have expressed himself in Roman or
Armenian language also. His utterances were quoted by Apostles in their Gospels.
Whatever was said by Jesus is now available in English which is supposed to be
FAITHFUL to the original if he has used the words faith and belief separately in
any of his expressions. He might definitely be having different meanings also.
That is why I am trying to different meanings also. That is why I am trying to find
out the real objective behind the two different uses. We have tried to discover his
idea of youth in the preceding lines. Now I shall try to see what Jesus actually
meant by belief. As I have indicated, Jesus was extremely precise in selecting
words for his expressions. But before that I would like to refer to a very interesting
chapter in John locks philosophical work An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding, entitled of the Abuse of Words. It obviously reminds whatever
was spoken by Pharisees and Sadducees against Jesus after his arrest. John lock
observes, “there are several willful faults and neglects which men are guilty of”’
(An essay concerning human understanding, J.M. Dent & Sons , 1948.
Everyman’s library edition Page 242). We have seen the Jewish religious elite
ignoring reason and logic altogether just to force their will to get Jesus crucified –
when Jesus said this one of the officials nearby struck him in the face, “Is this the
way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.
“If I said something wrong” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But
if I spoke the truth why did you strike me?” (John 18:22-23)
then pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for
a charge against this man.
But they insisted, “He stir up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He
started in Galilee and has come all the way here. (Luke 23:4-5)
Then someone stood up and gave his false testimony against him (Mark
14:57)
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder “Crucify him!” (Mathew 27:22-23)
The highly irrational utterances of the accusers testify the abuse of words as
observed by Lock. The Jews banked upon the hypothesis which they believed to
be perfect and the last word as opined by seventeenth century philosopher John
Lock – “to this abuse those men are most subject who most confine their thoughts
to any one system and give themselves up into a firm belief of perfection of any
received hypothesis” (2 bio p.243)
 Against the illogical utterances of the Jews we see Jesus always resorting to
logic and reason – then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his
words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher, “they
said, “We know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in
accordance with the truth. You are not swayed by men because you pay no
attention to who they are. Tell us then what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes
to Caesar or not?”
But Jesus knowing their evil intent said, “You hypocrites, why are you
trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying tax. “They brought him a
denarius’s and he asked him, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inseriphon?”
“Caesar’s” they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is
God’s”.
When they heard this they were amazed (Mathew 22:15-22).
Now resuming the analysis of the word belief. The belief is a very
interesting term. Someone who believes in something means that what is believed
is also true. Belief is supposed to have firmness and almost full confidence in
opinion. Belief also includes to certain dictum by any authority of law or morality
or the religious order. The belief is certainly something other than the faith. We
can better understand this difference by going through the chapter “Faith in the
son of God” in First John – This is the victory that has overcome the world even
our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? (Only he who believes that Jesus is
the Son of God. (1 John 5:4-5)
The belief that Jesus is Son of God confirms the believer’s loyalty towards
the concept of Jesus being the Son of God. Morton White, a scholar of philosophy
quoted a very significant essay by Charles Sandes Pierce, the most significant of
the philosophers of Pragmatism which opens from the concept of belief – “What is
belief? It is the demy cadence which closes a musical phrase in the symphony of
our intellectual life. We have seen that it has just three properties : First, it is
something that we are aware of; second, it appeases the irritation of doubt; and,
third, it involves the establishment in our nature of a rule of action, or say for
short, a habit. As it appeases the irritation of doubt, which is the motive for
thinking, thought relaxes and comes to rest for a moment when belief is reached.
But since belief is a rule for action, the application of which involves further doubt
and further at the same time that is a stopping place. It is also a new starting place
for thought”. (The age of Analysis, Mentor Book, 1955, P. 143).
Since, Jesus was the thinker who consciously discriminated between the
faith and belief and never mixed them up, his insistence and belief appeased the
irritation of doubt blocking the generation of thought making way to belief. The
belief again revives doubt which becomes starting place for thought once again.
This is how Jesus conducted belief and recast the new tissues of thought.
John, in chapter of “Pharisees Investigate the Healings” his Gospels
narrates how Jesus gave vision to a blind man and the Pharisees refused to believe.
Jesus, in reply to their doubts, said - For judgement I have come to this world so
that the blind will see and those who see will become blind. (John 9:39)
Here, Jesus was not playing with words. He was giving insight to those
unaware of reality was making them inquisitive to socio-political revolution. Men,
who lacked the vision of social change, were being empowered to think about the
that this empowerment and wisdom. Pharisees know that this empowerment or
restoration of vision was a serious threat to their order. The Pharisees were
blocking off their own vision to conserve their system. Those were supposed to
have eyes were becoming blind.
Those who were supposed to be blind by birth were infact the people never
having any opportunity, to Jesus was giving vision to blind by taking off their
blindfold of dogma. He introduced the blind folded to the belief of new
civilizational prospects of success and happiness. This is what actually causes the
chain reaction of human thought process. St. Augustine in his youth was deeply
influenced by a Christian heretic defamed for his nasty religious rituals, named
Mauves of third century A.D. Augustine was later Baptised by St. Ambrose and
became a significant philosopher. The belief, according to pierce, is a rule for
action, the application of which involves further doubt and further thought, at the
same time that it is a stopping place, it is also a new starting place for thought. (I
bid) St. Augustine is the best example of this phenomenon. He was the first
Christian thinker to introduce analytical theology and raise the fundamental
problems of knowledge. He raised the question whether man can have free will if
there is God who knows all and causes everything as he wills? Then we find him
imitating the basics of the linguistic philosophy when he analysis the order or
sequences of odd and even numbers. He discussed a very interesting problem
concerning the human wisdom. Is the wisdom universal and exists outside the
human consciousness or it grows inside each man separate from each other? Does
each man have his own wisdom? And so on. He also raised a very significant
problem concerning human perception and almost prepared a background for the
theory of description, later developed by Bertrand Russell in twentieth century.
The world of philosophy has been having serious discussions over the
subject of knowing the objects. The question whether the idea of our object exists
independent of the object has been a subject of long discussion. Interestingly a
believer of the thirteenth century, St. Thomas Aquinas. He is supposed to be a
neutral monist theoretician in philosophy, later to be developed by Jacques
Martian of twentieth century. The famous observation of St. Thomas Aquinas
about his thesis is – “In so far as a thing is, it is knowable, and in this resides its
ontological truth”. This is another example of what happens to belief of a person
whose vision is restored. The belief, according to Charles Sanders Pierce restrains
the doubt and the restrained doubt ferments thought. The Christian faith resulted
into the growth of science and philosophy in spite of the orthodox and non
productive as I have observed earlier. A very interesting discussion took place
early in the twentieth century between the famous French philosopher Henry
Berpson and American pragmatist William James. The topic was religious belief.
This topic has been the subject of debate among the analytical rationalist
philosophers in modern history. This is obviously how we can appreciate the logic
and the reason behind the observation of pierce conserving faith.
Now, briefly, I shall try to trace the roots of modern philosophical ideas, if
any. Ludurg Wittgenstein, a great Austrian philosopher, a proponent of analytical
philosophy believed that to understand the word is to be able to use it. The word
according to him,
Blossoms into from of life when it is set firmly in any surrounding mass
.The concept must he seen in the light of what was said by Jesus with reference
to the word – I will give you words (Luke 21:15). Others, like seed sown an good
soil, hear the word, accept it and produce a crop, thirty, sixty or even a hundred
times what was sown (Mark 4:20) Wittgenstein observes that the word if set
within a meaningful surrounding, comes to life and almost the same concept was
given by Jesus. He further specifies the words I have spoken to you are spirit and
they are life. (John 6:63) Wittgenstein and Jesus, both, indicate that the organic
entity of the word becomes meaningful only if it is sown or embedded in
favourable soil. Both use the term of the word coming with LIFE. Wittgenstein
says that to understand the word is to use it and Jesus was doing exactly the same.
While he said he is the word, he also said – I am the way and the truth and the life.
(John 14:6).
The spiritual interpretations apart, Jesus were making the words utility to
the maximum by unfolding its prismatic spectrum. He analyses the word just like
an analytical philosopher into three major concepts of the way, the truth and the
life. The way according to him was futuristic vision and the truth meant wisdom or
the acquaintance of the world outside. Jesus on this point of the acquaintance of
the world outside was nearer to modern philosophers like Russell, G.E. Moore or
Rudolf cornap than subjective Idealists like Berkeley who held that the ideas we
know exist independently of our knowledge, since they exist as ideas in the mind
of God. Jesus deviated from the theoreticians of the pragmatist philosophers like
Pierce or William James and to be precise, he cultured the pragmatic theory of
meaning of Pierce than the pragmatic theory of truth of James. Jesus word reaches
the truth and then swells into a form of life while theoreticians of the knowledge
by acquaintance do not go beyond that knowledge to see what the said knowledge
does to life. The pragmatist philosopher’s principle of pragmatism determines the
value of knowledge by its practical utility. While Marxist thinkers strongly
disagree with this philosophy. They also call pragmatist Pierce a radical empiricist
and, strangely acknowledge him to be closely related to Empiric-criticism.
However, Pierce identifies the objective reality with experience. Apart from his
inclination towards his bourgeois thoughts, his philosophical outfit stands much
nearer to the thoughts of Jesus who like a pragmatist, banks upon identifying the
meanings of his words through an abundance of PARABLES. These parables are
not just short stories. They expose the inner meanings of the words – when you see
the cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, its going to rain and it does.
And when the south wind blows you say its going to be hot and it is. Hypocrites,
you know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that
you don’t know ho to interpret this present time? (Luke 17:54-6)
The concepts of rain or hot used by Jesus in his arguments incidentally have
also been used by the modern linguistic philosophers – the particular experience,
which is what the word “hot” means, has some connection with the word over and
above that of bringing the word to mind since it shares this connection between
“being “hot” and the word “hot”, but is not the whole. (Bertrand Russell : An
inquiry into meaning and truth, George Allen and Unwin, 1951, p. 52).
Modern literary critic William Empson was very fond of the word
ambiguity. 27 were to him and of the highest value of judgement of literary
creativity. I do not know if he had ever noticed how Jesus appropriated this
concept of ambiguity in his discourses – I tell you the truth, unless a Kernel of
wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it
produces many seeds. Man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates
his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. (John 12:24-25). Whatever eats
my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. (John 6:54) There is nothing hidden
that will not be disclosed and nothing concealed that will not be known (Luke
8:17). We find very large number of such statements wherein the creative skill of
ambiguity is used to make the expression more meaningful. The son of man, aptly
discriminating between belief and faith, was also very conscious about the creative
value of his thoughts. A very interesting book was written by Catharine Patrick
entitle what is Creative Thinking and I quote from the same book – A spirit of
optimism is another person is to do original work, he must feel that he can
eventually solve the problem before him. (What is Creation Thinking, Jaiko Book,
India, 1957, P.148) Jesus was highly optimistic about what he wished to achieve
and inspire of many obstructions and failures he succeeded in his objectives. This
was the reason of his creative genius. He knows that he shall be persecuted and
finally killed for his thoughts and vision but this realization did not dampen his
spirit. He was committed to results. This is another reason that makes him a
pragmatist philosopher.
 The most significant of the philosophers of pragmatism, Charles Sanders
Pierces thesis came in his article “How to make our ideas clear”. This article
contains his famous Pearce’s Law that the value of an idea lies in its practical
results. The guiding force behind any development according to him is based upon
CHANGE and LOVE. The pragmatic philosophy determines the valve of
knowledge by its practical utility. Jesus strongly observed – everyone who does
evil hates light and will not come into light for fear that his deeds will be exposed
(John 3:20) the vision, according to Jesus is determined by its sensitivity to the
light and the sensitivity to the light, subsequently measures the righteousness of
man. Jesus believes in practical results – a farmer went out to sow his seeds. As he
was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled an and the birds
of the air ate it up. Some fell on the rock and when it came up, the plants withered
because they had no moisture. Other seed fell along thrones which grew up with it
and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a
crop, a hundred times more than was sown (Luke 8:5-8). Blessed are your eyes
because they see and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many
prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, but did not see it and to
hear what you hear but did not hear it (Mathew 13:16-17)
Jesus, as a pragmatic philosopher was stressing upon the valve of
knowledge by its practical use to understand the reality of time, the reality that
was being exposed by him. Charles Sanders Pierce incidentally had a tragic life
and more tragic was his death. His works were skeletons in the academic
cupboards and were retrieved long after his death. But his predecessor pragmatist
philosopher Jesus’ thoughts had to wait much longer and his death was a
civilizational tragedy. Pierce wrote “How to make Our Idea Clear” while Jesus
practiced it. His ideas were so clear that each and every word of his became a
burning torch for the generations to come.
Though not a pragmatist thinker, George Santayana should also he looked
into, here. Strangely. Santayana was an atheist as well as a Catholic. He did not
subscribe the theology of Catholicism but was very fond of what he said its poetic
rituals. He insisted that the religious world should be seen aesthetically just as we
look at a poetic work. How he looked at the phenomena of theology can better be
understood by the major philosophical work of Santayana Reason in religion”
specifically its chapter entitled “How Religion may be an Embodiment of
Reason”. The book “The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark, discussed by me
earlier must also be seen in the light of Santayana work as mentioned here.
 3. Creating New Earth and New Heaven

Jesus was facing ethnocentric assault from day one of his ministry. Modern
social thinkers have studied the behaviour and social attitude of ethnocentric. They
suffer from cultural superiority always try to denounce and look down upon the
others will whom they disagree. They not only fail to understand the others but
refuse to be open to others views. An ethnocentric is extremely rigid in his beliefs
and refuses to have any debate on issues concerning language, religious faith,
morality or convictions. He is at times ruthless to those having different opinion to
the extent that he may resort to violent opposition. William Graham Summer gave
a good critique of ethnocentric society wrought with irrational prejudices against
other cultures. Though summer himself was strongly criticized for his social
Darwinism, he was the first sociologist to give an exhaustive critique of
ethnocentric society’s prejudicial behaviour to other cultures on the issues of
social customs and rituals, moral standards and beliefs nursed by superiority
complex – But when the Pharisees heard this they said, “It is only by Beelzebub,
prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons” (Mathew 12:24). The chief
priest and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so
that they could put him to death. (Mathew 26:59) – So when the crowd had
gathered, Pilate asked them “Which one do you want me to release to you:
Barabbas or Jesus; who is called the Christ?” For he knew it was out of envy that
they had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests and the elders persuaded
the crowd to ask for Barabbas and have Jesus executed.
“Which one of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the
Governor.
“Barabbas” they answered.
“What shall I do then with Jesus who is called the Christ” Pilate asked.
They all answered “Crucify him!”
“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked the Pilate,
But they shouted all the louder “Crucify him!” (Mathew 27:19-23).
This is clear example of the aberrant society behaving without logic, rhyme
and reason. In some cases they are seen engaged in unlawful activities secretly
committing economic offences. But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord;
“Look Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor and if I have
cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay-back four times the amount.” (Luke
19:8).
The tax collectors were generally hated for their dishonesty and were
disregarded as sinners. They also were the people, who shared Pharisees’ and
Sadducees’ hatred towards Jesus. We know that aberrant people completely
disregard social standards and values – “Beware of teachers of law. They like to
walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in market places and have
most important seats in synagogues and the places of honour at the banquets. They
devour widow’s houses.” (Luke 20:46-47). Wherever and whenever possible, the
aberrant people shamelessly disregard social values and ideals. The people, who
were opposing Jesus, were least interested in conservation of their own laws. “For
I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the
Teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mathew
5:20). “If you pray do not be like the hypocrites for they love to pray standing in
the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men” (Mathew 6:5). “Be on
your Guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Mathew 16:11).
Jesus became aware of the real character of these aberrant people, right
from the very beginning of his life. He faced them in the temple at very tender age
when he visited them along with his father and mother, and stayed back all alone
for three days. Gospels are silent about what dialogues he had with the priests.
They only say that he was asking question and everyone who heard him was
amazed at his understanding and his answers. (Luke 2:41-47). He must have had
the glimpses of the elite’s aberrations and tried to questions them. The realization
must have been intensified by the time he intellectually matured and acquired
rebellious thoughts from teachers like John the Baptist and from the philosophers
of Greek and Roman thinkers. Whenever he would have come across a Pharisee or
a Sadducee, his discontent must have been intensified to make him more and more
anxious. The six woes represent his final critique of the aberrant society. The said
aberrant is always keen to judge others according to his personal value
judgements. Jesus vehemently attacked this self-styled wisdom. “Do not judge and
you will not be judge.” He firmly said – “For with measure you use, it will be
measured to you” (Luke 6:38).
He was convinced that the aberrant Pharisees and Sadducees were the
people who had eyes but could not see – “you have eyes but fail to see and ears
but fail to hear.” (Mark 8:18). Those who did not have vision and inspite of the
eyes failed to see the truth, were sure to mislead the mankind – “can a blind man
lead a blind man? Will they both not fall into a pit?” (Luke 6:39). The Son of man
gave a fine example of social disorder to be produced by an aberrant class of
people- “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each
tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thorn bushes or
grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good bries. The
good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart and the evil
man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart” (Luke 6:43-45).
The people, in terms of sociology now called an aberrant society, were
those who had stored evil in their hearts. They were the thorn bushes from which
figs could not be picked. Jesus was a sort of critical sociologist who was breaking
the upper layer to dig out the truth. He was exposing the masked faces of
hypocrites. Jesus had to struggle hard to retrieve logical reason from delusional
beliefs of aberrant Jewish priesthood. His debates with the Pharisees and the
teachers of the law are obvious examples of the same – “Now then you Pharisees
clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed.” (Luke
11:39). Jesus was using logical arguments in his encounters with them. When He
healed a crippled woman on a Sabbath, the teachers of the law objected
indignantly because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath. The synagogue ruler said to
the people, “There are six days for work so come and be healed on those days, not
on the Sabbath”. The lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on
the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?”
(Luke 13: 14-15)
One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching
the Gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders,
came upto him - “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things” they said,
“Who gave you this authority?”. He replied “I will also ask you a question. Tell
me John’s Baptism – was it from heaven or from men?”
They discussed it among themselves and said “If we say, from heaven, he
will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, from men, all the people
will stone us because they are persuaded that John was a Prophet. So they
answered, “We don’t know where it was from” (Luke 20:1-7).
They were disarmed by the logical arguments of Jesus. There are many
such instances where the reason and logic of Jesus gave outright defeat to
hypocrites. They tried to trap son of man on the question of paying taxes to Caesar
– So the spies questioned him – “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what
is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in
accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
He saw through their duplicity and said to them, “Show me a denarius.
Whose inscription and portrait are on it?”
“Caesar’s” they said.
He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is
God’s.”
They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And
astonished by his answer, they became silent. (Luke 20:21-26). This is how the
illogical and irrational people were silenced by logics and reasoning. The
hypocrites of the aberrant society camouflages its cultural neurosis with
pretentious of higher moral standards. Jesus knew it very well and was determined
to expose the reality – “For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed and
whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out in the open” (Mark 4:27). This is
what he did fearlessly to the extreme discomfort for theologies of his time – One
of the experts of the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you
insult us also” (Luke 11:45).
Jesus was in fact, operating as a critical sociologist by exposing the
camouflaged and hidden face of an insane society and it was sure to offend. The
major function of critical sociology is to unearth what is hidden and unmask the
devilry. Jesus spoke a parable – “The stone the builders rejected has become the
capstone. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on
whom it falls will be crushed.” (Luke 20:17-18).
The critical sociology was formulated in the twentieth century with a prime
objective of quest for radical social change, but it was also the main instrument of
Jesus’ ministry. Getting rid of the old, he strived to bring in the new. His idea of
the new was concrete and ingenious, but destined to face massive oppositions.
Bringing in the new was also intriguing problem to those who were anxious for the
new but rooted deeply into their past. St. Paul’s letter to early Christians in Roman
province of Galatia is important, where the over enthusiastic teachers who
preached that the Gentile Christians cannot really be saved unless they obeyed all
the Jewish laws such as circumcision etc. – “Neither circumcision no
uncircumcision , what counts is new creation.” Jesus worked for radical social
change, where he did not rule out even the use of force. But he had his own
definition of the force to be used for materializing his concept of change. He was
very aware of the revolutionary activities of the Zealots, who restored to the use of
sword. Some of his followers themselves had been Zealots. The long struggle of
Zealots was ruthlessly suppressed by Romans and their Jewish collaborators. Jesus
once asked his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords. He was not averse to
the idea of sword or fire to attain his objective, but he had realized the power of
words that were more lethal than sword and much more inflammable than any fire
on earth – “These are the words of him who has the sharp, double edged sword.”
(Revelation 2:12) – “I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the
sword of my mouth” (Revolution 2:16) – These are the words of Son of God,
whose eyes were like blazing fire (Revelation 2:18).
The radical action or thought is also linked with violence as in cases of the
French revelation or the Communist revolution. Jesus was also not opposed to it
but his instrument was ingenious. His double edged sword or his fire was the word
which was out to burn down the deadwood of human civilization or cut to pieces
the traces of the insane society. But the most significant form of his assault on
culture neurosis was shedding his own blood as if he had absorbed the aberrant
social behavior like a blotter. Then he had to expel the evil by shedding his own
blood. The same blood he gave to whosoever decided to follow him- “This cup is
the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20). His
disciples, who deserted him during his arrest, ultimately shed the same blood for
the same objective. The blood of Jesus kindled the fire to burn the old, and his
word’s double edged sword cut down the robbers in his temple, who had deformed
the face of human civilization. The Son of Man was sure that his words would
bring out the change and so he did it inspite of extreme resistance from those who
stood for statuesque.
John, in his second letter to Corinthians rightly defined the Christianity,
when he told them – “Anyone, if in Christ is a new creation.” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Jesus, while making a new social order, was also transforming the backward
looking man into a futuristic rebel. His own disciple Peter, called rock for his
bravery, deserted him the moment Jesus was arrested, and denied him thrice. He
and others of his group refused to believe the resurrection, probably to escape the
persecution, but the same lot later said – “But in keeping with his promise we are
looking forward to a new heaven, a new earth” (2 Peter 3:13). It is a very
significant statement by Peter, where he means that Son of Man was carefully
constructing an absolutely new religious system, a new heaven and also a new
earth, that is; a new human history.
Quite a lot has been written by more competent scholars than me, about the
creation of new heaven by Jesus that we now see as Christianity. A massive
literature on Christianity has influenced philosophers, social thinkers, painters,
dramatists and literary writers. Now I would like to see his new earth as created by
this Son of Man. The new earth or the new human history can be read by means of
cultural and academic achievements of Christian world. The unparallel work in
science and humanities, contributed to create new human history to change the
very face of not only the earth but the entire universe.
An important scientist of this era Stephen Hawking begins the first chapter
of his famous book ‘A Brief History of Time’; with a very interesting anecdote
concerning the behaviour of the earth and the sun in our galaxy. Probably it was
Bertrand Russell, according to Hawking who gave a scientific description of the
earth orbiting around the sun and the sun orbiting around the centre of a very large
number of stars known as galaxy. A wise old lady sprang up to challenge his
contention and firmly said that, what was being told to the audience in the
conference was rubbish and that the earth, like a flat plate, was supported on the
back of a tortoise. The Hindu religious myths also have a similar belief. They
believe that there is unfathomable water upon the surface of which there is a
tortoise bearing the plate of the earth.
 Aristotle though observed that the earth is round and not a plate like
structure; was stationary and that the sun, the moon and the stars moved around
the earth, the idea of earth being the centre of moving planets continued to be
subscribed since it left proper space for heaven and hell of the Bible. Then it was
challenged by Copernicus, a Polish priest, of course anonymously in 16th century
A.D. that the earth and the planets were moving in orbit around the stationary sun.
Galileo, however, with the help of a new invention revolutionized the human
knowledge about the universe. The Roman Catholic Church tried Galileo for his
discovery and accused for being a heretic, was declared guilty to be imprisoned.
The Catholic Church forbade any thought that deviated from the teachings of the
Bible. Inspite of the strong persecution, this great scientist founded the new citadel
of modern science. Another major chapter of physical science was written by
Newton, born in the year Galileo died. With these two geniuses of modern science,
making of the new earth as conceived by the Son of Man, starts materializing. The
wise old man, Aristotle, would have been shocked to see what we know now about
the Universe. Starting from big bang, the science revealed to us the world of
quantum physics, general relativity and super string theory, etc which would have
baffled the greatest of the wise-men of ancient Greece and Rome.
The astonishing achievements of molecular physics exposed the wonder of
matter transforming into boundless energy. The genetic science revealed the
mysteries of living organisms. The man, even a century ago, could not imagine the
possibility of creating clones. Making of a new earth of the Son of Man became a
reality with new discoveries by the community of scientists in Christian
civilization. Man landed on Moon, a smooth boll of Aristotle.
Space stations and probes to other planets because a reality. Where as the
ancient physicians never knew anything about heart transplant, or used to
amputate the organs with the help of crude axes or the saw. Now the most
complex surgical instruments are there. We never knew what the form of the core
of the earth is. Who could think of sling shots or bow and arrows being replaced
by laser guided air bombing or then a nuclear explosion? The computerized huge
industrial establishments produce mechanical or electronic gadgets, cars,
aeroplanes and the inventions of information technology.
The making of new earth does not mean only the incredible development of
science and technology. It also opened new vista of art culture and literature. Just
like science, art and literature also took quite long time to reach where we see it
now. Rich art work in Christian society began with what art critics call Byzantine
art, which was both Christian and oriental. Byzantine art was essentially religious
in character. It was subservient to the church and the artists dutifully followed the
clergy, who instructed them to illustrate their teachings. The Christian in temper
and content, this trend of art was oriental in the sense that it preferred color to
form and was more decorative than realistic. Under the Byzentinian influence of
colour, the medium of art continued to be mosaics of tiles, coloured glasses and
even silks. This stylized art took an absolutely novel form in artists like Wassily
Kandinkey of twentieth century. The traces of Byzentine can also be seen in the
works of Ben Nicholson Nijinsky and to some extent in the styles of Paul Klee and
Georges Braque, though these artistes strongly deviated from Byzantine art
content wise. The Byzantine art was the major form even upto thirteenth century.
Crucifixes and other scenes from the Gospels were the main expressions of artists,
though by this time the Byzantine influence was being replaced by realism which
became very prominent in the creations of Leonardo da Vinci and Venation
Masters. Michelangelo’s huge painting was done for the Sistine Chapel knows as
the Creation of the World. He also painted a huge 11 x 13 meter theme of the Last
Judgement. The Venetian Masters decided to use the canvas for painting and now
the world of art was revolutionized for future. With the movement of
enlightenment the painters liberated themselves from the dictates of the Church
and now the Christian art became secular to make the man their major theme.
Though it seems that artistes concern for man instead of the theology was
an almost total departure from the Church, the Gospels seem to be alive in their
psyche. The modernity completely transformed the art but a close study of under
artists’ thought reveals striking inheritance of words of the Son of Man. Manet, a
renowned painter of impressionist movement of modern art gave a very important
statement about his work, as quoted by art critic E.M. Ramsden in his book, “An
Introduction to Modern Art - The most important person in any picture is light”.
The light as personified by Monet must be seen in the light of the words of Jesus –
light has come into the world but men loved darkness instead of light. (John 3:19).
The people during the time of Monet disbelieved in the creative value of the works
of modern artists because they failed to see the inner meanings of new paintings
though they had the eyes – “You have eyes but fail to see” (Mark 8:18), “I am the
light of the world” (John 8:12) he said but people failed to appreciate the
complexity of the word ‘light’ and the same happened with modern painter’s
‘light’. The manifesto of Surrealist painters published in 1924 that seemed to have
distinct shadow of Gospelian vocabulary. Andre Breton is quoted in this context
by Ramsden and we must see Breton’s words therein along side the Gospels –
“Every thing induces the belief that there exists a certain stage of the spirits in
which life and death, the real and the imaginary, the past and the future cease to be
perceived as contradictions”.
Jesus said to believing Jews – “then you will know the truth and the truth
will set you free” (John 8:32). And the surrealist artists said – “Surrealist seeks the
liberation of man from every fetter, social, political, intellectual, moral, artistic and
spiritual by which he has hitherto been bound. “(An introduction to Modern Art,
Oxford University press, 1949, p II) The futurists proclaiming the basis and end of
their art to be the simultaneous presentation of states of soul at a given moment”
(Same P.14)
 No other culture than the Christians produced towering personalities like
Picasso and Salvador Dali, and the same is the case with world literature. The
Greeks undoubtedly produced the greatest of the playwrights before the Christian
era but the Christian culture’s achievements are unprecedented, matchless and
massive. From Goethe to Brecht in Germany, from Voltaire to Camus in France,
from Shakespeare to Eliot in Britain, from Emerson to Ezra pound in America and
so on make the greatest history of literature that produced creative giants like
Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. The fact that some of them, though born within the
Christianity, ceased to be the believers but they were the products of the Christian
society no doubt.
The art, literature, philosophy, science and other disciplines of humanities
that enriched the cultural scene of the human civilization can be credited to the
Christianity founded by the Son of Man, who was the only person in human
history who provided maximum space to words. The Son of Man gave maximum
space for knowledge and creativity of man and the man turned a seed into a great
fruit bearing tree.
The similar has been the case of new heaven that was created by him. Jesus
inherited the heaven or the theology from the culture of Jews. He was circumcised
according to Jewish orthodoxy, was presented before the altar of the Temple of
Jerusalem. He had been visiting synogognes of the Jews and inherited their
religious system. This old system highly dissatisfied Jesus because of its doors of
knowledge completely closed. Jesus, then, decided to create a new heaven of his
theology and then he effectively did. The new earth and the new heaven, that he
created, transformed the very history of civilization.
 4. Pains to give birth to new

George Santayana made a very interesting comment on history and social

change “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (Life of
Reason, Reason in Commonsense, Scribner’s 1905, p. 284)
This is a very significant critique of Jesus and his time. The people
managing the Jewish faith during his period were a community strongly
committed to their past, undoubtedly. But their commitment was merely to
conserve it. So they were merely their past remembering or memorizing it. The
past has to be critically re-read to ascertain what is relevant therein and what is
not. The civilizational history during the passage of time collects lots of dead word
and dead leaves that have to degenerate and decompose to give way to new
growth. The newly grown plants do have a close relation to the past of history, but
only to decompose it and retain whatever is needed for fertility. The past in this
sense, cannot be carried forward as it is. The memorized past is a burden of dead
wood upon the shoulders of human history. And you experts in law, woe to you,
because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry. (Luke 11:46)
The Pharisees and Sadducees, the religious elite of the Jews merely remembered
the past and were subsequently condemned to keep it repeating, without
contributing anything material to social configuration and historical growth. They
take away the key to knowledge. They themselves refrain for entering the door to
knowledge and prevent those who could enter. Jesus was a unique person who was
well quainted with the past but refrained from “memorizing” it – Every tree that
does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into fire. (Mathew 7:19)
Jesus was talking about this very fine with which hew desire to burn down
the deadwood of history – I have come to bring fire on the earth. (Luke 12:49) He
is said to have made a highly ironical statement when one of his followers wanted
to stay – back – Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and burry my
father”.
But Jesus told him “Follow me and let the dead burry their dead” (Mathew
8:20-22)
 Let the dead burry their dead is neither a riddle nor insensitivity. He uses
poetic antiquity here to clear his stand with respect to past. The people keen to
observe the tradition, according to Jesus are dead bodies and not living organisms
unsuitable culture growth as designed by Son of Man. He dissociates from the past
even to prevent anybody calling him the prophet. He does not hesitate to say.
Before Abraham was born. I am (John 8:58) Whatever may be the spiritual
interpretation of this utterance, it is a clear indication of revolt from the past. He
dares to challenge even the authority of Nabidom – I tell you the truth. It is not
Moses who has given you bread. (John 6:32). These instances are clear examples
of departure of Jesus from pat. Ignoring the morals of the past he fearlessly says –
For John came neither eating nor drinking and they say, “He has a demon”. The
son of Man came eating and drinking and they say. “Here is a glutter and a
drunkard, a friend of Tax Collectors and sinners. But wisdom is proved right by
her actions (Mathew 11:18-19).
The past, if crammed for the sake of faith, is simply a dead wood and
cannot be conducive to make new. As I quoted. Jesus dedicated himself to make
all things new – I am making everything new. (Revelation 21:5) Son of Man could
not tolerate the stagnating past. He hated to repeat it. You circumcise a child on
Sabbath. Now, if a child can be circumcised on Sabbath so that the Law of Moses
may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the
Sabbath. Stop judging me by mere appearances and make the right judgement
(John 7:22-24).
Jesus here differentiates between appearance and reality the major issue
taken up by the subjective idealists. What Jesus meant, here is that the Pharisees
criticized him on the basis of ideas subjectively formed in their minds, not having
anything to do with outside reality – Hypocrites you know how to interpret the
appearances appearance.. (Luke 12:56) Jesus was not there for the subjective
knowledge of the outside world. The subjective idealist holds that the perception
by means of senses depends upon the mind of the perceiver the mind provides the
ides that construct the reality of outside world. The Jewish theologies were used to
construct the reality only through their subjective ideas. Jesus as an analyst
philosopher knew what was wrong with subjective idealists. We can briefly see
how modern logical analysts refute the said idealists. The thesis of the subjective
idealist, if we take George Berkeley of 18th century, for example, is that to exist is
to be either a mind or an idea in some mind. That is to say that only minds and
ideas in minds exist. Berkeley later, took up the position of Neo-Platonism to say.
That the eternal existence of ideas in the mind of God. G.E. Moore wrote a
convincing critique of Subjective idealism. His philosophical work “The
Refutation of Idealism was published in the very beginning of 20 th century and
more effectively exposed the fallacies and contradictions of subjective idealists.
Berkeley held that the being is only to be perceived. The further details of this
debate, however are not very necessary here. But we must see, how a subjective
idealist appropriates the theory to formulate his personal or subjective ideas the
theory to formulate his personal or subjective ideas and abuses the thesis for the
sake of his prejudices and unfair reactions as a member of Jewish theocracy. The
Pharisees and the Sadducees, with a motive to persecute Jesus for his
revolutionary thoughts used the formulations of subjective idealism. Jesus, very
well versed in Gentile philosophies , particularly the Neoplatonism had to answer
their interpretation of appearance. The Pharisees were deliberately distancing the
reality appearance and Jesus had to refute it and that had forcefully. The religious
elites of Jews, as Neoplatonism believed that all ideas resided in God therefore the
entire reality is also the construct by God and the Son of Man had no business to
intervene. Jesus replied them in same Neoplatonic terms – I am he (John 13:19) I
am the light of the world (John 9:5) I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is and
who was and who is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:0) Since he is himself
the God he has his mind, his ideas and his power to contract new reality. This was
an effective reply to the orthodox new reality. This was an effective reply to the
orthodox or hypocrite subjective idealist Pharisees. Yet he knew what they will do
to a radical revolutionary thinker – Blessed are you when people insult you,
persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
(Matthew 5:11). He will be handed over to Gentiles. They will mock him, insult
him spit on him, flog him and kill him (Luke 18:32).
While Jesus stood for reason firmly the Pharisees opposing him, continued
their assault with subjective decisions – Then they hurled insults at him and said.
“You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know that God
spoke to Moses, but as far this fellow. We don’t even know where he comes from”
(John 9:28-29).
The Pharisees obviously had no logic and absolutely no reason. This is
where a subjective idealist theology stands. His arguments are fallacious
incoherent and reflect his prejudices. Jesus was facing this very lot of the
practitioners of absurd philosophy. Jesus had to face the illogical expressions of
the people who were conserving the theological past without verifying if it had
any deadwood therein. Jesus was anxious to burn down the dead wood and the
wild plants to save crop he was to grow.
The modern philosophers, while contesting Berkeley Ian thesis, discussed
the concept of appearance in relation to objects of outside world. The mere
appearance cannot give the supposed exactness of an object. Any object, seen
from different angles gives us the different appearances. Complete roundness of
ball can never be seen by any body. When we sit by the side of a table, we can
never see all the four logo. The table shall appear to have merely two legs. How
can we reach the real form of a table if we singularly wish to bank upon its
appearance? That is why Jesus retorted – Stop judging by mere appearances and
make the right judgement. (John 7:24).
 Mere appearances do not lead to exact acquaintances of the reality. As
already mentioned. George Santayana like Gospels for their poetic aesthetics. The
philosopher must have gone through the statements of Jesus such as this – Just as
it was in the days of Noah. So also will it be in days of Son of Man. (Luke 17:26).
He was indicating the flood of social unrest and rebellion that were to follow the
new social order for which Jesus struggled even at the cost of his life. The great
flood during the time of Noah was to wipe out everything of the world excepting
whatever had to be saved by him in the ark. The past, therefore, was not being
conserved or repeated by Noah. He tried to make way to everything new. Jesus
also designed a new future and his desire to make everything new had to follow a
great social flood of unrest. That is how Noah was going to be repeated and that
the future of the civilization had to board the ARK of his thoughts before that. His
own life was not easy and he knew that his efforts to change the very character of
civilization was still more difficult – when you hear of wars and revolutions do not
be frightened. These things must happen first but the end will not come right
away. Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There will be
great earthquakes, fauns and pestilences in various places and fearful events and
great signs from heaven (Luke 21:9-11).
Like a visionary poet, he uses figurative expression for what was going to
happen to mankind when the new social order emerges leaving behind the dead
skin. This is what Jesus calls a deluge when he could take the civilization to a new
life like Noah – Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also it will be in the days of
Son of Man. Here he also indicates that he was to turn. The world upside down –
It was the same in the days of Lot people were eating and drinking, buying and
selling, planting and building. But the day lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained
down from heaven and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:28-29).
He told his disciples that he had come to bring fire to earth. His thoughts
were going to rain fire and his words to come down upon the social status quo as
showers of sulfuric acid. These are some of his poetic expressions avidly
appreciated by an atheist philosopher Santayana of 20th century. Jesus was
confident that during his very short life whatever was being done by him, shall
totally dismantle the existing socio-cultural order – I tell you the truth, not one
stone here will be left another, every one will be thrown down. (Mathew 24:2).
This is what is called social action by modern sociologists, for the purpose of
social change. Jesus programmed his mission by his social action to give
completely new social structure to people of his time – we will not all sleep, but
we will all be changed, in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye. (I Corinthians 15:51-
52). Changing in a flash means radical change or absolutely new and
unprecedented civilizational construct. But here quite unlike the theorists of social
action, like Max Weber, he explores the new reality. The character of this new
reality can be better understood if we perceive it the way Raymond Williams does
– just as the scientist is the explorer of new realms of outer reality. The artist
continually discovers new kingdom of the heart. (Culture and Society 1700-1950.
Pelican Books, 1961, p.269) Raymond Williams use of the word the kingdom of
heart indicates the world of fine arts though has flashes of the incept of son of
Man’s the kingdom of heaven – you are a letter from Christ… written an tablets of
human hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:3) The poetic or artistic world is the kingdom of
heart, according to Raymond Williams, and social construct of Jesus was the
kingdom of Heaven. Heart is not merely a blood pumping organ of body to Jesus.
Heart is source of affective type of social action for Jesus as we can see him
forcibly correcting the social order in the temple of Jerusalem where – He entered
the temple area and began driving out those who were selling.
He said to them “my house will be a house of prayer but you have made it a
den of robbers “(Luke 19:45-46)
We can better understand the spirit of the kingdom of heaven of Jesus
addressed to the heart of mankind through the words of Paul to Corinthians “Letter
of Christ written an tablets of human hearts” coupled with what was said by
travelers of road to Amman’s –were not our hearts burning with in us while he
talked with us on the road and opened the scriptures to us ?” (Luke24:32). The
words of Jesus to travelers on road to ammans strikingly remind us the writing of
Ten Commandments on stone tablets at Mount Sinai. The tablets of Moses were
engraved, according to the myth, with burning rays of five. The expression of
Amman’s travelers has the words of Jesus engraved upon the heart with fire –I
have come to bring fire on earth (Luke 12:49). This very fire is the affective social
action of Max Weber and also the painting done by fire to create the kingdom of
heart. The heart of the new world of painting as autonomous kingdom of heart also
brought fire to make traditional aesthetic values of harmony, proportion, rhythm,
redundant . So was the treatment of Jesus to the canvas of civilization. He painted
history with brush of fire to create new canon of life and thought, different from
the classical ones. People shocked to see the works of cubists or surrealists in
painting so was the reaction of religious elite to see Jesus writing over the hearts
of people with his pen of fire. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute
you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. (Matthew 5:11)
As philosopher of pragmatism and thinker of social action, Jesus was
grappling with an ‘insave society’ in the words of Eric Fromm. It is easy to cure
individual neurosis but very complicated affair to diagnose and treat collective
neurosis, abseves Eric Fromm “since no one possesses the power to compel the
community to adapt the therapy”. (The save society, Routt edge London,
2002p.20) Jesus was, however determined to accomplish this impossible task,
whatever the cost. The task would not have been as difficult had he resorted to the
sword. He complicated his deal more by his social action first to dislodge the god
and spiritually of classical faith and then to install his own wisdom. The classical
elite know very well what was going to happen to their God and temple. If Jesus
succeeds –
God lay dead in heaven
Angels says the hymn of the end
Purple winds went moaning
Their wings drip-dripping
With blood
That fell upon the earth
It, groaning Thing
Turned black and sack
Then from the caverns
Of dead sins
Came monsters Livid with desire
They fought
Wrangled over the world…..
-Stephen Crane

The minds of hypocrites of the time of Jesus are aptly expressed by Crane.
They were horrified to imagine what will happen to their outdated world if Jesus
succeeded. He did succeed though the mankind had to wait for more than a
century. The forthcoming social change that which was a horror for Jewish elite.
Has to have birth pains as foretold by Jesus – Nation will rise against nation and
kingdom against kingdom. There will earthquakes in various places and famines.
These are the beginning of birth pains. (Mark 13:8) Son of Man was impregnating
the civilization that was to give birth to new world and he know about the
oncoming birth pains The whole process was unbearable to Pharisees and
Sadducees but no less tormenting to Jesus himself – he took Peter and the two
sons of Zebedee along with him and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then
he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.
(Mathew 26:37-38). The Jewish elite were anguished to see the oncoming end of
their world and Jesus was feeling severe pains of giving birth to the new
civilization. This was the difference between the two. The farmer was anxious to
conserve the stagnating past while the later was dedicated to bring in new. One
seed was to die in the fertile land of wisdom to give birth to hundreds of seeds.
 5. Theology for man not man for theology Tissue
culturing Human iritative

Before moving further, I would like to quote from a very interesting essay
by Havelock Ellis, a social thinker of the closing years of nineteenth century, “The
religion of Jesus was the invention of a race which itself never accepted that
religion… And as a matter of fact Jesus found no successor … something even
stronger than theology or metaphysics has served to cut us off from the spirit of
Jesus and that is the spirit of Paul, certainly the real founder of ‘Christianity’. As
the children of Paul and in no respect the children of Jesus. “(Morals, manners and
Men, Havelock Ellis, Watts & Co. London, 1948, pp. 67-68).
Though interesting, the observation of Havelock Ellis is not very
reasonable. His analysis is based on the assumption that a great man buildup a
train of his followers. Jesus was not a man eager to produce his replicas or his
carbon copies. His purpose was to make a civilization of independent & creative
human beings. He knew that the kernel grown out of a seed does not produce the
identical seeds. One seed produces one hundred or one thousand seeds but each of
the thousand seeds has its own identity, with its specific form due to its genetic
character. A culture having mechanical replicas of human being has been the
objective of mechanical theology practiced by traditional or orthodox religious
gurus. They always create an elaborate system that functions like a photo copier
machine reducing the individuality almost to zero. Jesus was highly radical and
revolutionary person in his respect. When he said that the laws are for men and the
men are not for the laws. He actually also meant that any theology is meant for
man and the man is not meant for theology. This is the reason Jesus did not
formulate his system of theology. He did not laydown any specific rules and
regulations for social functioning and never gave any laws whatso ever.
Undoubted he stressed upon certain moral values for social life and adopted
traditional laws available to him from great social reformers like Abraham and
Moses, but at times he found his own logic to disown them whenever he found the
said laws contradicting the fundamental human values. He was never happy with
the orthodoxy that condemned and denounced the women supposed to be sinners
because he was aware of the fact that these women were victims of the
exploitations by evil men.
We must carefully see his statement. All men will hate you because of me.
(Luke 21:17) Jesus was sure that his philosophy shall never find the support of the
masses he was addressing. He was born in a society, most conspicuous made by
the theocrats as per their desire just to remain the army of robots without having
any consciousness of their own. The people under this system had to live like
blinds and mutes. The orthodoxy hated Jesus because he was giving vision to
blinds and voice to those who never protested or seldom made an effort to give
voce to their own sense of justice the religious system of his time was actually
comprised of the senseless elements having eyes but never to see the truth. The
religious elite did not tolerate any one with vision and voice. They did not tolerate
any one with vision and voice. They did not tolerate any one to walk on his own
feet over a path of his choice. So they hated Jesus when he inspires people not to
remain intellectually laurel. He just provoked the men not moving forward in life
to move and this is what Gospels said that it was his miracle. It was undoubtedly a
miracle because he made the man to move forward who was compelled to be a
part of stagnating society. The hands were prevented from building anything new
and the son of man activated those hands. A woman, it is said, could not stand
strait and the son of man changed her destiny. He made the women of stand erect
hefore the injustice. The miracles he performed were not the pysiologicacure,
normally being done by a physician or a surgeon. They are the allegorical
expressions of empowerment of human beings done by the son of man. He made
the man choose his path and move with confidence for making new earth. He
empowered the human being to use his hand for constructing his future. He gave
vision to the people so that they could understand what is right and what is wrong
for their life. He resorted the confidence to the people to raise voice against
injustice and not remain mute. Whereas the people hated to socially segregate
persons suffering from leprosy. Son of man cleaned and treated theme with
affection. He did not hesitate to dine at the house of a leper so despise in society.
His purpose was to empower the people and not to create an army of
religious followers. All through the human history the religious systems have been
anxious to produce a disciplined army of followers who were made to suspend
their initiative to become mute and blind. Son of man hated this situation and tried
to convert them into seeds for independent growth. He did never want to control
and guide the consciousness and the life of people. Instead of giving any
readymade theological order, he said he will give words and wisdom. He intended
to make people competent to thinks and analyse.
The observation of Havelock Ellis is undoubtedly interesting but it is short
of analytical reason. Paul was not Jesus, but he was trying to accomplish what he
though would have been done by Son of Man had his life not been shortened.
 Paul went further even to lay down the rules Jesus would never have
approved. Those who have wives should live as if they had non (1 Cor 7:29). A
woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. (1 Cor 7:39) I also want
women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair (1
Timothy 2:9). In contrast we must recollect what Jesus said to a Samaritan woman
– You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is you have had five
husbands and the man now you have is not your husband. What you have just said
is quite true. (John 4:17-18) Jesus does not express his disapproval to her life style
of changing five though Paul, as quoted above, would have condemned her. Jesus
never talked about the so-called decency of the women’s dress though he was
criticized by Pharisees which anointed by a sinful woman. It is Paul who
introduced orthodoxy in Christianity in his desire to be more Christian than Christ.
Ellis has rightly observed that Christian saints like Jerome or Augustine were
children of Paul and not of Jesus but the same in true with Paul also. The
Christianity, for quite a long time, had been wrought with irrational orthodoxy
since the post Jesus history was shaped by those who were very eager to be
faithful Christians going out of the way to introduce rules and regulations to
control and direct the Christian theology which was never the part of the thesis of
Jesus himself. Ellis says that Jesus found no successor. As a matter of fact the Son
of Man’s glorious achievement was possible only because he did not believe in his
heritage or succession. The twelve disciples deserted him outright only one of
them was by the side of the cross. Paul never seemed to have any sympathy for
women folk while the women wept for Jesus, stood by the side of cross and were
the first to reach the place of his burial the following day and discover that his
body had disappeared.
The Christianity, as contracted by Paul and other followers did not take
long to become a system which man sought freedom from mechanical laws of
theocrats while the builders of Christianity, did the opposite. We have seen Paul
laying down mechanical laws not only for pastor worshipers and so on. I do not
believe if Jesus would have appreciated Pauls law – from now on those who have
wives should live as if they had none. (1 Corinthians 7:29)
Jesus gave a very meaningful statement when the grumbling unbelievers
were about to desert him – The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are
life. (John 6:63).
The history gives testimony that his words got roots in most of those who
either deserted him or never came closer. Why and how? The answer is provided
by the Son of Man himself – the words spoken by him are spirit and they are life.
The word, is supposed to be merely a unit of language with a particular meaning
commonly used with other words to form a statement. A sign system, that fulfills
the cognitive and communicative functions, formed by words is knows as
language. But this function of words is mechanical. Here the language
appropriates the words like an inanimate material. The way bricks form a wall, the
said units constitute language. The words as units of an expression thus are
supposed to have mechanical utility and their relationship to meanings can and
should not be altered list at the supposed cost of logical distortions. Wittgenstein’s
logical atomist doctrine of language makes the words intrinsically unalterable and
immobile. Words, a per linguistic philosophy should be have like stone blocks.
The character of the word for Jesus was absolutely different in the sense that for
him the words were not immobile stoneblocks. The words according to him were
spirit and life. His words were organic matter with genetic tissues of living
organism. They tend to undergo the socio-historical evolution and a quite a few
occasion, emergent evolution. The organic words of Son of Man are not to
produce the mechanical forms of Christians. They produce human beings with
possibilities of creativity, thought and inventions. Picasso or Charlie Chaplin
creates a new world whether their words are conductive to the propagation of
Christian theology or not. Having least to do with traditional Christian theology, it
were surely the organic, living words of the Son of Man that opened the view of
man to look into the unfathomable epths of universe through instruments like
telescopes of Galileo or Hubble. No apostle or a priest of the past could foresee the
tremendous literary achievements in poetry, drama, fiction or literary theories.
Had Jesus used the inorganic stone blocks of words, the following generations
would not have had Shakespeare. Brecht, Upene O Neil, Camas, Dostoevsky,
Tolstoy, Gunter Grass, Marques Tommy Morrison and so on. I doubt if Marx or
Lenin, would have been possible” who changed the face of a history thought they
were the believers. The two of the greatest and the most significant revolutions
that change the history, the frew revolution and the Russian October revolution
took place within the Christian civilization. As I have already observed. Jesus did
not gave any book containing any religious rules, regulations and theological laws
for human society. This is the reason the following generations became free to
grow and develop for evolving ingenious culture growth. I would like to quote a
short poem here –
“Men made out of words”
What should we be without sexual myth?
The human reverie or poem of death?
Castratos of moon-mash-life consists
Of Propositions about life. The human
Reverie is solitude in which
We compose these propositions, torn by dreams,
By the terrible incantations of defeats
And by the fear that defeats and dreams is one.
 The wholerace is a poet that writes down
The eccentric propositions of its fate.
- Wallace Stevens

In his Beatitudes he said – You are the light the world. A city on a hill
cannot be hidden. (Matthew 5:14) Not any ruler nor any religious leader, but he
was addressing a common man and the son of man attributed this glory to a person
who was supposed to be most insignificant entity, in human history – You are the
light of the world!
No other founder of any religion ever gave such a glorious place to a
commoner. Not similar, though, nearest possible preaching was done by Buddha
who asked his followers to become torch lights presuming that they themselves
were not a part of enlightenment and had to be inspired to become the light – Atta
devo bhava. Jesus imparted awareness to common man that he was himself a light
and the he came into this world with a clear objective of brining the enlightment.
Though late the inspired people did elight the civilizations. Voltaire, Roussean,
Montesquieu, Herder, Lessing, Sohiller and Goethe, all of them were the products
of Christ civilization though they were a soft of emergent evolution breaking out
of the bonds of faith. The enlighteners struggled out to free themselves from
religious dogma and assumed that human consciousness plays decisive role to
account for social development.
I shall briefly try to see how a man inspired by son of man to realize that he
has all potentials of the light, became the light house in civilizational travels
towards the future. He discovered what was unknown and created what was
inconceivable in the past. We can see the creative works like Ibsen’s Dolls House
or Anna kareriva of Tolstoy. Both of the writings portray a woman, never before
identified in history. The woman, was commanded by religious leaders from
Moses to Paul to submit to her husband as to the Lord. (Ephasians 5:22). And this
is what they did for centuries, very religiously. But the women were anxious to
change their destiny which was being denied by orthodoxy. The Christian
civilization after the enlightenment and particularly the French Revolution, saw
the revolutionary change in social status of women. The most submissive woman
suddenly became aware of her right to freedom – Doll’s House present us with a
marriage in which husband Torvald expects his wife Nora not only to be a good
wife, mother and housekeeper but also an eternally childish ‘baby doll’… the door
she slamed reached through Europe and it is true that this is the first European
play to present the predicament of the made woman refusing to be the shrinking
violet and the weaker sex contemporary society demanded. (Four Major Plays :
Henrik Ibsen, Airmont Publishing, N.Y. 1966, introduction by John Grube p. 8)
The play Wright being aware of his self as light of the world, makes the
world see a new woman. It is the light of the man that discovers a reality never
seen before as expressed by Engine Ionesco in his drama “The Chairs’. In a
circular room surrounded by stagnant water, the old couple receives visitors and
offers the chairs, who are not their at all and the orator addresses the non existent
visitors without uttering a word. This drama is a fine example of the
psychosomatic suffering of an old disillusioned couple. But for the inherent light,
the playwright could never have succeeded in describing the complex reality as
shown in “The Chairs”.
The Cubist and the Surrealist pointes discovered the reality never seen
before by anybody. Salvador Dali painted an abstraction entitle ‘Average
atmospheriocephalic bureaucrat in the act of milking a cranical harp’ or Cubist
artist Georges Braque painted still life with Guitar and Metronome’ never seen in
this form. A picture of Jesus was pained by Georges Renault. Instead of
representing the reality of the outer form of Christ, Rouault had tried to discover
the moments of passion in Gethsemane during the persecution by soldiers before
crucifixion. Jesus was never painted in this form by anybody else. This vision was
the result of creativity of the light that was reminder specifically by the son of
man. When he told that the man is the light of the world, he was highlighting the
fact that the man shall be able to see in the light whatever remains undiscovered.
The man shall see the galaxies and the blackholes, he shall see the death of distant
stars, he shall see the inner structure of the atom and shall see the behaviour of a
strange Bosone. The same light of man shall be destiny of the man of machine age
as seen by Chaplin in his film ‘Modern Times’ or what is the real form of Hitler in
his film ‘The Greater Dictator’. The same light enabled Karl Marx to see the class
exploitation by capitalist system and Einstein to findout the famous theory
relativity and Darvin the logic of evolution. Martin Luther King found the way to
freedom for Afro-Americans and the modern man visualized democracy.
This is the man who was once upon a time being crucified on street corners
and where children below the age of two years being ruthlessly killed jut for the
whine of rulers. People were massacred only because a king wanted to see the
human being waiting. People were forced to fight each other to death like animals
just for the sake of the king’s pleasure. Men like Abraham had to declare wife a
sister to save her from the lust of the ruler. The common man was treated as a fly
or a mosquito for thousand of years by the ruling class. People were tortured and
killed for the morbid blood thirst of rulers like Nero or Herod. When the man
realized the he is the light, he became Thomas Paine, as mentioned earlier, to
restore the human dignity and bring about the laws of equity, justice and social
rights. Let your light shine before men, said the Son of Man and the light did
shine.
The new earth was created by human being only when he recovered his self
confidence and this confidence was ignited when the son of man told – Ask and it
will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to
you. For everyone who asks receives; he will seeks finds and to him who knocks
the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8) He knows that the political and religious
rulers had strong aversion to people asking, seeking or knocking at the doors.
They liked the amuse and submissive subjects. Jesus was determined to emperor
the weak and he was equipping him with his words as sharp as double edged
sword, (Revelation 2:12) and not the weapons of Zealots. This is actually the five
that Jesus had decided to bring on earth. The five of words was destined to burn
down the civilizational deadlock and he was using his words to empower the
human being to materialize his dream. He was devising his civilizational
revolution by tissue-culturing the human initiative. He said during the last supper
– Take and eat, his is my body. (Matthew 26:26) He took the bread, gave thanks
and broke it and gave it to his disciples.
This very act should be understood as an act of self tissue culture by which
he intended to create independent creative, revolutionary Son of Man and not the
mere followers for the purpose of making new earth. No other messiah had ever
tried this self tissue culture in the known human history. His greatest sacrifice was
to culture his own tissues and offer them to human history – I will give you the
words (Luke 21:15) he said he himself was the word as described by John. Son of
Man offered his flesh to eat so that the issues of his flesh could grow inside the
following generations. He never taught anything but he enabled the mankind to
learn. However I am convinced that the greatest of all men. This son of man has
been grossly misunderstood by the enthusiasts of faith and the others, outside the
faith distanced themselves because of their dislike to the Christian spiritualist.
Less than the wind that blows
Are all your words to us you died to save.
-To Jesus on His Birthday :
Edna St. Vincent Millary
 6. Dismantling the old

Buddha never wrote anything in his life. He had dialogues with people or
delivered speeches before the audience. Whatever he said in his lifetime was later
collected by his disciples. So was the case with Prophet Mohammad. His
Revelations were later written down by his followers. Same was done in the case
of Jesus also but his words were recorded long after his death and probably that is
why they are extremely brief and fragmentary. Probably this brevity prompted his
followers to underplay Jesus’ radical and revolutionary sociology. I shall quote
some of his words in this context which have never been understood in proper
socio-historical terms – I have come to bring fire on the earth and how I wish it
were already kindled (Luke 12:49).
This particular utterance gives a very radical meaning if the spiritual bias is
avoided. I am sure the people familiar with literary idiom can understand the real
meaning of the said words. The words used by a revolutionary also ignite fire in
the hearts of those who expect change. Jesus desire the fundamental socio-culture
change in human history. He meant radical civilizational change by burning down
the dogmatic old. And this is what he did.
It is interesting to note that John the Baptist told his disciples that Jesus
‘shall baptise with fire’ Matthew 4:11) Jesus is very widely acclaimed as
messenger of peace in the world. This is where again he is misread. We have to re-
read what he said in addition to igniting fire – Do you think I have to bring peace
on earth? (Luke 12:51) What he actually meant was that he was to initiate a
civilizational debate. By the word PEACE here he means the social and moral
status quo. He was for the end of peace that is to end of status quo. He wanted to
dismantle the given order. We must also recollect here what he said when his
disciple was appreciating the aesthetic beauty of the temple of Jerusalem. As for
what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left another;
every one of them will be thrown down. (Luke 21:6) the literary reading shall give
us different meaning of these words than a spiritual one which normally takes the
statement as a prophecy to what happened about seven decades after the death of
Jesus. The temple of Jerusalem was completely destroyed by Romans. Jesus, by
his statement that not one stone shall be left on another, did not mean that the
stone structure of the temple shall be destroyed. What he actually meant was that
the entire socio-ethical and cultural structure of the civilization shall be
dismantled. Jesus was in fact forecasting what was to happen to the mankind in
future. In his beatitudes also Jesus uses the word fire and here his real meaning are
very clear – Watch out for false prophets. They come in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ferocious walves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do
people pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Like wise very good
tree hears good fruit. Every tree that cannot bear good fruit is cut down and thrown
into fire. (Matthew 7:15-19) This is why Jesus wanted to make fire and burn down
the tree of social order not bearing the fruits of social change as conceived and
designed by Jesus to build a new social order Jesus wanted to dismantle and burn
the old one which is his opinion had become obsolete and infertile. This fire does
not need a lighter a florist stone or a matchstick. It required the words which
explode to shatter the doors of knowledge closed and locked by the old and
orthodox system – Woe to you experts in the law because you have taken away the
key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered and you have hundred those
who were entering (Luke 11:52).
The orthodoxy of the Jewish religious system as practiced by the religious
elite had to be burnt down to open the GATES of knowledge for the seekers of
new road to civilizational revolution. Jesus did achieve this objective though quite
a few decades after his death. But the fire ignited by his words was more forceful
and incendiary than the fires that burnt Rome or the Temple of Jerusalem. The old
has to be destroyed to bring in new. He who was seated on the throne said, “I am
making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down for these words are trust
worthy and true” (Revelation 21:5) Jesus was bearing fire inside his heart to burn
down the old for binging in the new.
The question, now is, who ignited the fire inside him? Where from could
have come that fire inside the soul of Jesus? With burning anger and dense clouds
of smoke, his lips are full of wrath and his tongue is a consuming fire. (Isa 30:27)
we see exactly the same face of Jesus when he enters the temple to clean it as Peter
says – the elements will be destroyed by fire! (2 Peter 3:10) what was the fire
predicted by John the Baptist? John was very well aware of what was happening
around him. It was almost the intolerable hell. The rulers were lecherous
oppressors and the religious elite were condemnable lot. The socio-economic
condition of people was pathetic. John the Baptist was determined to change the
face of world around him but he knew his future. That is where he expected
someone like Jesus to accomplish the much needed social change. John, in a way
transplanted his five into Jesus.
Some roots of this fire can also be traced into his childhood itself. This
early period of the life of Jesus should be studied carefully and objectively. His
mother had conceived outside the marital status, and she was deeply disturbed –
Marry was greatly troubled …How will this be since I am a Virgin? (Luke 1:29 &
34) Marry gave birth to the child inspite of her anxiety. The Gospels say, Marry
conceived by some angels. Whatever the truth, it might have been a matter of great
courage to mother a child without father. Was the lady contemplating to give birth
to an offspring destined to rebel? Did Marry carefully coached her son to become
a revolutionary? We don’t have much of details of early life of Jesus in Gospels.
Neither they tell much about what would have been her mental state while rearing
up her son conceived without her desire of consent. The only event of his
childhood concerns his debate in the temple – every year his parents went to
Jerusalem for the feast of Passover. When he was twelve years old. They went up
to Feast according to the custom. After the feast was over, while his parents were
returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were in aware
of it. Thinking he was in their company they traveled on for a day. Then they
began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find
him, they went back to Jerusalem to look after him. After three days they found
him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers. Listening to them and asking
them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his
answers. (Luke 2:41-47).
Of course we know as per testimony of Gospels that the child of Marry was
extraordinarily brilliant and inquisitive. He must have been told by his mother
about their grueling exodus from their home to Egypt to save the life of newly
born Jesus from the Killer sent by Herod. He would also have been told how
almost the entire lot of newly born children was slaughtered. He must also have
seen with astonishment the Jewish priests and teachers of law collaborating with
Roman oppressors. His mother, while rearing up Jesus might have impregnated his
mixed carefully with the seeds of disagreement with the system. The twelve year
old child in the temple of Jerusalem was infact a revolutionary in the making.
When he declared later that he had come to put fire, he also said that he was not
for peace. What he actually meant was that he was against the status quo. By the
time he attained the age of thirty he was convinced that he was destined to make
everything new (Rev. 21:5). The Revelation gives a very impressive picture of the
revolutionary change – then I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first
heaven and the first earth had passed away and there was no longer any sea. Saw
the Holy city. The new Jerusalem coming down out (Rev. 21:1-2) This is how the
status quo was to be broken and this is what was desired by Jesus. The confidence
of Jesus, the revolutionary is reflected in his words- Behold. I am coming soon…
Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the
murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood (Rev.
22:12-15) Jesus, now is full of confidence to dismantle the old – Yes I am coming
soon (Rev. 22:20) this is how he stood for succeeded though quite a few decades
after his death. He had said that – He will he handed over to the Gentiles. They ill
mock him, insults him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will
rise again (Luke 18:32-33). He was treated as predicted and ultimately killed. The
personal of his words rose not after three days but after almost seven decades of
his death and this personal changed not only the Israel but a very large part of
human civilization itself.
Interestingly, even the closest of his disciples were septic about his
resurrection on the third day after crucifixion – It was Marry Magdalene, Joanna,
Marry the mother of James and the others with them who told this to apostles. But
they did not believe the women because their words seem to them like nonsense
(Luke 24:10-11).
Of course the apostles took some time to believe but the world took still
more time to believe. The question is does the resurrection mean only the event of
rising up from the dead? Or the said resurrection has some deeper meaning?
Does the resurrection mean anything more than the miracle of rising from
the dead? Could it only mean that the body of the dead became alive once more?
Could this miracle only result into the massive growth of the Christian culture?
We have to look into phenomenon carefully and closely.
 7. Replacing God to materialise his vision

I come across an interesting book entitled ‘The Victory of Reason’ by

Rodney Stark, given to me by my friend Mr. Joseph De-Souza. I could not
however appreciate the contents of the book. The author rightly believes that the
reason has causal relationship with progress but his love for capitalism is almost
unjustifiable and farfetched. As far the new testament is concerned, I do not know
how the traces of Capitalism could he discovered therein. The Capitalism, the
author admits, implied using wealth to provide income with the intention that the
initial value of the wealth not be reduced as with money lent at interest.
This definition of capitalism, obviously a way to amass the wealth should
be seen in the light of a narrative from the Gospel - Now a man came up to Jesus
and asked, teacher what good thing I must do to get eternal life ?
Why do you ask me what is good ? Jesus replied, ... Obey the
commandments.
All these I have kept, the young man said, ‘What do I still lack ?’
Jesus answered. ‘If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and
give to the poor and you will have Treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me.’
(Mathew 19:16-21)
Nothing is vague or obscure when Jesus says his follower must do away
with his wealth or private property before joining him. Having wealth to inflate as
per theory of capitalism is in complete contradiction to what was the advice of
Jesus to the wealthy young man. Jesus did not own any property nor his twelve
disciples. They were living in a sort of commune having common resources for the
use of the entire community including Jesus himself – You say, ‘I am rich, I have
acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realise that you are
wretched, pitiful, poor’... (Rev. 3:17) Jesus does not approve the capitalist mode of
life – Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth. (Mathew 6:19)
If Mr. Stark relates capitalism to the Old Testament, the ‘discovery’ may be
understood, though with reservations, but I must insist upon the New Testament to
be kept completely out of this theorisation. It must be understood that the Christian
civilization developed a methodical ideology of economic equality for the first
time in human history. The capitalist system, that evolved alongside the advent of
industrial revolution, was strongly criticised by radical economists for amassing
wealth at the cost of creating a hell of poverty beneath it. This so called
‘philosophy of poverty’ was also the sole contribution of the Christian civilization.
European civilization witnessed the industrial revolution and after that a
very important academic revolution in ninetieth century known as sociology. The
scholars of this discipline in humanities were not very kind to capitalist dedication
to wealth. While some of the major sociologists like Tocqueville, Comte or Marx
were committed to theories their views against economic disparity, the capitalist
world also became active to rationlise their efforts to make money at any cost. Mr.
Stark would appreciate the irony of capitalism that tried hard to stand against the
sociologists with the ideological help of a non believer like Charles Darwin.
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was strongly denounced by the Christian
Church but the capitalism as per Mr. Stark emerging out of Christianity opted to
build its theoretical fort upon the findings of a scientist condemned for his theory
proving the Bible wrong. The theory of evolution was further developed by
Herbert Spencer. Herbert Spencer’s theory was proudly named by the capitalists as
‘Social Darwinism’. Mr. Stark observes that the capitalism resulted from
Christianity while the organised capitalism preferred to arm itself with unchristian
ideology in contradiction to Mr. Stark’s thesis. “Spencer’s own books were widely
read, or at least widely discussed in the closing decades of the nineteenth century
and the opening years of the present one. When Spencer visited the United States
in 1882, he was accorded welcome by the faithful befitting a messiah”.... “The
rise of Social Darwinism in the United States coincided with the rise of great
fortunes”... “Inequality came to be regarded as almost equally important for capital
formation”. (The Affluent Society : J.K. Galbraith, Penguin Books, 1963, pages
56, 57 & 74)
Jesus would never have approved or supported the capitalism for what it
did to generate powerly. I wish to quote Galbraith again – Nor need one reflect,
uncomfortably, on the methods by which growth had been achieved and wealth
acquired. As John Rockefeller told to a fortunate Sunday school class: The growth
of a large business is merely the survival of the fittest.... The American Beauty
rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its
beholder only by sacrificing the early bud which grow up around it. (gbid,p.58)
Jesus himself gave good news to poor and not to any man of wealth - Go
back and report to John what you hear and see.... the good news is preached to the
poor. (Matthew 11:4-5)
The emergence of rationality from within the Christian civilisation has to be
studied carefully and perhaps in isolation from theology as a sociological
phenomenon. And perhaps Jesus may also be better understood if seen from the
point of view of social science as a complex personality dedicated to social
change. Jesus has been adored, loved and worshiped as one of the number of
spiritual Messiahs. Was be really just one of them or was be one of his own kind?
The spiritual approach obscures a lot of his distinctive characteristics as a social
revolutionary with remarkable vision. We have to go through the turbulent history
of his time to see what might have constructed his psyche.
But a little bit more about the non-believer thinkers before going into the
social turbulence during and before the period of Jesus. Take for example the
most controversial French author philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. I would like to
quote some of his very interesting words from his autobiography - “I am
answerable only to them, who are answerable only to God and I don’t believe in
God.” (The words, A Fawcett Crest Book, New York 10036, 1966, p.159) “for
several years more I maintained public relations with the almighty. But privately I
ceased to associate with him. (gbid p.64) Now another quote from an
autobiographical note by Philosopher Bertrand Russell -” I believed in God until I
was just eighteen.” (The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, The library of Living
Philosophers, Inc. gllinois, 1946, p.8)
We must note that almost all theses non believer intellectuals denied the
existence of God at one stage and distanced themselves from the Christian religion
but none of them spoke anything against Jesus. The question is why? They deny
God, as they ridicule the Christianity but they do not oppose Jesus. Should we
not observe that Jesus himself must have provided them the space for their views”
Was Jesus himself not so very keen to bank upon God for what he had to do? Was
he occasionally mentioning God because the God was handy for popular appeal?
Was Jesus convinced that the God was superfluous for his socio-historical design?
The Jewish society of his time, suffering from inhuman persecution had nothing
but to look for God and his prophets for their redemption. This spiritual motif
might have been used by Jesus for his early credibility. Jesus also freely use the
old testament so that he could ensure the masses with ease. He was no less radical
on the topic of God than satre when he answered his disciples - Philip said, “Lord,
show us the father and that will be enough for us.
Jesus answered:” Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been
among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen Father (John
14:8-9).
With utter confidence Jesus announces - I am telling you now before it
happens, so that it does happen you will believe that I am he. (John 13:19)
Jesus needed to replicate what was generally known as God for
accomplishing what he desired. He would not have declared - I am the light of the
world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness. (John 8:12) He did not
say - God is the light of the world. Jesus is so sure of his person and objective that
he announces - Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass
away. (Matthew 24:35) This statement came from him when he declares the end
of the age with reference to the glamour of the Jewish temple. It is his confidence
of making everything new (Rev.21:5) that he becomes alter ego of God himself.
When he says that heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass
away he actually means to have replaced God. John, one of disciples of Jesus, of
course, mentions God and Son of God separately, perhaps under spiritual
compulsion, but he never hesitates to say - He is the true God. (1 John 5:20) Does
John also meant that God was an imagination?
The radical intellectuals like Russell and Sartre have refused to subscribe to
God or Christian Church but have never decried, denounced or contradicted Jesus.
The advanced philosophy in the twentieth century departed from metaphysics and
dwelt into empiric son, epistemology or the theory of knowledge. A.J.Ayer, for
example, based his philosophical enquiry upon knowledge. Ayer makes subtle
statement about this turn of history of philosophy- In this book I begin by taking
the question of what is meant by knowledge as an example of a philosophical
enquiry. (The Philosophy of knowledge, Pelican Books, 1956, p.6) Here we can
see why the modern philosophers do away with spiritualism and God and do not
need to confront Jesus, anxious to open the door of KNOWLEDGE. These
philosophers, though non-believers, in fact, carry further the discovery of word’s
mystique initiated by Jesus.
 8. OUT OF THE DARKNESS OF FAITH

While looking at the world history of philosophy we find that very

significant work was done by the early philosophers of non believers’ societies
such as Buddhists’, Chinese and Greeks. The Buddhist Scholars made, significant
contributions to the theory of knowledge, subjective idealism and phenomenology
etc. But we must also note that not only the Buddhist philosophy but whatever
was later known as Hindu philosophy also came to an end after Shankaracharya of
eighth century. Greece, in pre-Christian era produced some towering
personalities, no doubt. Starting from the intellectuals of Pythagorean League, the
thicker like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus and then the Stoics and Cynics
etc. made very important contributions to the history of human thought. This
tradition virtually came to an end after the downfall of Greek power and rise of
Roman Empire. The Romans, in first few centuries, did not show much of
originality in the field of thought. The first major work came from neo-Platonist
intellectuals but their writings were more of reinterpretation than anything like
break through in philosophies. Chalcidius (350 A.D) was known for his work on
Platonic Philosophy while another significant thinker Marius Victorinus wrote
commentaries on Aristotle and Cicero in about 400 A.D. His work can be equated
with that of Shankaracharya, a Hindu Philosopher of 9th Century A.D. who wrote
commentaries on Brahm-sutra, Gita and a few Upanishads, instead of giving any
original philosophical treatise. Some major philosophers like S. Radhakrishnan of
India, and Henric Zimmer of Germany have misrepresented Shankaracharya as
original thinker.
It is interesting to see that the Roman thinker Marius Victorious, also a
grammarian, was shortly followed by another neo-Platonist Anicius Severna’s
Boethius who was a Christian. Boethius was later imprisoned and executed like
many Christian preachers, not for his philosophy but perhaps for his faith. The last
traces of Greek Philosophy also took a plunge into the growing Christian theology
forsaking its rational foundations. The subsequent European history, for another
few centuries after Roman neo-Platonism saw an precedence growth of Christian
theology. This phase of European history of thought also saw the rationality being
discouraged to promote faith without reason. The intellectual scene of the
European subcontinent, including a large part of West Asia, was overshadowed by
a FAITH as directed by God or prophets or the religious preachers. Almost the
entire activity of human mind was subjugated by what vakonalists later prude as
faith without reason. This phenomena of rule of faith without reason is seen in
each and every religious culture throughout the history of mankind. And this is
what subverts REASON in various cultures.
We earlier mentioned an Indian thinker Shankaracharya of 9th century A.D.
His advent follows a long period of philosophical rationalism of Indian Buddhists.
Shankaracharya’s was not only an effort to counteract the Buddhists but also to
revive the Hindu theology. The Hindu theology has never been an organised
socio-religious monolith. Hinduism never had any Book like Bible or Quoran nor
it had any organised Church or Mosque. Neither it has had any prophet, so much
so that even today no one knows exactly what makes a man a Hindu. The Hindu
intellectual Shankaracharya has never been properly understood. He was the first
man to realise that the Buddhist rationalism was the biggest threat to Hinduism
and that the survival of Hinduism was possible only after the defeat of Buddhism.
Buddhism never subscribed cartelism and this was the reason the majority of
Indians, craftsmen and labor class opted Buddhism. The Brahmanism though came
into power shortly after Ashoka, the powerfull Buddhist king, Buddhism
continued to be subscribed by the people at large. This is where Shankaracharya
resolved to intervene. Brahmanism, or the very foundation of Hinduism was
strongly opposed to reason or rationalism. Shankaracharya, while interpreting
GITA made it very clear that he did this work with three clear objectives - firstly
this book means to let people understand the way of life as described in Vedas,
secondly this book proves that the Brahmanism has to be understood for its
supremacy and thirdly that Brahmanism has to be defended at any cost .
Shankaracharya’s writings, under the garb of Vedantic philosophy, makes a
very clever effort to revive Hindu spiritualism. He replaced the complicated and
costly ritual of YAGYA of idol worship which became popular. The Hindu
religious book Srimat Bhagawat, in its opening chapter says that the idol worship
movement was born in the southern region of Indian sub continent because
Shankaracharya himself hailed from the same place. His movement was carried
forward by Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Madhwacharya, resulting into a massive
popularity of Rama and Krishna of the Hindu mythology. That is how the anti
rational movement initiated by Shankaracharya put an end to Indian philosophical
enquiry. Thus he was an effective sequel to Buddhism which had seen matchless
growth in philosophical thought upto his time. Not only that, Shankaracharya also
played an effective role in containing the impact of Christianity which was gaining
popularity ever since it entered the southern region in the first century A.D.
Though St. Thomas was brutally killed by Brahmins in Kerala, the Christianity
preached by him and some other saints attracted the waste majority of Indian
population of the shoodras persecuted and humiliated by Brahmins, the
practitioners of social segregation and inequality.
A very interesting book was printed by the Southern Church of Chennai,
India under the title of ‘The Heritage of Indian Christian’. The book printed in
1942 compiled by an unknown Christian, made a very significant remark about
Shankaracharyas idol worship movement – we have sufficient evidence to prove
that there were quite a large number of people who had become Christians in
southern part of India and the idol worship movement was initiated during the
same circumstances.
Whereas the period preceding Shankaracharya saw the emergence of great
Buddhist thinkers like Asang, Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna, Dingnag and Dharm Kirti
etc. The last one equated with Emanuel Kant of Germany, the period that followed
Shankaracharya never produced any thinker worth mention. This confirms my
contention that the Hindu religion does not allow any space to human enquiry and
academic search or discovery. The religious structure of any society believing in
the message of God strictly disallow anything outside the said message. The
Hinduism is a strange institution that does not have any heritage of message of
God yet perhaps in competition with Christianity and Islam, it has tried to profess
that the Vedas were given by God. There has not been any convincing argument to
justify why the fourth Veda that is Atharv Veda was created almost a millennium
after the other Vedas and that why the contents of Vedas have been amended and
deleted in parts quite often. Gods words are never amended and deleted in the
world of believers. Each and every society of believers of the world hold that their
religious institution has been constructed as per desire of God. The Hindu,
interestingly believed that their religious structure has been made – as told by
Vedas (though the Vedas have never laid down any such institutional order), as
instructed in books like Manusmriti (written by a man called Manu, neither by
God nor by any prophet), as told by tradition or as desired by any Rishi or
religious practitioner (see Manu’s Smriti, 2:6). The strangest part of this definition
of religion is the claim that whatever satisfies the practitioner of religion, is the
Law. That is the reason, the Hinduism, lacks any institutional order or discipline.
In a way the Hinduism has been functioning since long as a bundle of theocratic
anarchy. It has been impossible to find any space in this religious ‘disorder’ for
academic activities. The Christian priests’ had always been facing hostile Hindu
elite while trying to educate the poor illiterate children in India. Any type of
advancement of knowledge was disapproved and opposed by Hindus leaving
absolutely no space for science and philosophy.
The Christian world in the beginning particularly in Europe, also resisted
any advancement of knowledge that tried to go beyond the limits of the Bible, no
doubt. But the last four centuries witnessed an unprecedented intellectual
revolution that changed the very face of earth, though the beginning of this
revolution was extremely painful due to strong resistance from the Orthodox
Church. We can take the highly dramatic case of Galileo Galilee who had a serious
conflict with the Church for his scientific work on astronomy. Copernicus had
already been denounced by the Church. Galileo had angered the church by
claiming that the earth is not the central point of the Universe. He was summoned
to face the trial for this ‘blasphemy’ before religious tribunal of the Pope of
Roman Catholic Church at Vatican city. The discovery of Galileo was against
what was stated in Genesis. Eventually he was forced to retract his views. But the
coming centuries saw tremendous growth of science and philosophy in the same
culture. The scientists boldly went beyond the Biblical faith quite unopposed.
While seventeenth century persecuted Galileo, the nineteenth century gave
massive support to Charles Darvin whose scientific work again stood against what
was told in Genesis. Darwin too, just like Galileo faced the Bishop but not in any
Church. Bishop of Oxford sat face to face with Darwin inside a conference hall of
British Association for the Advancement of Science. The meeting was chaired by
famous scientist Prof. Hensley. Darwin was being grilled by the Bishop for his
theory of evolution. The Bishop ironically asked Darwin – was it an his
grandfather’s side or his grandmother’s that he descended from a monkey ?
Answer came not from Darwin but from the leading biologist of that time
Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley concluded his speech facing the Bishop – Suppose
that the bishop was right, suppose that I descended from a monkey, what of it ? I
would rather be descended from an ape than from a man who uses great gifts to
observe the truth.
It is recorded that the dexgymen reacted furiously while the conference hall
was full of cheers, laughter and clapping.
The message of the story is very clear. The history of Christianity was
changing fast after the persecution of a scientist in Seventeenth century making
way to intellectual revolution. And this culture configuration was taking place
only in Christian world. The intellectuals made by Christianity were rebelling
against Christian authority not consistent with reason. A very large number of
Christian authors have expressed their displeasure over this phenomenon. Its not
only the scientists who seriously bothered the Church. New trends in philosophy
and humanities also worried the clergymen. The radical ecology of the
enlightenment brought in an era of free speech with astonishing results. The
Christian culture itself was giving birth to a civilizational coup destined to
revolutionise the process of history.
We have been having two systems of understanding and knowing the
universe and the human history. One system has been given by the scriptures and
the other by academia. The scriptures provide the complete map of what man has
to know. No scripture leaves any space for independent inquisitiveness. God
knows everything, is the basis of scripture’s authority over any activity of human
mind. This is what was the basis of conflict between the Church and the academia.
 It was constantly repeated by the clergymen during the trial of Galileo that
Galileo’s work is damaging to the Catholic Church. It could be used against the
Catholic religion. Interestingly the accused Galileo himself was a devout Catholic
and attended mass of Pisa Cathedral every Sunday. I intend to give some more
details of conflict between a scientist and the church. A devout Catholic Galileo
was contesting the faith not because he was trying to discredit it but to prove that
the faith must leave some space for human enquiry. Galileo was struggling for a
right to this space.
It is recorded that in December 1614 a priest Thomas Cacohini began to
preach in presence of Galileo, anti scientific sermons from the pulpit. He named
Galileo as an enemy of the true faith. Galileo always considered himself a devout
catholic and true supporter of faith. He, however, did not see himself as a person
who is guilty of hearsay but as a thinker who desired to help people out of the
darkness of faith. The Church in fact, according to Galileo, was denying the right
to be rational.
Out of the darkness of faith is the key word of our discourse on this matter
– the man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. Put your trust
in the light while you have it (John 12:35-36).
Jesus also knew that he shall be tried, persecuted and ultimately killed by
the people of darkness – The son of Man will he betrayed to the Chief priests and
teachers of law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the
Gentiles who will mock him and spit an him, flog him and kill him (Mark 10:33-
34).
This is what would have been the feeling of ‘devout catholic’ Galileo
summoned by the Pope for his guilt of seeking the light of knowledge. Jesus had
already predicted the fate of his followers – Blessed are you when people insult
you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evils against you because of me
(Mathew 5:11). If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up
his cross and follow me (Mark 8:34).
This is what was faced by some Christians who opted for the light of
knowledge. Jesus himself had replied to the orthodoxy on behalf of the people like
Galileo or Darwin – Why don’t you judge for yourself what is right ? (Luke 12:57)
If I am telling the truth why don’t you believe me ? (John:8-46).
It is not very difficult to see how the revolutionary thoughts would have
grown out of the psyche of those who happened to host the fertile ‘words’ in
fertile land – Still other seed feel on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a
crop multiplying thirty, sixty or even a hundred times. (Mark 4:8) Some people are
like seed along the path where the word is sown. (Mark 4:15)
I am convinced that this is how the way to doubt, disagreement and debate
was opened by the first citizen of Christianity himself. Now I must underline here
that Jesus gave ‘words’ to the people but never gave any book of religious dogma
– I will give you words and wisdom that non of your adversaries will he able to
resist or contradict. (Luke 21:15)
While Jesus promised to give words he never put before the people
anything such as Ten Commandments or Quran. By giving the words he meant
that he came to equip the human being with instruments of knowledge. The
religious priests who believed that their Book was the only source of knowledge
were strongly criticised by him. It was his firm opinion that the said priests locked
the door to knowledge by their belief that entire knowledge was enshrined in the
book and that the man should suspend the activity of mind entirely. This state of
affairs left absolutely no scope for logic, empirical knowledge, scholastic activity,
science and philosophy. It is a strange phenomenon that the human being turning
into a fertile place for sown words, became alien to religious structure that did not
permit the growth for about one and a half millennia. The resurrection, thus
actually took place not on the third day after death but about fifteen hundred years
later.
The question is should the word resurrection be understood exclusively as
spiritual event ? Does it not have any rational meaning ? Spiritually the word shall
mean coming into life after death. The dead persons body itself comes into life. It
does not happen in normal circumstances. It will definitely be taken as a miracle.
But there has also been the other way of man living after death. Einstein, the great
physicist, died in 1955 but his discoveries are still alive. No one can ignore his
presence in history though he did long back. Take for example Picasso the great
painter who also died during the later half of twentieth century. He is never
discussed as a dead man. Sophocles did about two and a half millennia back but
the history of literature never mentions him as a dead man. Ofcourse a large
number of people in the world die completely without leaving any trace of their
existence but we can take the case of Egyptian rulers who were unknown to the
history. Their characters became alive after the discovery of Rosetta stone which
made it possible to decipher the Egyptian script. Quite a large number of people,
though alive, are not known as living beings. The people of certain primitive tribes
living in remote places are the best example of life unknown. The human being in
normal circumstances is identified by his contribution, small or massive to the
people around him. A large number of them are micro-contributors and some of
them make macro-contributions. Those making micro-contributions, die almost
immediately after the death of their physical bodies while persons who make
macro-contribution do not die even after their physical death.
I must be allowed to mention some words of Jesus here – I tell you my
friends to not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more.
(Luke 12:4) What Jesus means is not obscure. He means the physical death of the
body which he also faced. But he was confident that what rises out of the dead
body is his word or message or socio-historical contribution and this personality of
the dead can never be killed and it lives after the death of body. Jesus, no doubt
predicted his resurrection but he was sure about his physical death – You will look
for me but you will not find me. (John 7:34) This the clear indication of his
physical death. Is he not living after his death in form of a mega culture of about
2390 million people known as Christians today ?
......

9. Bartering death for enlightenment

It is recorded, Jesus said to Jews – If you hold to my teaching, you are

really my disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
They answered him, we are Abrahams descendants and have never been
slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free ? (John 8:31-33)
It is interesting to note that John wrote his Gospel about 90 to 100 years
after the death of Jesus. Whatever John would have recollected contains two
words – the truth and the freedom, but the said words have nowhere been defined.
That is how they can be understood by a spiritualist differently from what could he
understood by a rational person. For a rational person the truth is correct reflection
of reality in thought ultimately verified by criterion of practice. That is how the
truth has to be found through philosophic and scientific enquiry. This enquiry
needs absolute and unhindered freedom.
Jesus strongly disapproved the Jewish spiritualists who had locked the door
of knowledge. That means he wanted free passage to knowledge. Orthodoxy of
religious institution does not permit access to this door. That is why Jesus spoke
for freedom and he bracketed truth and freedom together. His most important
thesis was – I will give you words. (Luke 21:15) The farmer sows the word. (Mark
4:14) What does Jesus actually mean when he says he gives the word ? Doesn’t he
mean that he desires to equip man with competence to EXPRESS ? We must
understand the real meaning of sowing the word to become fifty, hundreds or
thousands. It obviously means that Jesus desired the man to be able to think and
express his thoughts. He was very clear in empowering the human having to
explore, investigate and carryout systematic inquiry – You are the light of the
world (MI 5:14) – When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light.
(Luke 11:34)
The Buddha, strongly committed to rational thought, also said ‘Appa devo
bhava’ meaning be yourself a light. Light in the terminology of science means the
natural energy that makes objects visible. Interestingly, the basic function of
human knowledge is to provide the sum of what is known or to make available the
awareness acquired through experience or education. The rational European
intellectuals of 16th, 17th centuries used the term enlightenment for their efforts to
open the doors of human knowledge as against the dogma and irrational believes.
The word light, naturally, was used by scholars for its synonymy to knowledge.
Jesus was also incessantly fighting against the irrational believers and the
professionals of dogma. Jesus expressed his annoyance for them – And you
experts in law, woe to you because you load the people down with burdens they
can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them... Woe to
you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. (Luke
11:46 and 52)
What key was being mentioned by Jesus ? Was it not the Reason that was
referred to by him ? And was Jesus not initiating the enlightenment itself, long
before it was propounded by intellectuals like Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu,
Kant and Sheller etc. ? It was a civilizational misfortune that the enlightenment
initiated by Jesus in his life time was misunderstood and mistaken as a mere
rebuke to Jewish priests hypocrisy. The idea of enlightenment as initiated by
Jesus, after a hibernation of about sixteen centuries was revived by the
intellectuals of the Christian society itself. Though in their own way and also
much to the discomfort of the theologizes. It took incredibly long period of more
than one and a half millennium for the resurrection of enlightenment as mooted by
Jesus. He had further accused the theologies of his time – You have taken away
the key to knowledge. You yourself have not entered and you have hindered those
who were entering. (Luke 11:52) It is interesting to see that a very large number of
followers of Jesus also had been anxious to hinder those who tried to carry
forward the spirit of enlightenment of Jesus.
We can take the case of Heretic of early Christian era. The orthodox
Christians differed strongly with them. Heresy was a very strong case for early
Christianity and was used openly to excommunicate the guilty. Though the Jews
and in certain cases Persians also used the sin of heresy to persecute the people
with different ideas, the Christianity carried the idea to the heights not known
before. Strangely enough, the bishop of Antioch, Serapion condemned the Church
of a small Civilian town which was using Gospel of Peter in services. Such
practices were later termed as spiritual tyranny and there we find innumerable
examples of the same. It is often believed that the Gospel of John was written as a
reply to Gnostics but later it was itself accused of Christian Gnosis. The Christian
Gnostics, though strongly criticised by the Church, initiated some series debates,
probably influenced by Graeko-Roman and Oriental Philosophies. Certain major
elements of the metaphysics of Plato and Pythagoras inspired the Christian
Gnostics who vividly discussed what is mind and also what is the truth. They also
deliberated upon the relationship between man and the Church as also the
character of the life itself. They also discussed the relationship between the
formless and absolute God and the finite material world. The Gnostic Christian
scholar Valentines and his followers, later known as Valentinians debated the
Christian metaphysics at length. I have already quoted the Nabi Mohammad who
said Jesus was neither crucified nor killed. (Quorum 4:157) It is the Pythagorean
Christians held that only a human Messiah candied and that Christ, being eternal,
can not die. The Pythagorean Gnostic Christians mysticism isolated it from the
stories of the Gospels. These philosophers were later criticised by John himself –
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we
preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a
different Gospel from the one you accepted you put up with it easily enough. (2
Corinthians 11:4)
It was no doubt a critical period of the early history of the Christianity but
the debates themselves had and electrifying effect paving a way for the Christian
Academia providing a very fertile ground for the development of civilizational
mind or unlocking the gate of knowledge. This quest for knowledge was not
monographic. At times is appeared to be quite contradictory to the Biblical ideas
much to the Christian theologian’s discomfort. But this is what made the Christian
culture what it is today.
The door to knowledge was unlocked, no doubt but it was qite a violent
event. Jesus himself had told people that he was not for peace. He wanted to put
fire. (Luke 12:49-51) Ferocious verbal duels and quite often bloody wars,
gruesome persecutions followed consequent to unlocking the door to knowledge.
A very large amount of literary writings and cinematographic works can be seen
portraying the theocratic violence at times between the followers of faith
themselves. Scores of very gruesome stories are recorded in the history of
Christianity. The theology, for obvious reasons continued to remain in conflict
with radicals no doubt but the phenomenon, at last, became an integral part of the
Christian culture growth and that is how the same is credited with unprecedented
development of modern social culture genius. The environment for scientific and
academic enquiry was created by Jesus who declared that - the Sabbath was made
for man, not man for Sabbath (Mark 2:27) meaning that the rules and laws are
made for men. Jesus himself never made any rules, never made any laws, never
created any book containing rules and regulations to control and command the life
of human beings. Why didn’t he do it? Why didn’t Jesus constructed a
comprehensive system of religious theory and beliefs? was it because he himself
detested and disapproved an exhaustive system that was available to him. Right
from the very childhood the inquisitive Jesus found the system ................. to
enlightenment. The Gospels tell us about the twelve year old Jesus questioning the
Jewish theologies - every one who heard him was amaged at his understanding
and his answers. (Luke 2:47) The Gospels however never mention anything about
what were the contents of the Childs dialogue. He must have witnessed the socio-
cultural degeneration around him and might have also been deeply disturbed to
find the religious leaders collaborating with the system decomposing social values.
John the Baptist was also distressed to see that the tax collectors were collecting
much more than what they were required to and the soldiers were extorting money
accusing people falsely (Luke 3:13-14) and the Jewish law teachers and priests
were occupying most important seats in synagogues and greetings in market
places (Luke 11:43) This was the corrupt, degenerated and immoral world ruled
by Jewish theocrats. This was what Jesus intended to burn down - I have come to
bring fire on the earth. (Luke 12:49) He was keenly anxious to change - for three
yeas I have been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any.
Cut it down. Why should it use up the soil? (Luke 13:7) Absolutely no mercy to
unfruitful social structures. They have to be demolished and this demolition shall
be accomplished by Jesus himself - I tell you the truth not one stone here will be
left on another, every one shall be thrown down (Mathew 24:2)
Jesus demolished what he strongly disagreed with and refrained from
replacing it with another. The coming generations were thus obliged
with ............... freedom to construct the tower of reason and knowledge even at the
cost of conflict with traditional faith. I must quote a very meaningful extract from
an autobiographical note by great 20th century philosopher Bertrand Russell - my
father wished my brother and me to be free thinkers... The court of chancery
however set aside the will and I enjoyed the benefits of Christian upbringing... I
discarded first freewill then immorality, I believed in God until I was just eighteen
when I found in Mill’s Autobiography the sentence; My father taught me that the
question who made me can not be answered since if immediately suggest the
further question who made God. In that moment I decided that the first cause
argument is fallacious. (The Philosophy of Burtrand Russell, Library of Living
Philosophers, Vol-V 1946, pp 4&8)
The philosopher was a non believer and an atheist no doubt but he grew out
of the Christian social ecology and made massive contribution to the field of
knowledge. Almost similar was the case of author philosopher and famous social
activist Jean Paul Sartre - I regarded the Library as a temple. Grandson of a priest,
I lived on the roof of the world. (The Words, translated by Bernard Frectiman,
paperback, A Fawcett Crest Book, Greenwich, Conn. p. 37)
Sartre was also an atheist and a non believer but his comments on
Christianity are very interesting - How tolerant religion seemed. How comfortable
it was: the Christian could desert the mass... In our circle, in my family faith was
merely a high rounding name for French freedom. I had been baptised in order to
preserve my independence... As a registered catholic, I was free, I was normal.
Later they said he will do as he likes. (Ibid p 62) The freedom available within the
Christianity really made the boy as free as to make massive contributions to world
literature, philosophy and movement of social change.
The creative writers and philosophers have been conflicting with the
orthodoxy of the Church, quite often. Dante’s Inferno was condemned by
Augustine while Voltaire was also no received very kindly. Strange as it is the
orthodoxy of the Church has sometimes strongly criticised certain Bishops and
Popes too. A large number of Christian religious thinkers were condemned or their
views like Monophysition. Gnosticism or Sabellianism etc. The cases of
intellectuals like Sartre or Russell must be looked differently. Each one of such
scholars has admitted that he had his growth within the Christian ecology but after
some time he discovered his own way to make most precious contributions to the
history of mankind. Should we not feel happy that the seed of word .......... could
also result not into a common crop but find way to emergent evolution? Should we
not openly admit that a live culture generates the process of civilizational
evolution? This was the impact of Jesus, though not appreciated by the Christian
theologies.
 10. Sowing seed of new world

The character of Jesus, has been grossly misunderstood. The spiritual

believers have outranked him in the name of divinity while non believers have
outright disowned him as irrelevant for modern society. The extremism of both
obscures the real image of Jesus. He has neither been properly understood as man
nor as a revolutionary who lived to make revolutionary civilizational change at the
cost of his life. A highly temperamental man with a very restless and turbulent
conscience, Jesus was determined to turn the world upside down. His eagerness
for civilizational revolution made him very ........... He was the most troubled and
harassed soul of history. With a tempered spirit he was keen to address people but
was never at home with them. Assiduity to his own very complex ideas did not
always allow him to share his soul search. Some how he was a lover. We know he
sat for prayer just before his arrest along with three of his disciples but left them to
rest and offered prayers alone. They went to a place called Gethsemane and Jesus
said to his disciples. Sit here while I pray. He took Peter, James and John along
with him and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. “My soul is
overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death”, he said to them. “Stay here and
watch”. Going a little further he fell to the grout and prayed that if possible the
hour might pass from him. (Mark 14:32-35)
At another place - Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake and a large
crowd from Galilee followed. When they heard all he was doing, many people
came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea and the regions across the Jordan and
around Tyre and sidore. Because of the crowd he told his disciples to have a small
boat ready for him to keep the people from crowding him. (Mark 3:7-9)
Once he was so badly crowded that he couldn’t even eat - Then Jesus
entered a house and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not
even able to eat. (Mark 3:20)
As per Gospel of Matthew, Jesus went into the desert and roamed about for
forty days without food and water, shortly after baptism. This period of self exile
is very significant in the sense that the Buddha in 5th century B.C. also spent
similarly long period in isolation. Both had to face temptations. While the Buddha,
according to the myth successfully withstood the assault of evil, Jesus constructed
the fort of his arguments during the same period of torment. The Gospel’s author
has colored the episode with spiritual myth just as done in the case of the Buddha
but the ultimate message is very important. Spending painful days, all alone in a
difficult terrain, he must have faced hunger and thirst. The evil spirit or his alter
ego, ............... confronted him with a question - If you are the .................. tell these
stores to become bread. (Matthew 4:3)
The answer by Jesus during that tormenting solitude is the key to the central
theme of his philosophy - It is written, man does not live on bread alone but an
every word that comes from the mouth of God. (Mathew 4:4)
The Buddhist epistemologists and later the 19th and twentieth century
European philosophers of theory of knowledge underlined the role of the word in
understanding and knowing the civilizational truth. Sartre though, different from
epistemologists, visualised the words as weapons - for a long time I took my pen a
sword (The words, A Fawcett Crest Book, 1966, P.159)
Jesus also talked about the sword but he also knew that the swords are not
going to make him achieve his goal - And if you don’t have a sword, sell your
cloak and buy one ... The disciples said, “See Lord here are two swords”.
“That is enough.” He replied. (Luke 22:36 & 38)
“Some people are like seed along the path where the word is sown ... Others
like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it and produce a crop - thirty,
sixty or even a hundred times what was sown.” (Mark 4:15 & 20) Jesus was very
clear about his civilizational design. He wanted to sow the seed of the word which
would result into “full grown crop of a new world. Sowing the seed of a new
world is something different from dictating the detailed script as done by other
prophets. I would like to quote q very meaningful analysis of the WORD by a non-
believer modern philosopher Bertrand Russell - It is easy to assent to the
statement” in the beginning was the word.” This view underlies the philosophies
of Plato and Car nap and of most of the intermediate metaphysicians.” (An Inquiry
into meaning and truth, George Allen and Unwind Ltd., London. 1951, P. 23)
Plato, as mentioned by Russell, was inspired, if not quite to the same degree
as Moses, by God. As per the Gospel of John - In the beginning was the word and
the word was with God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2)
This is a very interesting statement statement wherein the WORD has been
personified. According to John perhaps the word represents Jesus himself who was
supposed to be with God before taking as a man. John, thereby means to say that
Jesus himself was the creator of the world, or civilization, in the image of his own
or according to the design constructed by him. John, here, rereads Genesis 1:27,
that is, “So God created man in his own image” to assert that the word was with
Jesus and he designed the blueprint of civilization as per his own imagination, in
his own image, in spiritual terminology. Jesus himself claimed - I make all things
new. (Rev. 21:5)
Buddha had nothing to do with God. Jesus never denied the God’s
existance but the fragments of his philosophy as can be collected from the four
small biographical notes known as Gospels, provide astonishing concepts of this
extra ordinary man. I have already mentioned the episode where in reply to his
disciples desire to let them see God Jesus says - Don’t you know me, Philip, even
after I have been among you such a long time? Any one who has seen me has seen
the father. (John 14:9)
Jesus never waits for God to give word to mankind. He assures the
responsibility himself - I will give you words and wisdom. (Luke 21:15) Night is
coming when no one can work. While I am in the world I am the light of the
world. (John 9:4-5) I am telling you now, before it happens, so that it does happen
you will believe that I am he. (John 13:19) who, then, is this HE if not the God?
The Indian Brahmin philosophers also visualised their self as an abode of
God or God himself - Aham brahmasmic, meaning I am the God himself. But the
closer scrutiny will let us see the difference between ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ of the
Brahmins and ‘I am he’ of Jesus. The Brahmanic concept simply states that the ‘I’
or a man is the residency of God or the God resides in the body of man as he
resides in any object of this universe while Jesus singularly assumes the role of
God : Jesus, as God gives words to man enabling him to express and shows the
light that is the way to progress and civilizational change - I am the light of the
world. (John 9:5) A closer look at the writings of Paul and John reveal their firm
conviction that Jesus himself was the God - He is the image of invisible God the
first born over all creation. (Colossians 1:15) John quotes a confident Jesus - I am
the First and the Last. (Revelation 1:17) The Gospel of John strongly believes that
Jesus Christ himself is God. And this is the reason that Jesus thinks, opines, speaks
and acts like a self relient and free human being - He was in the world, and though
the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. (John 1:10)
This is where I would like to go through the social psyche of the times of
Jesus. The period of his birth and development was plagued by visionless
theocracy sacrificing the human dignity for the sake of spiritual blindness. Strange
rites and rituals were being performed by Jewish priests mixed at times with
strange utterances of gibberish after culminating into wild dances or streching on
the ground with foaming at the month and so on. Some would wear metal horns
pretending to push back the serious. These dramatic performers of rituals were
rightly called the FOAMERS. The sooth sayers and miracle mongers claiming to
be having direct access to yahweh or some strange God were the terrifying faces
of spituality. Their prophecies opened with “Thus saith Yahweh” and culminated
into disgusting self styled display of moral debanchery. The people were forced to
part with their hard earned possessions for the sake of sacrifices, the major part of
religious performances. These spiritual activists were no less burglars and devils.
The Roman occupation of the land of Jews was another very demoralizing
and distressing part of Jewish history officials appointed by Romans were immoral
and corrupt. Economically destitutes were all around while the upper class was
rolling in luxury - There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen
and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus
covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the
dogs came and licked his sores. (Luke 16:19-21)
I would like to quote John K. Galbraith to compare with socio-economic
disparity of Jewish society during the Roman period as described by Jesus - “One
guest appeared in a suit of gold inlaid armour valued at an estimated $ 10000. A
little earlier at Delmonico’s - where spencer had been entertained - guests were
given cigarettes wrapped in hundred dollar bills which they lighted with a
legitimate sense of affluence. It was also a time of widespread poverty and
degradation. The distant workers who supported this wealth lived in noise some
slums. There were numerous beggars near at hand.” (The Affluent Society
Penguin Books, 1963, P.57) Frankfurtian social thinker Herbert Marcuse also
makes the simular observation over the victims of economic disparity. Marcuse
observes that the affluent class forces to live the rest of society in the hell of
deprivation. (One Dimentional Man, Beacan Press, 1964, PP.12ff)
As far the corruption of the ruling clas is concerned we find its glimpse in
the story of Zacchaeus the Tax Collector - “Zacchaeus come down immediately. I
must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him
gladly. All the people saw and began to in mutter”, He has gone to be the guest of
a sinner, “But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the lord, “Look lord, here and now I
give half of my possessions to the poor and if I have cheated anybody out of
anything, I will pay back four times the amout”. (Luke 19:5-8)
But the extreme example of the corruption we find where Jesus cleans the
temple - But you have made it a den of robbers. (Mark 11:17)
Jewish society was having harrowing experiences of the Roman occupation
since long, Mass crucification under any pretex was a common sight. Women
were raped and Jewish properties were looted by roman soldiers. The Gospels tell
us about the ruthless and in human mass killings of the entire lot of Jewish
children that had left entire Jewish bathed in blood and wailing - when Herod
realised that he had been outwitted by Magi, he was furions and he gave orders to
kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under,
in accordance with the time he had learned from Magi. Then what was said
through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled.
 A voice is heard in Ramah
weeping and great mourning
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted
because they are no more. (Matthew 3:16-18)
A revolutionary arm struggle was going on for quite a long period to free
the Jewish land from Romans. The struggle, at times, was quite violent and the
Roman retaliation was also equally ferocious. The father and mother of Jesus,
immediate after his birth, sensed what was going to happen and they left
Jerusalem, laking the tender child along for Egypt. It must definitely have been an
extremely difficult journey particularly in a world more than two thousand years
back, when there were hardly any proper means to travel.
Then the social stigma that was faced by his mother might also have been
faced at some stage by the child Jesus too. A girl conceiving outside the marriage
is not very kindly received even in a modern society. The pregnancy of virgin
Mary would not have been a comfortable event in an orthodox society of more
than two thousand years back, inspite of a strong mythological cover. Some
theologians, inspite of the mythical covering of Mary conceiving in the state of
verginity have occassionally mentioned that the Jews facing the stigma of
crucifying Jesus began a counter campaign that Mary had a liaison with a Roman
soldier. Jesus was the result of the same relation. I don’t know why they merely
thought about the “liaison”. Why wre they so kind to Roman soldiers as not to
visualise that anyone of them would have raped the innocent Girl? According to
Gospels, the Angels or etherial spirits informed Mary’s husband about her spiritual
pregnancy. Even if we believe in the super natural story we can not justify how the
others in her society would have agreed with it. The Angels or spirits could not
have directly convinced the Jewish othodox people. They must have raised a
question, of course with public support as to who was the father of Jesus. Which
woman on earth would say that the offspring is the result of rape? Any woman of
dignity would say that the child is the gift of God. That is how Jesus would have
been known as the son of God. Jesus himself, at many places, says that he is son of
God but at many other places he says he is son of man - Then he said to them,
‘The Sabbath was made for the man, not man for the Sabbath’. So the son of Alan
is Lord even of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27-28) He then began to teach them that the
son of Man must suffer many things and he rejected by the elders, the chief
priests, and teachers of the law and that he must be killed and afterthree days rise
again. (Mark 8:31)
Jesus is very frank about the fact that he is the son of man but he also tells
occasionally as he might have heard from his mother that he is son of God. The
common people of Jewish land, however, might have been more impressed by the
expression, son of God.
Jesus was never very enthusiastic about God. Hehad in later part of his life
decided to perform whatever was taken to be performed by God. He decided
perhaps to do away with god. Jesus must have given some indication of assuming
the role of God and that is why the Jews might have questioned him back - “We
are not storing you for any of these, “replied the Jews,” but for blasphemy,
because you, a mere man, claim to be God”. (John 10:33)
We must also see the statement of Jesus where he says - Do not believe me
unless I do what my father does. (John 10:37) This statement of Jesus is neither
very vague nor obscure. He frankly announces that he is doing whatever had to be
done by God. His assertion is very clear that he had taken over the functions
earlier being performed by God and that is how he further says - I am the light of
the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light
of life. (John 8:12) Jesus, here, does not say that he is carrying the light of the
wisdom of God. He has his own vision and he does not claim to hear the light of
God. He is himself the light, he says. Of course he mentions God also but only
because the orthodox society for whom the doors of knowledge were looked,
could not have accepted a lot of what he was saying. He boldly said - I tell you the
truth, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born I am. (John 8:38) Night is
coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the
world. (John 9:4-5) No one else could have such a massive self confidence.
He says - I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes
in me should slay in darkness. (John 13:46) I am telling you now before it
happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am HE (John 13:19)
What Jesus actually means by the word HE is not difficult to understand provided
that we keep ourselves out of spiritual bias. Out of the four authors of Gospels,
John was nearest to Jesus. He was the one who was there who he has crucified and
had the longest span of life. Only he out of the four, made it clear the actual role of
Jesus. John knew that Jesus had assumed the functions of God and thus created an
absolutely new world. No other prophet of the civilization of man even claimed
that he was there to design a new world. That is where and that is why the non
believing intellectuals of modern Christian world rejected God, refused to endorse
religion but did not say a word against Christ.
 11. Miracles? No! making people live to change

Jesus said I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries
will be able to resist or contradict. (Luke 21:15) But he never defined what he
actually meant by the WORD. The moder philosophers have tried to do it in their
own way. Burtrand Russell for example, in his famous book An Inquiry Into
Meaning and truth says - Language serves three purposes: (1) to indicate facts (2)
to express the state of speaker (3) to alter the state of hearer (An Inquiry Into
Meaning And Truth, George Allen and Clenwin, 1951, P.204)
The third purpose of the language or the words is note worthy. The
language not only communicates but alters the state of hearer. This is the most
important function of the words sown. Jesus knew that the words sown in a fertile
soil would alter the state of civilization. And virtually they did it. The process was
to take time since the change of the state of culture is a very complex and difficult
process. The process of this social change caused by seeds of words sown by Jesus
took quite a long time even after his death. His death, no doubt, must have added
an impetus to the growth of crop but the adverse conditions were very strong -
some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they
hear it Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. Others, like
seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since
they have no root, they last only a short time. (Luke 4:15-17) This is exactly what
happened to words sown by him. The history of early Christian Church has to be
carefully seen to understand this phenomenon. Jesus was the product of Jewish
and Arabic tribals’ land of West Asia. Though the Arab tribes had a very fine
tradition of poetry, they were not very developed culturally. The Jews had a very
rich and complex theology but they were a decadent, corrupt and stagnating
society. This state of Jewish social environment prompted Jesus to rebel. He was
provoked to burn down completely dismantle it. The words of Jesus started
altering the state of hearer, if we use the terminology of Russell. The change of
state due to the words of Jesus was at times highly favourable while at other places
abhorrent. At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because
his time had not come. Still many in the crowd put their faith in him. They said,
“When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs than this man?” (John
7:30-31)
 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “surely this man is the
Prophet.”
Others said, “He is the Christ.”
Still others asked, “How can the crist come from the Galilee? Does not the
scriptures say that the Christ will come from David’s family and from
Bethlehem?” Thus the people were decided because of Jesus. Some wanted to
seize him but no one laid a hand on him.
Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who
asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”
“No one ever spoke the way. This man does” the guards declared. (John
7:40-44)
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed
him. (John 6:66)
Now at the feast the Jews were watching for him and asking, “Where is that
man?”
Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said,
“He is a good man.”
Others replied, “No he deceives the people.” But no one would say
anything publicly about him for the fear of the Jews. (John 7:11-13)
Interestingly his own family had doubts about what he was saying - when
his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, He is
out of his mind.” (Mark 3:21)
Jesus went on sowing the words incessantly but the infavourable soil
rejected the growth. That is how it took quite long to change the state of those who
heard it. The delayed growth of his words was also not very healthy. At some
places seriously it was malignant and distorted. The letters of Paul, John, Peter and
Jude addressed to various early Christian churches provide unfortunate instances
of malignant theology. The movement of Christianity during he first century A.D.
was almost amrchic, not governed by any rules and principles. It was difficult to
say which of the protean forms of Christianity was the real one. The various cities
of Christian were having their own sorts of sects, each one of them claiming that
the anthers were not true Christians. The member of such claimants increased and
multiplied endlessly by the end of second century A.D. This malignant growth of
the word sown by Jesus sometimes culminated into an absurdity of faith. Quite a
few tiny Christian sects claimed that they have sole right to the Kingdom. One of
the Bishops of a Roman church declared that his community shall consist of pure
saints only and there was absolutely no place for a common man in his Church. It
is mentioned, Constantine laughingly comments that the said Bishop should take
his ladder and reach the Heavens alone.
We can see the glimpse of early turbulence in the boll of Peter - But there
were also false prophets among the people just as there will be false teachers
among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the
soveriegn lord. (2 Peter 2:1) We have seen the discomfort of Christian theologists
over the non believing intellectuals in Christian society but as per the evidence of
peter there were some who denied Jesus himself John was distressed to write - I
wrote to the church but Diotrephe who loves to be first will have nothing to do
with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossipy maliciously
about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops
those who want to do so and puts them out of the Church. (3 John : 29-10) Many
deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone
out into the world. (2 John 7)
The heresies played a highly controversial role in early period of
Christianity. The emergence of heretic and the Hyalinization of Christianity
together, started great debates inside this religion. Rome and Greece both were
admirably rich in Philosophy and science and had influenced the elite of many
other civilizations also. The Christianity, incidentally, had better roots among the
Hellenists who must have brought with them their intellectual habitat also. The
Gentile Apostle, we know from his letters, an extraordinary man of thought and
learning. His theology, though at times disputed by dogmatic Christians, was
always growing and ideas explanding. The change of the outer form of the
Christianity became more rapid by the end of the second century. The changes in
the personality of this newly born religion was so obvious that certain non-
believers of that period started making fun of it. No one had any authorised
records of the utterances of Jesus even upto the middle of the first century A.D.
We see certain fragmentary writings appearing after that probably written by
Mark. Some parables and sayings, not mentioned in Marks document were
floating around being carried by month to month. This must have been the reason
of early chaos in religions teaching of early Churches at distant places. This chaos
in early teachings in Churches also must have contributed to later intellectual
activity in side the Christian world. Though the methodical writings known a
Gospels appeared by the end of first century, the difference of opinions must have
persisted. Some people pointed out the contradictions within the various writings
and some others were intrigued by certain expression of one Gospel being altered
in other. The personality of Jesus himself was also altered by Johamines for the
purpose of making Jesus of flesh and blood a spiritual abstraction. The son of a
carpenter from Nazareth was modeled as ethereal spirit. We must also keep in
mind the religions growth of Jesus who closely read scriptures but could not
subscribe to the primalism and legalism of the same. He was profoundly
dissatisfied with theology known to him. This dissatisfaction of Jesus also must
have made the man free to question if something is true or valid. Jesus fearlessly
declared - I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am. (John 8:58) This
very self confidence of Jesus must have prompted the enthusiastic Christian
Hellenists to speak blasphemy against Moses and the Holy place. This was again a
sign of Hellenists separation from Jews of Jerusalem. The Gentile converts were
not very enthusiastic about the Law of Old Testament. The Greek converts raised
certain problem that had to be sorted out. Jews had to be circumcised as was done
by Moses. Were the Greeks to be circumcised? Could they eat meat offered to
Greek idols? Could the prostitution in Greek temples continue? A council of the
church was called to settle such questions and it was perhaps the official
allowance to modify very character of the Christian theology. This also was
followed by strong disagreements between the authors of Gospels and other books
of New Testament. Paul, Peter, James, Barnabas, Mark were all having different
views, yet they were supposed to have laid the foundation of the Christian
movement. The words sown by the first person of the Christianity were growing
though the crop as happens in nature, was not uniform. Each plant had it own
identity having stems, leaves, seeds slight difference with each other inspite of the
similarity. This is how the Christianity made the space for difference of opinion
from the earliest period of its development and this space continued to expand.
The history of sharp differences between Paul, Apollo’s etc., created factions in
early Christianity. There were unpleasant .......... between the said factions but
these altercations gave birth to ideological debates and some debates gave way to
philosophical pursuits.
Jesus, as we have seen earlier, was not very keen to dictate does and don’ts
as done by most of the prophets and that is the reason early Christians faced
problem in theological practices and rituals. The one theoretical problem was
posed whether a Christian should lead a saintly life or can also lead a commoners
life. Some others strongly pleaded for avoiding the heathen pleasure including the
dramatic performances. A controversial priest was strongly cruticised for
admitting the adulterers into the faith openly. Some Bishops were found using
spiritual tyranny against people for small sizes particularly of intellectual type.
The early Christianity faced serious problems due to heresy. The heretics, no
doubt raised certain serious questions concerning the faith. Heretics during the
first two centuries played a major role for philophisation of he Christian theology
because they were the people, also known as Gnostics, who combined Christian
theology with religions of Orient, Neo-Platonism and Pythagoreans. Introduction
of methodical philosophies into religious thought was an event that virtually
unlocked the doors of knowledge or academics. Heretics or Gnostics banked upon
Greek and Oriental philosophies in their theological discussion. Plato and
Pythagoras were principal sources of their mysticism and transcendental thoughts.
It is interesting to see how a heretic Valentines discussed God’s fatherhood with or
without consort in Pythagoreans style. Within this analysis Valentines also covers
the subject of cosmology. Plato talked about creator God in his metaphysics.
Though highly controversial those days, these very heretics introduced a
sort of new Theo philosophical academics. This event mut have been a major
factor in transforming pure spiritualism into free intellectual journey. The
Christian theology started giving way to reason though with much .................. The
Christian was steadily drifting from spiritualism towards philosophy of Socrates,
Plato and the ............ Heretics, not treated very kindly by the Christian orthodoxy,
were constantly succeeding in making the Church redefine its dogma. The first
generation of Christianity could have never reconciled with what happened by the
end of the third century. A highly controversial member of the administrative body
of the Church of Alexandria, Arius needs a special mention here. His concept of
the relation of Jesus to God defined the Christ as ................ of God to create the
world. Many of his utterances were strongly disputed but Arius stood firm on his
stand. He also made a very significant statement in defense of his views. If the
philosophers could differ with each other without being condemned, why can’t the
theologians do the same without risking their credibility. Arius, inspite of an
organised effort by large number of Bishop to unsuccessfully persecute him, found
a very strong supporter in a philosopher logician. Athanasius, the Bishop of
Alexandria. The controversy over Arius continued even after his death and it took
a form of popular debate among the people. The Christianity now started
systemising itself. Rereading of Gospels as done at this stage would have seriously
................. the Apostles. The expression such as “Mother of God” for Mary, used
in sermons was openly assauled. Many such controversies were regularly coming
upto make Christianity an open field of verbal duels at times very unpleasant. This
period of dogmatic turbulence gradually witnessed the shifting the Christendom
from its birth place. Jerusalem to Rome turning Christianity into a Graeko -
Roman Religion. This religion from now onwards was attaining philosophical
depth after being rejected by Jews. Now the time had come to harvest the crop of
seeds of words sown earlier by Jesus.
As I said earlier, this crop had a natural diversity as per the law of evolution
instead of mechanical home genetic. We see two other motifs along with the
harvest of words in Jesus. We see two other motifs along with the hermits of
words in Jesus. These are the concept of life are vision -.you have eyes but fail to
see and ears but fail to hear.(mark 8:18). Your eye is the lamp of your body.
When your eyes are good, your body is also full of light. But when they are bad,
your body is also full of darkness. (Luke 11:34) The concept of the seed of words
and their resultant halest can not be seen in isolation from light and vision. Jesus
insists upon the vision to understand the world and see the truth with the light or
lamp of the consciousness. He does not identify or describe what has to acquire
awareness, power to know the key to knowledge. Jesus said – when trouble or
persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away (mark 4:17). He
was well aware of his own words that were causing trouble and persecution. He
knew how, why and when the words cause trouble. Persecution was bound to
follow the words that were critical to the establishment and inconvenient to those
heading the social system. The people around him had eyes but failed, to see what
was wrong with the social system- do you have eyes but fail to sec (mark 8:18).
Eyes of Jesus did not fail to see the socio-historical ailments and he expressed it
causing trouble and persecution. He knew that the new crop of civilization had to
be grown and he was aware of risks –If any one would come after the he must
deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.(mark 8:34) Blessed are you
when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of ends against you
because of one. (Matthew 5:11). While comforting his disciples during the last
days of his life Jesus makes clear – I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me
will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these (john
14:12). We have to read these words carefully to understand his real meaning. He
says the people having trust in him. They shall work to deconstruct the unhealthy
culture, burn it down and create something new. He did ask his discipline to
follow him and do what Jesus did. He was asking them to understand. He was also
making then visionaries- Let your light shine before men, that they may see your
good deeds, (Matthew 5:16). Jesus knew that the people were unable to see what
was wrong with them and they were unable to have vision of their Jesus went on
from there two blind men followed him. Then he touched their eyes and their sight
we restored. A man who… could not talk was brought to Jesus. And when the
demon was driven out. The man who had been mute spoke (Matthew 11:27-23).
The whole story had naturally to be coated with the spiritual myth but it not
difficult to understand what he was doing. He was making people see the reality.
He was also empowering the men who suffered silently, without any protest. That
is how he was making the mute to express his feelings freely, fearlessly and
loudly. He made people voice their grievances. By sowing the words Jesus meant
to give vision and courage to protest. He made the lame man walk. It can also be
understood as figurative expression. If not taken literally the expression of making
a lame man walk would mean that Jesus made the people move forward. People,
during that period, would have been seared of the religious and political elite to
dare any movement for the sake of socio-cultural cause. Jesus must have tried to
make people aware of their legitimate right to protest and demand radical social
cause free of injustice, oppression, persecution, hunger, deprivation, orthodoxy
and hypocrisy. The reaction of Jewish priests and Pharisees need to be looked into
closely because they, at most of the places, apprehend the provocation for the
change of social system – and they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found
this man sub renting our nation… He stirs up people all over Judea by his teaching
(Luke 23:2 & 5). Jesus was designing a complete civilizational revolution no
doubt while Sadducees and Pharisees misunderstood it as were effort to subvert
the political system. However the efforts of Jesus to equip man with vision and
voice must have obviously been given my theological paint to make them more
impressive and convincing spiritually. Probably the society in which Jesus lived
who not intellectually mature enough to received the stories of Apostles very
favorably without spiritual overtones.

12. More Godly than God

The women have invariably been treated very badly by religious systems,
whether organized or unorganized, throughout the world. They still find
themselves struggling for their rights inspite of large scale movements and
intellectuals campaigns against discrimination. The Old Testament was not very
kind to women folk. The very story of Genesis put a woman at second place by
stating that she was made out of a rib of man. Then it is she who was influenced
by the serpent of Eden Garden to commit ‘sin’ and making manuals to commit sin
of eating the forbidden fruit – Then the Lord God made a women from the rib he
had taken out of man and he brought her to man (Genesis 2:22). When the woman
saw that the fruit of the tree was good for the food and pleasing to the eye and also
desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her
husband. Who was with her and he ate it (Genesis 3:6). It should also be noted
here that the first man, called Adam later became a celebrity knows as prophet but
the woman never attained the status. The wipe of “noble character” was made for
menial jabs of household only – All the days of her life she selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands, she is like merchant ships brings her food from afar,
she gets up while it is still dark, she provides food for her fame (Proverbs 31:13-
15)
The Old Testament has also discriminated the infant girl – A woman who
becomes pregnant and give birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven
days. If she give birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman shall be unclean
(Leveticns 12:2 & 4)
The New Testament on the contrary, particularly the Gospel’s part does not
corroborate or stand by the opinion of the Old Testament concerning the women.
This lower shall be examined later in this book. Now we would see the briefly
history of the status of women in various cultures to find out if Jesus himself was
aware of this perennial question of inequality and discrimination suffered by
woman in history.
 The studies in feminism, invariably point out that the inequality dates back
to the very beginnings of the civilization. The primitive and barbarian societies
discriminate against women with brute force under the superiority complex of
girth and muscle. The female sex was ranked lower to male sex which compelled
the women to stay at distinctly lower social status. Some men and women of
course disliked and disagreed with this subjection of womenfolk. The
subordination of women to dominant male of society naturally must have had
taken quite a long period of human history that perhaps saw the reverse of it too in
form of matriarchy or matrilineal descent. The so called civilized societies,
however, have morally been having the system of patriarchy dominating the social
systems giving sometimes certain concessions to women. Hanunurabi of
Mesopotania, for example about seventeen centuries B.C. made a social code that
put women on better legal footings. They were elevated to high public posts. The
space created for in Mesopotamia was so significant that Mesopotamia could
install a woman, elevated out of a brothel upon the throne of the kingdom. Perhaps
she was the first woman ruler in human history. Hammurabis code had fixed
woman’s marriage and property rights also. But the most important was woman’s
legal right. Hammurabi made strict law to prevent the man from taking the law
into his own hands. A husband was severely punished for killing his wife accused
of adultery while the laws of Old Testament were to stone an adulterous woman to
death. Even a girl if accused after marriage not being virgin had to face death by
storing – If however, the charge is true and no proof of the girls virginity can be
found. She shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of
her town shall stone her to death. (Deuteronomy 22:21). If Jews quote the law of
Moses when they brought a women accused of adultery to Jesus in the Law Moses
commanded us to stone such woman (John 8:5).
The Jews wanted to stone the woman to death in presence of Jesus.
Probably they were anticipating the reacting of compassionate Jesus – When they
kept on questioning him, he straitened up and said to them. If any one of you is
without sin, let him be first to throw a stone at her. “A pair he stopped down and
wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the
older ones first until only Jesus was left with the woman still standing there. Jesus
straitened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned
you?
No one sir, she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you” Jesus declared. Go now and leave your
life of sin” (John 8:7-11).
Jesus here not only outdistanced himself from the law of Moses but
refrained from condemning the woman. He merely advised her, rather fondly to
keep away from what she was accused of. No other religious leader has even been
so kind to a woman. Kabir, a revolutionary saint of India was violent critic of
religious orthodoxy but was very critical of womanhood which he said was the
source of all vices and evils. The most compassionate to mankind, the found of the
Buddhism, Goutam Buddha denied women the admission into the Sangha blutly.
He allowed women into his sangha only after much insistence but grudgingly said
– If the women would not have been admitted into the Buddhist organization. The
Buddhism would heave lasted for one thousand years. But now since women have
been allowed it shall last only for five hundred years (Vinaya Pitak, Bhikshuni
Skandhak).
Now we shall try to see the social state of woman in other cultural histories.
The Egyptian culture was not so discriminatory to women since we see them
ruling the kingdom. According to the inscriptions, pictorial evidences and
manuscripts the women in higher circle of Egyptian society had their social life
more free than women of European societies of middle ages.
As for the social life of women is concerned the Greek culture was very
liberal at least in Sparta. Women received the same education as men of Sparta
and even teen age girls had liberty to take part in athletic games necked. Athenian
women, though mostly living in Harems, were supposed to be free thinkers
renowned for their philosophic wisdom. Greek philosopher Plato was an ardent
believer in equality and liberty of woman in social system. We know the Greek
thinker Aristophanes used to ridicule the Athenian women intellectuals taking part
in public debates. The learned women were also suspected to vivificates but they
were never condemned and persecuted. A learned woman Aphasia had to face trial
for her radical views. She was passionately defended by author intellectual
pedicles and gracefully acquitted to continue her campaign for the freedom of
thought and expression. The Roman social system inherited women’s right to
liberty from Greeks and endorsed their higher social status as prescribed by the
principles of Stoics and scientist philosopher Pythagoras.
As we have seen earlier, Plato, Pythagoras and the Stoics deeply influenced
the early history of Gentile Christian thought. Though the orthodox Christianity
resisted any effort of women’s liberation quite forcefully the views of Plato Stoics
and Pythagorean thinkers slowly percolated the ideas to condense into the
movement of women’s emancipation in modern European civilization. The
Christianity, during the time of Augustine restored the women’s right to protect
their property against their husband usurping it forcibly.
The Christian women saw their social rights pathetically abrogated during
the middle ages. The serfdom reduced their existence to slavery. We come across
very large number of literacy work during last two centuries of second millennium
by French, German, Russian, English and Spanish author against women’s
discrimination and inequality. Classic novels like Ana Karenina, foresight Sage
and Madam Bovary and stage plays like Dolls House raised voice of discriminated
women. Most significant is the emergence of movements of women’s
emancipation not only by intellectually conscious ladies but by certain powerful
philosophers like John Stuart Mill whose book Subjection of women became
almost the Gospel of Feminism in Europe and America. It is interesting to see that
Bertrand Russell has tagged together the matter of emancipation of women and the
invention of contraceptives in his book marriage and moral (George Allen &
Unwik Ltd., London 1955, p. 65). The Orthodox Christians decried the invention
of women but the progressive, liberal and radical Christians avidly subscribed the
both. The French revolution also played a very significant role in promoting the
cause of women’s struggle for their right to equality and emancipation. A thinker
from British elite and mother in-law of the very important nineteenth century poet
Shelly, Mrs. Wollstonecraft published her book “A Vindication of the Rights of
Women” that created a sensation amongst the intellectual circles. The French
Socialists political party strongly demanded complete socio-political rights for
women. Right for women’s suffrage was voiced as early as in 1897 but the
suffrage was not granted to French women until the mid of twentieth century.
French women were given right to vote in 1944 while Britain allowed vote in 1917
and U.S.A. in 1920.
The question of Women’s emancipation and liberty has been essentially
linked with moral or the sin and purity. We have already mentioned the story of
the question of virginity of a girl given in marriage in Old Testament. If found to
have lost here virginity she is supposed to be stoned to death. The Scriptures say –
The woman he marries must be virgin (Levitiocn 21:13). It is also said – A wife of
noble character is here husband’s crown but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his
bones. (Proverbs 12:4). While a woman has to have a pure life the man has been
having absolute freedom of sex, lot had son while sleeping with his daughter
(Genesis 19:30-38) Bertrand Russell observed – “Ever since 1914, however young
women without theorizing have taken a different line. The emotional excitement
was the precipitation cause, no doubt, of this new departure, but it would have
come before long in anycase. The motives of female virtue in the past were chiefly
the fear of hell-fire and the fear of pregnancy : the one was removed by the decay
of theological orthodoxy. The other by contraceptives. (“Marriage and morals,
George Allen and Unwin Ltd. London 1955 p. 69).
The problem of equality of man and women was not taken favourably even
by certain well known intellectuals. The middle class was particularly critical to
women’s lib and quite often they made a fine of it. But the movement however
continued. Mill’s support to women’s cause had provided logic, energy and
impetus which was later strongly supported by a large number of rational
intellectual of twentieth century. The movement formulated an independent
sociology that coverage the subjects of social, economic, political and cultural
interests of women. Some authors also clarified that those who are not feminists
may also have concerns relating to women’s social conditions. Marxists and
socialist opined that the question of gender inequality is a result of capitalist
system of production, division of labor and class exploitation. But a large numbers
of campaigners include those who believe that equal rights to women can be
granted within the framework of liberal system of state.
The whole movement cristalised into many different schools such as
psychoanalytical feminism, post modern or poststructuralist feminism, black
feminism having quite sound theoretical foundations. Two very controversial and
complex issues provoked big debates are of the being the question of motherhood
and the other was the legal right of family woman to received the remuneration for
the jobs of house keeping and rearing up the children.
Some other societies also had similar movements such as Indians but the
movement for emancipation of women in India was initiated by the British culture
that came into power in 19th century. Pandita rama bai, Savitri Phule and some
other such ladies, working for this cause were the result of Western influence
particularly the modernity introduced by the Christianity. The major movements
of women’s emancipation howsoever resisted by the orthodoxy undoubtedly
emerged only one of the Christian world. The socio-cultural advancement of
womenfolk found the source of energy somewhere in the Christian civilization.
The hostility to this cause also contributed to provocative debates resulting into
more enthusiastic activism of women thinkers.
Russell as quoted above mentions female virtue as one of the major
problems in keeping a women subordinate to man. The women lib movement
subsequently went as far as to challenge the very concept of virtuosity – “Modern
feminists are no longer so anxious as the feminists thirty years ago to curtail the
vices of men; they ask rather that what is permitted to men shall be permitted also
to them. Their predecessors sought equality in moral slavery, whereas they seek
equality in moral freedom” (Ibid p. 69).
The major social thinker of moral values have observed that a housewife’s
respectability coupled with sexual virtuosity made possible the institution of sex-
work. The social itself, though informally, created the institution of prostitution for
MEN. Prostitution was organized for men unmarried desiring to have sexual
pleasure or for those who had to be away from their wives due to some
occupation. These men were supposed to keep away from ‘respectable’ family
women. Ultimately it is the women who have to sell pleasure to lonely men who
had to keep away from respectable ladies of society. Sartre wrote a beautiful stage
play named “The Respectable Prostitute that can be an interesting reading here. As
I said earlier it is the women who is sacrificed to save virtuous women from
immoral man and the irony is that the prostitute is condemned as immoral and
sinner. Even Paul uses the word prostitute as abuse – Do you not know that your
bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I take the member of Christ and
invite them with a prostitute? (1 Corinthian 6:15). While Paul looks down upon a
sexworker, Jesus treats them quite differently – Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s
house she brought an alabaster jar of perfume and as she stood behind him at his
feet weeping she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with
her hair kissed with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and
poured perfume on them.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself “If this
man were a Prophet, he should know who is touch him and what kind of woman
she is – that she is a sinner.”
Jesus answered him, “Simon I have something to tell you… I tell you her
many sins have been forgiven for she loved much “Then Jesus said to her, “Your
faith has saved you. Go in peace” (Luke 7:37-50)
Just like the woman accused of adultery, saved from killing and not
condemned, here also she is not denomiced by Jesus. He rather treats both women
with love and respect. He does not seen to bother about her questionable morality.
He simply says leave her alone (John. 12:7).
A woman accused of SIN like prostitution was given social respect perhaps
for the first time in human history after Buddha of fifth century B.C. who had had
accepted the invitation of an entertainer dancing girl Amrapali in India. We also
see that the same Christian civilization which produced the radical movements
women’s lib also raised voice to redeem the destiny of sex workers in society. The
profession of prostitution was renamed as sex work with an object to restore
dignity to unfortunate woman. Anybody aquatinted with the life and deeds of
Jesus shall rightly see the roots of such movements growing out of the seed sown
word sin almost being diluted or redundant. Barring the religious circles the word
sin has almost been replaced by law. Jesus himself seem to be much less
concerned about what is sin in spiritual sense and more anxious and worried about
social injustice – Beware of the lechers of law. They like to walk around in
flowing robes and love to be greeted in the market places and have the most
important seats in synagogue and the places of honor at banquets. They devour
widow’s houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished
more severely (Luke 20:46,47) Here the language he uses is that of a judicial
officer than spiritual. While condemning the religious elite of the Jewish people
Jesus uttered six woes to Pharisees and the language used by him is a sociological
critique instead of anything spiritual.
Jesus undoubtedly talked about sin but this expression does not correspond
with the concept of sin as found in the Old Testament where the sin has to be
forgiven by God and not by anybody. If he sins against you seven times in a day,
seven times comes back to you and says, I repent, forgive him.
I might invite some criticism that I am trying to strip off the exceptional
spiritually from Jesus who is supposed to be God or next to God. The situation
should be seen from other angle also. God or someone having is believed to be
capable of accomplishing any job of extraordinary courage, sill or strength. This
cannot surprise anybody. But the similar accomplishment by a man would be an
exemplary feat. We also have to keep in mind that no human being can follow god
as a model while a great man can be followed as a model. A distinguisher and
outstanding human being minus God’s potentialities is perhaps more creditable to
mankind’s history than somebody having supernatural powers. The man can be
followed as a model for civilizational growth and this is what was true with Jesus.
This son of a man did what no god of any culture would have done. No God would
have treated the women condemned for so called sins so kindly and humanely as
done by this son of Man. The so called sinner woman’s life is full of suffering and
the tortures of a hell, incessantly humiliated and degraded. If they are not stoned to
death, their dignity is constantly tarnished by men of moral who deprive these
women of any social rights. The immensity of their feeling of happiness or joy
would naturally have been impossible to understand when treated to humanely by
this Son of Man. That is where this very exceptional person appears to be more
Godly than God himself.
 13. He Did It without divine empowerment

Jesus was born in a period of conflicts, disorder and confusion. The Jewish
community living in a land occupied by Greeks and then was facing extreme
persecution and social maltreatment. Jews were living a terrified life long before
the birth of Jesus. Whatever their faith the Jews were constantly being forced to
loose their dignity and respect under a sort of demonic foreign rule. The Book of
Daniel and the first book of Maccabees tell the grew stories of what was
happening to a Jew during that period. Antiochus, branded as madam by him
contemporaries, half roman in education and Greek by descent, threatened death to
all Jewish worshippers. He tru turn the temple into the shrine of Zeus and man
other heathen deities were installed at the sacred alter. It recorded that unclean &
meat was forced down the throats of the Jews. The Books of the law were sought
out and destroyed a those refusing to accept the alien faith were cruelly put to deal
the martyrdoms and the horrors of persecution, ultimately broke out into open
rebellion.
A very violent struggle was done by Mattathias, a Jew priest from a village
near Jerusalem. He won a series of grand victories ago occupying forces. The
Book of Daniel appeared during this very period. The Book of Daniel restores
confidence and courage to the suffering community. The Jews facing the cruel
most bestiality of occupying forces, at times, organized bloody attacks to defend
their liberty, while a large number of others for the benefit of their privileges were
cooperating with known as Zealots. This activity was at its night during the
ministry of Jesus. We must keep in mind that his close associate and disciple Peter
was also a Zealot armed with a sword. Jesus, naturally must have closely studies
this armed insurgency to see if this way of struggle was suitable for his design of
social change. He was not completely disillusioned with the possible armed
struggle upto the end of his career, perhaps, since he, though casually asks. “But
now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword sell
your cloak and buy one”…
The disciples said, “see Lord here are two swords”.
“That is enough”. He replied. (Luke 22:36 and 38)
 The son of man was a temperamental person, no doubt as we see his violent
behaviour in the temple – On reaching Jerusalem Jesus entered the temple area and
began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the
tables of money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not
allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught
them, he said, “Its is not written :
“My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations?
But you have made it the den of robbers. (Mark 11:15-17)
He is seldom courteous or considerate towards the religion elite whom he
criticizes strongly and express woes – Woe to you teachers of the law and
Pharisees, you hypocrites (Matthew 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29) “Woe to you
Korazin! Woe to you Bethsaidsa! If the miracles that were performed in you had
been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you it will be more hearable for Tyre and Sidon on
the day of judgment thou for you. And you Capermanni, will you be lifted up the
skins? No, you will go down to the depths (Matthew 11:21-23).
Jesus is modest and humble enough to tell the beneficiary of his miracle not
to say it to anybody makes a fearless statement, much to the annoyance of the
religious leaders – Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions
were hungry? He entered the house of God and he and his companions ate the
consecrated bread – which was not lawful for them to do but only for the priests.
Or haven’t you read in the law that on the Subbath the priests in the temple
decorate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is
here… for the Son of Man is Lord of Subbath” (Matthew 12:3-8)
This unprecedented self confidence of Jesus is impossible to measure and
this is what gives him the confidence for civilizational intervention without any
devise empowerment. That is how this Son of Man succeeds in his design of
human history.
It is said that he spent forty days in wilderness all alone. He is asked two
questions. Someone, the myth says the devil said to him, “If you are son of God,
tell this stone to become bread”.
Jesus answered, “It is written man does not live on bread alone.” (Luke 4:3-
4)
The Gospel of Matthew has added something more to the reply of Jesus –
“Man does not live on bread alone but on every that comes from mouth of God”
(Matthew 4:4). The importance’s of the later statement could better be understood
by those who have worked to grow the seeds of the words or who enter the door of
knowledge. Not to be taken literally, he is offered all the splendor and wealth if
hew decides to stand with the Satan. Jesus curtly refused. He was final in his
conviction, not to be lured into the world of affluence. Whatever happened to his
people around him, was tormenting his conscience and forcing him to opt for final
solutions. He also knew the consequences. He repeated for what he was going to
do. He must have seen hundreds of people of his community dying pathetic deaths
on crosses surrounded by shrieking vultures. Horrors of this image must have
brought before him three options. Submit to the oppressors and lead a happy life
like the collaborators or join the Zealots for armed struggle or thirdly to work for
fundamental change of the history of mankind. The most awful forty days in
wilderness made him finalise the blueprint of his revolution. But the revolution of
Jesus is of a very different class. He opts revolution or a chain of revolutions
covering the entire rational social action. I need not say that the first objective of
Jesus was to retrieve rationality from orthodoxy and hypocrisy. He relentlessly
fought against religious blind spot and blind faith in favour of reason and logic –
But in your hearts sep apart Christ as Lord. Always he prepared to given an
answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that have (1 Peter
3:15).
Jesus desired to rebuilt the entire civilizational structure and knew that this
task shall require a chain of revolutions covering all aspects of human history. He
was working to prepare a fertile field where different talents could work on their
won, to revolutionise each and every aspect of social growth. Jesus was a
revolutionary not to overhand the establishment but to activate man’s initiative for
social intervention. Jesus must have been aware of revolutionary movements that
took place before his advent. Any revolution is normally supposed to a collective
effort by the people to accomplish the replacement of one ruling power by another
or one politico-economic world around him had seen two very important
revolutionary efforts one being the struggle of Jewish Zealots, ultimately crushed
brutally and the other a highly dramatic upsurge organized by one and the other
the Romans known as Spartacus in history. Then we witness two other revolutions
during the Christian era. Both of these revolutions are known for their impact of
human destiny. The French revolution of the late eighteenth century for the first
time in human history was not only to change the ruling power but also to put
forward an exhaustive social critique. This revolution was unique in the sense that
the revolution elemental actively worked for the fundamental social values of
liberty, equality, freedom of expression and the sovereignty of people. The world
history has long since been having a sort of prototype of the governments of
peoples representation. Certain peoples representative governments are knows to
have exists in Greece and India etc. in ancient times but no such government ever
stood for social equality. We know that almost all the major founder of religious
stood strongly for social equality with an exception of the Hinduism, but no social
system ever accepted it till revolutionary movements of modern age Britain had
already seen The government of peoples representation .The everyone of socialist
thought has been another major event that culminated into Russian socialist
revolution and later covering the nations like china, eastern European countries
and some countries in American subcontinent. Though many of these social
revolutions were short lived but their commitment for economic equality became a
driving force to intellectual debates against economic exploitations. This economic
theory known as Marxism, though strongly disagrees with faith, incidentally was
also born in Christian society only. This has been possible only because Christ
provided the suitable space for thoughts.
 We know that the enlightenment played a very important role in
materializing the socio political trend of modernity. But we also see that the
movement of enlightenment was carried forward by a large number of major
European thinkers quite critical to faith the enlighteners like Voltaire, Rousseau,
Montesquieu Lessing, Herder and Schaller etc. spoke against the church and
strongly criticized dogma but they exerted considerable influence upon shaping of
sociological thoughts which gave not been possible in any other society of the
world. The most radical achievement of the modernity was the rationalism. The
rationalism has been a major constituent of the Buddhist thought but its full
operative role is seen within the Christian world where the growth of academic
disciplines like science, philosophy, sociology economics etc. has been
unprecedented and unrivalled. No other growth as was done by thus sib if a man.
Almost every major culture has been having glorious traditions if theatre,
literature, painting, music. Sculpture and dance etc. but they have been sadly
lacking the new trends as seen in the world of Christian culture, Indian, china and
Japan have been having long and highly creative tradition of fine acts and
performing arts but they lack the new trends even in literature. History testify that
the trends of modern art and literature were basically the achievements of
European culture later adopted and followed by other cultures. The painting came
out of stylization and naturalism to reach the new horizons of impressionism,
expressionism, cubism, surrealism and so on. Same as been the case of theatre
where the movements like absurd drama, pshchophysical theatre, constructivist
theater, newspaper theater or epic theater etc. brought a revolution in dramatic arts,
so is the case of European literature, hardly having any obvious commitment to
theology represents the finest glimpses of human history and life it may baffle any
sociologist or philosopher of history to see that the widest and most profound
creating into a _____________ culture epitome. W can recollect He said- sp the
son sets free you will be free indeed. (John 8:36) The creative talent of the
civilization following him appropriated this freedom and worked to create every
thing new- I create everything new . (revelation 21:5) The son of man provided the
man with fertility of the word and this is what resulted into the highest standards
of culture growth.
 14. Bold parents son burns down the old

I believe one has to leave aside the spiritual notion to understand the son of
man’s true role in human history. It is interesting to see that all the four Gospels
mention Jesus identifying himself as son of man. He admits being son of god after
his arrest and interrogation. Once he gave a different version of the same. I came
from god and I a here.(John 8:42) while addressing The critical Jews he said –
why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said I am Gods son? (John
10:36)
We can not he absolutely positive about the reporting of gospels but we
surely can conclude that most of the time addressing the disciples or the people at
large Jesus identifies himself as son of man and not the son of god. At some other
places he uses another expression repeated quite often- I cane from god. I came
from the father and entered the world. (John 16:27:28) the difference between the
expression, son of a man and god my father is very precise and careful. Jesus did
not have any father is very precise and careful. Jesus did not have any father in
social terminology. The situation would have been painful to this sensitive
revolutionary. The way it was to his moth known as virgin mary- mary was greatly
trouble at his words and wondered what kind of greetings This might be. (Lake
1:29) what could have been the answer of a virgin girl conceiving and giving birth
to a baby if asked-who is the child’s father. Most convenient answer world have
been that the child us gift of God or it is God who gave me the son. Who could in
that backward society believe the story the virgin mary conceived by an angel?-
The holy spirit will come upon you and the power of most High will overshadow
you. So the holy one to be born will be called the son of God. (Luke 1:35)
We should also read what is concealed between the lines of mary’s son.
Only the bravest lady in that age would have decided to give birth to the child and
that also with clear objective. We are living in a modern age where the notions of
virginity and chastity are almost outmoded. The invention of contraception and the
women’s lib movements together have compelled the developed societies to
discard the concepts of a mothers virgins and illegitimacy of a child taking birth
outside the wedlock have also become obsolete. But the situation of two thousand
years back would definitely have been unthinkably bad. That was a time when
virgin mother would have been stoned to death. Since the Angles could never
openly and publicly testify, the girls life would have been quite precarious.
 I would like to quote Philip yancy here- Rejected by the church, blamed for
Jesus death some Jews began a counter campaign against Christians. They spread
the rumor that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of marys liaison with a Roman
solder. (The Jesus I Never knew, 0: Books ,2003 p.53 ) They could have also said
that she was raped by a roman, definitely not very in common those days.
However carrying a child outside the wedlock would have been a matter of great
courage. We do mot have many details of the family life of the boy who must
have, had some tormenting days and nights if any of his childhood friends tamped
about the intriguing rumours related to his birth. We also do not know anything
about his mother’s conversation with him.
We come across a very meaningful couplet from the song of mary-
He has brought down rulers
From their thrones(Lukes 1:52)
The song is sufficiently lengthy and I do not know if it has independently
been deconstructed critically. As reported by almost all the theological historians
the period of the birth of Jesus was very turbulent. The land was facing continuous
revolt and subsequent persecution. A so called prophet leading a revolt against
Romans and their collaborators was brutally suppressed and about four thousand
of the rebels were massacred. Mary, who had to undertake a tortuously long and
difficult journey from to Bethlehem, Egypt to save the life of the newly born son
would have been sharing the sentiments of rebels. She must have been nursing
deep hatred towards the rulers. Mau be she might have some outbursts about
whatever was being done by rulers. If not vocal, her concealed sentiments would
have been revealed through her eyes to highly sensitive son. If closely seen, we
can read between the lines her conceited anger towards the establishment of the
rulers –
He had performed mighty
Deed with his arm
He has scattered those who
Are proud in their
In most thoughts.
He has brought down rulers
From their thrones
But has lifted up the
Humble
-song of mary (Luke 1:51:52)
 whom so ever she was addressing, had might to scatter the oppressors and
had power to bring down rulers from their thrones. Did she not have ever
expressed all this to enlighten her son? Was this song as mentioned in Gospel
simply a poem composed by a relations to the reality of her life? We can see
umpteen numbers of folk songs written by women of human societies where in
they have given strong expressions to their agony and anxiety. Should we not take
the song of mary in the same light? The said song is poetic composition. The
expressions contained in the poem are basically derived from Old Testament. Most
of them are from psalm which would naturally have been most popular religious
writing amongst Jews particularly the believing women. But the expressions are
far from being the exact quotations. We can take two stanzas from psalm and the
song of mary –
for he satisfies the thirsty
and fills the hungry with
good things
-psalm 107:9
he has filled the hungry
with good things -mary’s song Like 1:53
but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me
and keep my commandments
-exodus 20:6
his mercy extends to those
who fear him
from generation to generation
- Mary’s Song, Luke 1:50
We can see the differences and similarities between the two texts. Mary
belonged to any ordinary family of Jew and was neither a daughter of a teacher of
law nor belonged to any family of priests and must never have had acquaintance
with scriptures. Burt she must have inherited by oral tradition certain glimpses of
the religious texts through women of faith around. That is what, probably provided
the basis of her poetic composition. This composition also testifies her desire for
probable change of system and this desire must have been transferred to life little
Jesus while he was being groomed. That last stanza interestingly is her original
composition, probably nothing to borrow from the Biblical text
He has helped him servant Israel
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants
for
even as he said to our
fathers - Mary’s song, Luke 1:;54-55
 What she wanted to say outside the text of Bible, is that her destiny has
been shaped the way it was done to Abraham who had lost all hopes to have son.
But the same stanza gives an absolutely different meaning if we read the word
Israel to mean the land of Israel and not a Biblical character. May be she was
really having the first meaning in her mind. If she intended to mean the land of
Israel, she must also be dreaming the possibilities of socio-historical
reconstruction of the land and this dream of Mary would have passed onto Jesus
also. This schooling or these types of very intimate lessons would have
constructed the psyche of this very sensitive son of Man. The birth of John the
Baptist was not different from Jesus. He too came into the womb of Elizabeth after
Gabriel’s prophecy which had almost stumped Zechariah, her aging husband. The
family of Elizabeth very close to Mary would also have sown some seeds of
discontent. But the major role in shaping his temper was definitely played by
rebels like Maccabeans who were the biggest challenge to Roman occupation and
their stooges inside the Jewish religious order.
Jesus had always been highly critical to law teachers and priests. After a
long drawn struggle and defeat of Maccabees Romans installed their own stooges
to lead the Jewish religious activities. The Maccabeaus revolute, and a half
centuries back from the birth of Jesus was in fact the struggle of Jews to restore
the autonomy of their religious activities. The rule of Antiochus who wanted to
Hellenize Jews, was fraught with most cruel atrocities. Jews saw one of their
priests falling dead after a brutal flogging just for the crime of refusing to eat Pork.
A mother of seven children not bowing before a Greek image was killed along
with all of her children. The most humors act of this ruler was to defile the Holy
Place of Jews by sacrificing a pig.
The sanctuary was imaged with pig blood. This resulted into a long down
struggle of Maccabees that because a highly popular legend for days to come.
Jesus was timely saved while Herod, a storage of Romans, ordered roman armies
to massacre all the children below the age of two women and children were
murdered by Roman soldiers in such a large scale that Herod himself made an
ironical statement would the Romans deprive the city of all is inhabitants and
possession and leave me a king of wilderness?
 This is what was happening around at the time Jesus was born and this is
what would have tempered his consciousness. We have seen the moments of his
angry outburst – I have come to bring fire on the earth and how I wish it were
already kindled. (Luke 12:49) He must have heard the maccabean legend and
subsequent submission by priests. He never gave any concessions to collaborators
like Pharisees, particularly. His famous “ six woes” directly assail them but the
anger, concealed is clearly visible- you foolish people! Did not the are who made
the out side make the inside also? …. Woe to you Pharisees because you give God
a tenth of your mint, me and all kinds of herbs but you neglect justice and the love
of God…. Woe to you Pharisees because you love the most important seats in the
synagogues and the greetings in the market places. Woe to you because you are
the unmarked grains which men welcome without knowing it And you experts in
law, woe to you because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry
and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Woe to you because you
build tombs for the prophets and it was your forefathers who killed them….. woe
to you experts in the law because you have taken away the key to knowledge.
(Luke 11:42-52)
The reprimand is undoubtedly harsh in comparison to what he had said
earlier-Do not judge and you will not be judged. Do not condemn and you will not
be condemned. (Luke 6:37) when he is annoyed he speaks curtly to his disciples
too. Peter once tried to contradict him, though innocently. He curtly said- Get
behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me. You do not have in mind the
things of God but the things of men. (Luke 16:23) He is very kind while he faces a
man from the crowd- when they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and
knelt before him “Lord have mercy an my son, “ he said. “ he has seizures and is
suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought to your
disciples but they could not heal him.
“ O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied,” How long shall I
stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me”.
(Matthew 17:14:17)
John, the Baptist sent some of his disciples to testify the truth about Jesus.
This type of enquiry must have hint Jesus and his feelings are expressed at the end
of his reply –The son of man came eating and drinking and they say, ‘here is a
glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners’.(Matthew 11:19)
 Jesus, obviously, must have been deeply influenced by whatever wad
taking place around him but as I said earlier, he did not ignore the thoughts carried
by the Greeks and Romans. He got aquatint. With their philosophies in spite of
their atrocities being committed all through that period. He knew that the
civilization without the human thought is a Barr and unproductive land. That is
why he insisted that the man does not live only an bread. The words are most
important for the growth and development of man that is how he sadly said that
the Pharisees and Sadducees had closed the doors of knowledge. He was
convinced that the doors to knowledge have also to be unlocked alongside the
faith.
The outlook of Jesus towards the womankind has to be properly
understood to know his sociology. The Christianity witnessed three period of
women’s social history. The first Epistle to the Corinthian by St. Paul can provide
us some information about the status of women during the early period of
Christianity – It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality and of a kind
that does not occur even among pagans : A man has his fathers wife. And you are
proud! (1 Corinthians 5:1-2) The body is not meant for sexual immorality. (Ibid, :
13) Do you knot know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her
in body. (Ibid 6:16) From now on those who have wives should live as if they had
non. (Ibid 7:29) An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s
affairs : Her aim is to be devoted to Lord in body and spirit. (I bid 7:34). Not
adultery but fornication was made condemnable by the Christianity. Those
committed to absolute celibacy often retired to desolate places to flight Satan that
tried marble persuaded by an Apostle to live life of unmarried moralized never to
do anything with each other. It is reported by the historians that some brides
keeping away from their husband chose a celestial husband.
 This was followed by a period when the Chaste and Celibacy was stretched
to the point of absurdity where taking bath, cutting nails etc in prohibited to nuns.
The question of sexual morality a force that provoked a large number of comedies
to be written subsequently. The last phase has already been discussed, though
briefly, with reference to the woman’s emancipation movements in Christian
world. St. Paul, as quoted above, has referred to the sex worker as prostitute.
Jesus incidentally came across priests as sinners. Sometimes he dined with them
but he did never utter a single word of condemnation. He treated them with love,
respect and compassion. We never address such women as ‘prostitutes’ today. A
new name of sex worker has been given to them to protect their dignity. The
orthodox Christian has constantly been conservative these issues women while
Jesus provided the basis for women’s emancipation which was materialized almost
at the end of second millennium after his death. The question of virginity of Mary
has been dealt with very carefully by theologies because they have been
subscribing the virtuosity of Moses and Paul, deliberately keeping distance from
the liberated views of Jesus. They apprehend blasphemy in case they fail to
establish the divinity of mary’s pregnancy. I ail to understand how they think that
unparallel the greatness of the son of man is dented if not related to the divine.
And also that how a man becomes small if he is if not fathered by legal husband of
his greatness. The greatness of his parents has also been devalued for the sake of
Gods omnipotence and his spiritual eminence. Mary became pregnant and then she
decided not to get rid of child but to being him into the world to redeem honour an
avenge the wicked. The bold as she is as an unmarried mother, gave birth and
groomed a child who later became civilization revolutionary. So is his father
Joseph, who inspite of his initial in situation came forward boldly to father Jesus
fully ignoring the social stigma. The spiritual infatuation of believers have
belittled Jesus for the sake of an abstraction called God. The emergence of Jesus
can be understood as a civilizational big bang resulting into a new and most
dynamics world.
 The unquestionable faith of Jesus in God should also be kept in mind while
we deconstruct the fact of spiritual intervention in his birth. Jesus had absolute
faith in God as per the testimony of Gospel. His uttering start from wilderness – It
is written : Worship the Lord your God and serve him only (Luke 4:8) The first
time he addresses people of Nazarath where he was brought up. He was in a
synagogue on Sabbath day and he read from Issaiah – The spirit of Lord is an me.
(Luke 4:18) But he also reminded the audience – I tell you the truth, no prophet is
accepted in his home town. (Luke 4:34) it was not easy for the Jews under the
influence of orthodoxy to accept anybody as their religious leader outside
Nazareth too. Jesus, that is why, keeps aside his commitment to make all things
new (Revelation 2:15) and merely says – I must preach the good news of the
kingdom of God. (Luke 4:43) Jesus knew that the people infected by orthodoxy
shall not approve him unless he directly speaks on behalf of God. The consent of
God, that had set into his consciousness was the sole guarantee of his credibility.
God’s name provided him confidence to convince people of his honesty and
authensity, though, almost at the end he had become confident enough to give an
impression that he was to replace God though he says that – I came from God
(John 8:42) he is confident enough to add – I am telling you now before it
happens, so that whom it does happen you will believe that I am He. (John 13:19).
He declares – I am the light to the world. (John 9:15) I am the Alpha and Omega,
who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:8) Any one
who has seen me has seen father (John 14:9) was his curt reply when he was asked
by his discipline Philip to show him God (John 14:8). Jesus must have been facing
very complex situation during the last days of his life. He was a believer no doubt
but he also visualised the need to accomplish what was outside the domain of God.
He desired reconstruction of civilizational history which was possible only with
the help of radical philosophy and science while God, as per the scriptures, was
concerned with social morality and spiritual faith only. Jesus, we have seen, never
gave any dicta about individual or social behavior. He also never gave any
particular instructions to pray. The contents of his prayers are very personnel and
informal. In a way, Jesus was a man of critical theology. Though in the beginning
he says – Do not think I have come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17) but he
rebels against the same – The Sabbath was made for men, not man for the
Sabbath. So the son of man is Lord of Sabbath also (Mark 2:27). Jesus, once
accepted the invitation by a Pharisee to eat with him. The Pharisee noticed that
Jesus, first did not wash before meal. Jesus answered- Now then, you Pharisees
clean the outside of the cup and dish but inside you are full of greed and
wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the
inside also? (Luke 11:39-40). No one else, those days, would have had courage to
defy the rules laid down by earlier prophets but Jesus did it boldly. He refused to
follow the law that one should stop any activity during Sabbath. He openly did
whatever he wanted to do on that day also. We have to understand whatever is
between the lives when he says – What good is it for a man to gain the whole
world and yet loose or forfeit his very self? (Luke 9:25).
As I said earlier the Gospels are surprisingly brief and they hardly provide
the detailed statements of Jesus. A lot more has to read between the times and we
have to stop and look into the profundity of the word SELF which might be having
deeper meanings the contemporary physists working on super string theory also
think that we might not be having only four dimensions in universe but quite a
large number of them right be there. So we can see with certain words used by
Jesus. They may also have multi dimensional meanings and here we must include
the word self also.
 15. Reading Jesus, not literally

Jesus is the only prophet in human history who empowered human being to
discover the creative capabilities of the WORD. He is the only prophet who never
gave any TEXT. He made the history to be engineered by words instead of
providing the finished texts to that effect. He almost re-did the Genesis and his
Genesis had the WORD in the beginning. The WORD was God to Jesus, quite
aptly understood by John out of all the four Apostles – In the beginning was the
Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (John 1:1) This is the
best description ever of Jesus the person. Out of all four Apostles. Only John
understood that Jesus was the one to be the alternative to God. The caption
introducing Johns Gospels also suggest the signs that John reports give proof that
Christ is God. (The Holy Bible, New International Version, Zondervan, 1984, p.
1645). Jesus has rightly been described as word since this is what he was most of
other prophets were the accurate and detailed text. Jesus was the word – I tell you
the truth unless a Kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a
single seed. But if it dies, it produces many sees. (John 12:24). He really fell to the
ground and died and the WORD consequently grew to become the most dynamic
history.
 The entire universe was already there along with men and women and their
history when Jesus came up. The world after Christ, we see is thoroughly different
from what it was before his advent. Did Jesus knew about the format of his new
civiliational construct? Probably not. What he certainly knew was that the five
shall kindle and that every socio-cultural structure shall be dismantled. Nothing
new shall be erected without bringing down the old. Jesus, as I said, had his own
Genesis, with specific objective. He had inherited a world he could never
appreciate. His revulsion for what was there around him got expressed
spontaneously when he saw women mourning at the time of hi scorn infixions –
Daughter of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your
children. For the time will come when you will say, blessed are the barren women,
the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed. (Luke 23:28-29). The
extreme of anxiety of Jesus was a prelude to the imminent socio-cultural BIG
BANG and it did happen. The way the big bang resulted into a universe with
galaxies, stars, planets etc., the human civilization underwent tremendous
intellectual development. This second big band resulted into unfathomable
expansion of human consciousness. The developments in pure sciences,
particularly after the Quantum physics could never have been achieved by any
religious dogma had this space not been provided to firtilise the word. Jesus
always stressed upon being the Son of Man and to glorify the tremendous
capabilities of man he refused even to be identified as a prophet – Who do the
crowds says I am ? They replied “some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah and
still others that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life. “But what
about you?” he asked, “Who do you say I am ?” Peter answered, “ The Christ of
God”. Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to any one. (Luke 9:18-21) On
another occasion after healing some people he rebukes them when they say “You
are Son of God. (Luke 4::40-41) After cleaning a man covered with leprosy he
says – Don’t tell any one. (Luke 5 :14) But why? No other prophet in human
history has ever refused this title! Why did Jesus do it? Why he did not wish to
glorify himself just like other prophets?
 We know for thousands of years of human history. The man, if not a king
or a trader or an officer of the ruling power had to live the life of subservience.
Subjugation and degradation. Priority of Jesus was to redeem the lot of this very
man. It was his conviction that what good is it for a man to gain the whole world,
and yet loose or forfeit his very self. (Luke 9:25). So if the Son sets you free, you
will be free indeed (John 8:36)). The principal objective of Son of Man was to
liberate human being and restore his dignity. Any effort to liberate the human
being annoys the ruling class. The subjects stripped off their liberty add to the
property of rulers. Jesus was aware of what miserable life the people were leading
under the yoke of subjugation. No one was secure and anybody from the ruling
class could maltreat and even kill anybody without any answerability. For ruling
community there was hardly any value of human life. Jesus was himself facing all
this. People who disagreed with him or who hated him wee openly conspiring to
apprehended and kill him – Again they tried to seize him but he escaped their
grasp (John 10:39) His freedom of life and freedom of expression, both were all
the time in peril – All the people in synagogue were furious when they heard this.
They got up, drove him out of town and took him to the bow of the him on which
the town was built in order to throw him down the cliff. But he walked right
through the crowd and went on his way. (Luke 4:29-30) Lack of freedom of
speech in the world around him endangered his life seriously – Everyday he was
teaching at the temple. But the chief priests and the features of the law and the
leaders among the people were trying to kill him (Luke 19:47). The struggle for
freedom of speech was an urgent priority of Jesus – I will give you words and
freedom. (Luke 21:15). If we do not read the word and freedom literally, they
may stand for what the civilization later attained by Magna Carta or Rights of Man
of Thomas Paine. The word should stand for competence to express and the
freedom for what was defined by Rights of Man. Jesus was struggling for freedom
of speech that which was denied to him. The teachers of law and the religious
leaders were out to kill Jesus because he was fighting for his right to openly
criticize for whatever was wrong. He was trying to defend his freedom of speech
and to make people freely oppose the system. Dri Price, a Christian priest
preached a sermon almost about eighteen centuries after the death of Jesus. This
sermon, later became the famous document about the human fundamental rights.
The fundamental rights included the right to choose own government. This was
what Jesus wanted to achieve that is the people friendly system. The said sermon,
later to become a major charter of human rights, was delivered on 4 th of
November, 1789, to be precise. The wish of Jesus started having concerts shape
with this. But we must recollect the historical event of Magna Carta that took
place about six centuries earlier.
 King John of England was compelled to sing the document known as
Magna Carta about twelve centuries after the demise of Jesus. The Chapter 39, the
most significant of this Charter was the opening of the most glorious clause of the
human rights history – No free man can be arrested, imprisoned, deprive of hi
property, outlawed, exiled or any way destroyed except by legal judgment. This
clause naturally forbade any arbitrary action by the government, it guaranteed due
to process of law without conditions.
This clause was definitely a sequel to what was done to Jesus. He was
refused any right to have legal justice, arrested quite unlawfully, retained in illegal
custody and given capital punishment without any reason. This was indicated as
pleaded by Jesus, almost twelve hundred years after his death. We know that
thousand of innocent people were brutally murdered just to quench the blood thirst
of rulers like Herod and Nero. Jesus wanted to put an end to this atrocious system
and restore human right to freedom and justice. The history testifies that no other
society or civilization has had any inclination for restoring human rights long after
it was done by a society influenced by Jesus.
Not the Hindus but Islamic prophet Hazrat Ali, after coming to power,
restored the judicial rights of the people but the Muslim monarchy after him
openly abrogated the human rights, particularly in India which was already ruled
by autocracy since long. The formalisation of human rights was the major
achievement of Christian society that worked incessantly on this front. The French
Revolution and its impact upon the intelligentsia ultimately paved the way to final
consensus on freedom of life and expression most avidly desired by Jesus. I would
like to come to Thomas Paine, a British political religious scholar who wrote the
historical booklet known as Rights of Man. This writing became a Gospel of
rationalists who were to make this movement an important part of modern history.
Tiso most important clauses are very directly related to what was preached by
Jesus words and freedom. Clause one of the Right of Man reads as follows – Men
are born, and always continue free and equal in respect of their rights and the
clause ten and eleven together specify the freedom of expression – No man aught
to be molested on account of his opinions not even an account of religious
opinions.. the unrestrained communication of thoughts and opinions being one of
the most precious rights of man, every citizen may speak write and publish freely.
 This is what was totally denied to Jesus who stood for words or creative
expression. The words equipped with creative power bore a guarantee to
enlightenment. He declared to be the light of the world (John 9:5) and he actually
meant that he was to herald the enlightenment. He gave vision to blind that which
liken literally was described as a miracle. It was a miracle only in the sense that
people who failed to see the reality, were made to understand whatever was wrong
with them. The people completely unaware of socio-historical malignancy of their
time, were shown the way to know what was what. Giving vision to blind meant
that they were being provided key to the doors of knowledge. The effort of Jesus
to ml the people move forward towards the goal of social awakening if not read
literally. The Gospels say – Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a
mat…. Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up take you mat and go home” And the
man got up and went home. (Matthew 9:2, 6-7). It is not merely a psychiatric
treatment. It is a effort to restore the confidence of a defeatist who refuses to move
ahead. Something understood with spiritual enthusiasm become a miracle.
However, I do not wish to unjustified the peoples faith in miracles since they are
not normally impressed by greatness of a man. Nothing less than spiritual
empowerment can convince them since they usually substitute self confidence by
faith. This is why people prefer Jesus as Son of God though Jesus himself
repeatedly declares that he is Son of a Man. He was strongly committed to social
revolution and not spiritual salvation. He professed the kingdom of Heaven, no
doubt, but if not taken literally, he visualized a radically new world. He was
making all things new to mean new philosophy, new science, new sociology, new
economy, new politics, new literature, new art and culture and an absolutely new
social order. He wanted to see a completely new human being. He achieved his
objective to a great extent, though quite a few centuries after his death. Whatever
he visualised and this was the most significant of his miracles. He painfully said,
once this is a wicked generation. It asks for a miracles sign. (Luke 11:29). Again
he makes a bitter comment – Do you have eyes but fail to see and ears but fail to
hear. (Mark 8:18).
 Between the lines we can read what actually he meant by giving vision to
blind or giving voice to a mute. The comments quoted above from the Gospels
themselves suggest the literal reading as imprudent. A miracle is not simply a
miracle. It is a critical statement or a careful setting out of the ideas involved in his
theoretical exploits. Mute is a man who submits to whatever is happening around
and bears it silently without grudge of protest. Mute is a man who tolerate
injustice without expressing his disapproval or raising his objections. Jesus cured
his ailment and stirred him to react. This is how Jesus would have given voice to a
mute. If a man doesn’t move forward and remains glued to status quo, he is lame.
He shirks from using his logs or withholds his initiative. It would have been a
simple affair if Jesus was to make the lame man walk. A man acquiring ability to
walk is an insignificant event. A miracle, as understood by believers, reduces the
socio-historical significant of what was being done by Jesus to almost zero. Even a
good surgeon could restore vision to a blind man or make a lame man walk. Jesus
was not simply doing that. It should be recollected here what was said by Jesus –
Do you have eyes but fail to see (Mark 8:18). The objective of Jesus was to make
man visionary and not merely to repair the damaged retina. The task of restoring
vision to or reviving the initiative of man, if termed as miracle, equates the great
civilizational accomplishment of Son of Man to an ordinary job of a surgeon. The
difficulty with the man of faith is that nothing less than spiritual miracle can
impress him and that is why he prefers literal meanings of the words of Jesus. The
phrase of sowing the word, understood literally, may only mean deep faith in God
while it has much deeper meanings. What Jesus meant by sowing the words was
an effort to generate the power of reason. He was having hitter confrontation with
the people of faith of his time who were blind folding the civilization to prevent its
progress towards the way to knowledge. While explaining towards the way to
knowledge Erich Fromm said that reason requires relatedness and a sense of self.
(The same society, Routledge, 1991, p.165). this very sense of SELF was
highlighted by Jesus while he was discussing his self with Peter. He incidental
disapproved Peter who thought that he was the Christ of God. He strictly warned
his disciples not to tell this to anybody. Here once again he repeated that he is Son
of Man and that what good it is to gain the whole world yet loose or forfeit the
very self. (Luke 9:18-25) Old Testament is quoted by him to identify the irony of
his existence – The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone. (Mark
12:10). He himself was a dropout Son of Man not part of the system. He was an
alien to his social ecology. Philosopher Rene Descartes deduced his existence as
an individual man from the fact that he could think. He way Descartes discovered
himself due to his ability to think, Jesus also became aware of his social purpose
as a dropout. One has to alleviate himself from what he has to reconstruct or
should be prepared to be alienated consequently. The alienated one has first to be
aware of this state of existence, that is he has to be conscious of his self. It is
interesting to see that Erich Fromm highlights the sense of self as a requirement of
REASON. Jesus highlighted sense of self that required reason to start chain
reaction resulting into civilizational remodeling.

16. A forerunner of Socialism

To his utter discomfort and annoyance, Jesus found the religion

appropriated by wealthy, rich and affluent around him. The ruling class has always
been affluent but to the surprise of Jesus the teachers of law and the priests were
also living the life of affluence – No, those was wear expensive clothes and
indulge in luxury are in palaces (Luke 7:25) – There was a rich man dressed in
purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. (Luke 16:19) – Beware of the
teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes. (Luke 20:46).
Jesus, from the very beginning of his career was conscious of the social
undesirability of the economic disparity. He himself was the son of a carpenter, a
toiling workman and Jesus, when grew-up, helped his father in making ploughs
and yokes.
The symbolic value of these products is very important. The plough breaks
the earth for reproduction while yoke is to carry the burden. Jesus used the concept
of sowing in the grain fields quite a few times during his days of ministry and he
knew very well the torments of yoke - And you experts of the law, woe to you,
because you load the people down with burdens they can hardly carry. (Luke
11:46). The first people he choose to be his disciples wee again people toiling for
their livelihood, the fisherman – as Jesus was walking beside the sea of Galileo, he
saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a
net into the lake for they wee fisherman. “Come follow Me”, Jesus said, and I will
make you fisher of men”. At once they left nets and followed him.
 Those who followed him and listened to him keenly were all the toiling
workmen and poor people never addressed directly by any social or religious elite.
They must have been baffled to see that somebody addressed principles directly.
He addressed and befriended persons suffering from leprosy, the most dreaded and
despised ailment in human history. Probably he is the first and only prophet ever
who cleaned and tried to cure a leper who had been shunned by everybody. A
leper in any society has been outcaste and rejected and nobody has ever had
accepted him as part of society. This segregation of a leper is even now practiced
by some backward societies. Jesus not only cleaned and treated them but was bold
and radical enough to dine at a lepers house.
I had already quoted the iron of economic disparity with reference to what
was written by J.K. Galbraith that during a dinner hosted by industrialists to
honour Herbert Spencer, the guests smoked tobacco wrapped in hundred dollar
currency notes while there were numerous beepers at hand. A strikingly similar
impression was given by Jesus, also partly quoted earlier – There was a rich man
who was dressed purple and give linen and in luxury every day. At his gate was
laid a beggar named Laarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from
rich manstable. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. (Luke 16:19-21).
Ofcourse it was not the objective of Jesus to write a socio-economic treatise
but surely what and how he discovered the sociology that provided strong
foundation to the sociological thoughts of eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth
century social sciences having concern with socio-economic inequality. Jesus
seems to be very upset, sore and angry over destiny of the extreme poverty in
contrast to the inhuman riches. No other prophet who came before Jesus ever
expressed his concern over grave economic disparity, that plagued the major parts
of society the principal concern of the religion has been the morality and
unquestioned submission to God. The question of prophets or left upon the
benevolence and kindness of God while God may or may not redeem under the
pretax of desirability of person in need. God has an option of ignoring or accepting
the prayer of a poor man. In any case the religious system has never been sensitive
to the problem of poverty.
 Jesus himself belonged to working class and this class was always hand to
mouth since their products if sold was never remunerative. The product, in most of
the cases, used to be bought by traders on meager payments. The affluence
invariably favored a trader and not an artisan. Jesus was person who shared the
destiny of the poor. He frankly disapproved the rich – Jesus sat down opposite the
place where offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into
the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow
came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him Jesus said, “I tell you the truth this poor widow was
put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but
she out of her poverty, put in everything all she had to live on” (Mark 12:41-44). It
is not difficult to read what is there between the lines. Jesus stands with extremely
poor widow as against so called religiously devoted wealthy people. Immediately
after this observation follows another intensely better statement “Do you see all
these great buildings? “Replies Jesus, “Not one stone here will be left an another;
every one will be thrown down” (Mark 13:2)
Though all of it has been understood quite differently we cannot overlook
the undercurrent of a socialist agitator. I shall like to quote few lives from a poem
by Bertolt Brecht –
The grand king must have a new province, the peasant must relinquish his
savings.
In order to capture the roof the world, the cottage roofs have to be torn
down.
The widows tax money has to be fingered to see if its good,…
Those who can’t count upto four, devour eight courses
The corn farmers look around for buyers but see only the starving.
The weavers go home from their looms in rags.
Is that right ? Is that right ?
(The Caucassian Chalk Circle Collected Plays Volume 7, Radha Kishna,
India, 1979 pp. 206-207
 the contents of Breacht’s poem almost reiterates what was once said by
Jesus – They like to walk in flowing robes… they devour widows houses. (Luke
20:46-47) They anger of Jesus against the economic disparity matches a socialist
agitators wall writings. As said earlier no other religious leader ever noticed a poor
widow offering two elopers in temple or a poor widow being deprived of his
dwelling by social elite in flowing robes. What is most important is this contrast
that which provides the basis of division of classes. “Bourgeoisie and proletariat
are the only pure classes in Bourgeois society” (George Lukaces, History and
Class consciousness Parrot Read Publishers, India, 2003 o, 45)
I do not mean here that Jesus created the prototype of modern progressive
economics, but unlike any other prophet he was equipped with consciousness of
class exploitation though in a very primitive form and that his thoughts do not
contradict the inquisitiveness towards a progressive economy leading late towards
socialist thought. The spirit of religious systems, normally does not make way
easily to any thought that which is outside its reliquary of social and moral dittoes.
Religion provide detailed does and don’ts and expect strict adherence to the same.
Subjects like philosophy, sciences, sociology, psychology, economics etc. are
uncongenial domains to theocracy. This is what resulted into direct conflict work
in the Christian world had o face strong disagreement and persecution by the
priests who were not ready to accept any relief to see that Jesus never put hurdles
in the path of knowledge. Denying the contents of Genesis, the socialist
philosopher said – But since for the socialist man the entire so called history of the
world is nothing but the creation of man through human labor, nothing but the
emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth
through himself, of his genesis. (Economic and Philosophill Manuscripts of 1844
by Karl Marx, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1982, p. 100) It is interesting to see
that Marx does not need Athesisim for socialist theorization neither he stresses
upon the need to abolish religion. (Ibid p. 101), But still the gap between the faith
and modern social thought is very wide.
Another aspect of the economic exploitation comes formthe ninenteenth
century thinker Thirstein Veblen, author of a highly controvercial book. The
theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen, persecuted by American educational
institutions for not being a subscribing Christian, was not so considerate as Marx
in his expression about religion or religious leaders – Of all contemptible things a
man who pretends to be a priest of God and is a priest to his own comforts and
ambitions is the most contemptible. (The Theory of the Leisure Class. Vikas,
India, 1974, p. 203). The author counts the priests in non-productive leisure class
enjoying all worldly beuifi contributing nothing – Priestly vestments show, in
accentuated from all the fetus that have been shown to be evidence of servile
status and a vicarious life. Even more strikingly than the habit of the priest, the
vestments, properly so called, are ornate, grotesque, inconvenient and at least,
ostensibly comfortless to the point of distress. (Ibid, p. 128).
 Veblems annoyance with the appearance of a priest must be read with the
comments of Jesus – they make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their
garments long, they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important
seats in the synagogues. (Mathew 23:5-6).
Now I would like to look into the event of Jesus being anointed by costly
perfume. There is a lot there to read between the lives – While he was in Bethany,
reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper a woman
came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume made of pure nard. She
broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Some of those present were
saying indignantly to one another why this waste of perfume? It could have been
sold for more than a years wages and the money given to the poor. “ And they
rebuked her harshly, “Leave her alone,” said Jesus, “Why are you bothering her?
She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you and
you can help them any time” (Mark 14:3-7).
No religious system has ever devised a way to ameliorable the lot of poor in
human society. Religion has always linked the poverty with the destiny and
expects the destitute to hear with it passively and submissively. The only solution
to the problem of poverty with religious order is charity or donation. This has
never resolved the said problem in human history. Jesus also meant only this. He
never told anybody that the religious order available to them shall free the poor
from economic destitution. The struggle for freedom from poverty was started by
the socially conscious people from within the Christian society and by no other
culture of the world. The space for the said struggle for freedom from poverty was
naturally provided by Jesus.
Though Jesus did not device any machinery to solve the problem of
poverty, he has been the only prophet who worked for the restoration of dignity of
the poor man. The poverty has been treated as a curse and the poor man looses
social dignity and respect. As per Hindu thought a poor man is the worst sinner –
Bubhukshitah kim na karoti papam. Jesus uplifted the poor to restore his dignity.
He did not hesitate to dine at the house of a poor leper. He strongly criticized the
social elite exploiting the fruits of poor laborers hard work – Others have done the
hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor. (John 4:38). This is
exactly what was later observed by progressive social scientists like Counte, Marx,
Veblen, Galbraith and scores of others – The relationship between proprietor and
worker be reduced to the economic relationship of the exploiter and the exploited.
(Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx, Progress Publishers,
Moscow 1982 o, 57).
 Jesus himself was the son of Joseph, a working class man, a carpenter and
after conning out for his revolution, he never had a home – Foxes have holes and
birds of the air have nests. But the son of man has no place to lay his head
(Mathew 8:21). Son of man after dedicating himself to socio-historical revolution
had become more common hat any commoner of street. That is the reason he
could understand the very soul of a destitute.
The early history of Christianity also makes for us an interesting reading. If
we look into first century A.D. Rome we seen the guided, affluent elite having a
magnificent political system. They were joyfully ruling over millions of
economically destitute toiling just to remain alive. These people worked hard for
the ruling elites benefits. It is said they shared food with animals and lived the
lives of cattle’s and dirty pigs. This state of affairs could be compared to what was
grimly stated by Jesus quoted by me earlier. it is recorded that early Christian
priests were also keeping away from any kind of riches. In most of the cases they
were living the life of utter poverty and simplicity and that is how they were able
to convert the poor masses in large numbers.
Jesus, time and again pronouncing himself as Son of Man, was careful
enough to remain a common man. His admires and followers, listening to his talks,
were anger to call him a great man, a Messiah or good Lord but he always
prevented them bluntly – A Jesus started on his way, a man ran upto him and fell
on his knees before him. “Good teacher” he asked, “What should I do to inherit
eternal life?
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus questioned (Mark 10:17-18).
“Immediately he was cured of his leprosy. Then Jesus said to him, “See that
you don’t ell anybody” (Matthew 8:3-4).’
As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out,
“Have mercy on us, Son of David.”
When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him and he asked, “Do
you believe that I am able to do this?”
“Yes Lord” they replied.
Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith will it be
done to you”, and their sight was restored. Jesus warned them sternly, “See that no
one knows about this” (Mathew 9:27-31).
Similar is the episode of a paralytic lying by the side of pool called
Bethesda anticipating a dip into its water to get cured. The Gospel says – when
Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long
time he asked him, “Do you want to get well?”
 “Sir,” the invalid replied “ I have no one to help me into the pool when the
water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, some one else goes down ahead of
me.”
Then Jesus said to him “Get up!, Pick up your mat and walk”. At once the
man was cured…. So they asked him, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick up
the mat and walk?”
The man who was healed had no idea who it was for Jesus had slipped
away into the crowd that was there (John 5:1-13).
Jesus and his disciples want on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On
the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am ?
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah and still others,
one of the prophets”.
“But what about you?” he asked, “Who do you say I am?”
peter answered, “ You are the Christ”.
Jesus warned them not to tell any one about him. (Mark 8:27-30)
We have seen that almost all the founders of religions in human history
boldly accepted the title of prophet. Whey Jesus did not like to be known as a
Prophet? Was it not because he wanted to remain a commoner to carryout the task
of empowering the common man?
They came to Caper Mann. When he was in the house he asked them,
“What were you arguing about on the road?”
But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the
greatest.
Sitting down Jesus called the twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first,
he must be the very last and the servant of all” (Mark 9:33-35).
The history tells us that the earliest convert, mostly were the poor workmen
working hard for the benefit of the elite. Jesus must have naturally strongly
appealed to those who were small and serving the others.
These are the reasons. I strongly disagree with the scholars who try to
discover contradictious between the basic thoughts of Jesus and the theorisations
of modern progressive social scientists,

17. Triumphal entry :

 a farcical critique of ruling, class

About five hundred years before Jesus, the Buddha of India told his
disciples to light up their bodies – Ata divo bhava – make your body a lamp. The
Buddhist scholars, later, made some very significant achievements in the filed of
the theory of knowledge or epistemology. How we know what we know? Does the
object exist even if no one ever senses it? What is the relation of a sense datum to
the object? Does the sense datum construct the object? And many other such
questions were answered by Buddhi philosophers. The Ihakya prince Gautam,
after renunciation, is said to have attained Buddhatva, that is the enlightenment. It
is the enlightenment or turning the body into a lamp that gave way to opening the
new frontiers of knowledge. The major philosophical work of the Buddhists dealt
with the questions of being and the awareness of self as well as the material world.
Buddhist philosophers also tried to see if human thoughts represented the picture
of external reality. They also philosophized if objective reality corresponds the
idea of the object or the idea of the object determine the cognitive character of the
objects. They also analysed the objects experienced as sensible or perceived
cogitable or inferred. The essence of existence was primary concern of enlightened
Buddhist.
The Hindu Brahmin Philosophers of Upanishadas also, raised the question
if the material world is really material or the whole phinemenon is simply an
Illusion? The Buddhist Philosophers, contradicting the said thought said that the
illusions have to have the ides derived from the objective reality. No illusory
image is possible without prior experience of the materially objective
phenomenon. These thinkers also dealt with a very complex issue of cogon of
reality through the medium of language. They keenly analysed the descriptive role
of language that was the part of major work of linguistic philosophy of mid
twentieth century of modern Europe also.
I must state here that some work was done by Brahmin literary
theoreticians long after the Buddhist linguistic philosophers but no Brahmin ever
went deeper into the fundamental of philosophy. Shankaracharya of 9th Century
A.D. has been avidly portrayed as a philosopher but he merely wrote
commentaries on Gita, Brahmasutra and some upanishadas. He was lest of an
original philosophical thinker. The Brahmins have consistently rejected any effort
of philosophical enquiry. They bluntly said that no major question of philosophical
problems can be solved by debate logic or reason major philosophical problem can
be solved outside the world of reason Naisha tarkeua matirapaneya (Kathopnishad,
2:9).
 The same enlightenment was initiated by Jesus who told his disciples I am
the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will
have the light of life. (John 8:12). I have come into the world as a light (John 12-
46). You are the light of the world…. Let your light shine before the man.
(Mathew 5;14 and 16). The word Buddha indeavs the enlightened and he asked his
disciples to be the light this resulted into unprecedented intellectual revolution in
following centuries. This is exactly what happened to the Christian history
following Jesus. He also stressed upon enlightenment that materialized during the
following centuries. Jesus gave a call – Ask and it will be given to you; seek and
you will find; knock and he doors will be opened to you (Mathew 7:7). He was
aware that the theology of his time had locked the doors to knowledge. The closed
doors to the knowledge had to be strongly knocked. And the doors to the
knowledge did open. The Rome, the fertile ground for early Christianity also gave
way to a revolution in the intellectual history, known as the enlightenment. But we
have also seen the conflict between the faith and the enlighteners. The reason is
obvious. The theology constructed out of the given books or revealed scriptures
usually provides a comprehensive blueprint of cosmology, metaphysics and social
life. The faith almost leaves nothing for human initiative. God knows everything
and he is the only competent force to dictate what to do and what knowledge but
also the embodiment of knowledge too. A man has merely to follow whatever has
been told by God. This is where the conflict between the faith and the reason
starts.
I have already mentioned the cases of scientists who said the earth is round,
revolves on its axis and also revolves around the sun. the scientists contradiction
the scriptures, propounded the theory of evolution as against God making the
world, flora and fauna within seven days and producing a woman out of the ribs of
man. The scriptures, being final and God given left no scope for further debates or
queries. The religious order can not risk its credibility by according man a right to
question or debate a religious dogma. This is what resulted into conflict between
the religious order and the quest for knowledge.
 Now the case of Jesus be reviewed again. He started with reading before
the people, loudly the parts of scriptures of Jewish faith. He also told them that he
wants to fulfill the religious dictates and not to contradict them. Right upto
Beatitudes, he tries to play the role of a religious monk or preacher but shortly
after that he adopts his independent position. He starts having serious differences
with the orthodoxy of his own religious order. He was a Jew and the Jews had a
massive scripture now known as the Old Testament. The authority and infallibility
of this book is supposed to be the God’s word in written for. Jesus had keenly
been acquainted with this book surely as a word of God. Those having faith in this
book “believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity
that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world and that it sets forth the way
to our eternal well being”. (The Holy Bible, New International Version,
Zondervan, 1984, Preface) Jesus, as a traditional Jew must also be knowing it.
Whereas theWord of God is supposed to be the final, all pervasive and
unanmendable, Jesus boldly transcended the religion boundaries.
As per instructions given in Exodus the priests or the religious chieftains –
garments were made from blue, purple and scarlet yarn for ministering in the
sanctuary. They also had sacred garments for Aaron as the Lord commanded
Moses. They made the ephod of God and of blue, purple and scaled yarn and
finely twisted linen. They hammered out thin sheets of gold and cut shreds to be
worked into the blue, purple and fine linen – the work of a skilled craftsmen. They
made shoulder pieces for the ephod which were attached to the two of its corners,
so it could be postened. Its skillfully woven waistband was like it – of one piece
with the ephod and made with gold, and with blue, purple and scarlet yarn and
with finely twisted linen, as the lord commanded Moses. They mounted the any
stones in gold filigree settings and engraved like a seal with the names of the sons
of Israel. Then they fastened them on the shoulder pieces of the ephod as
memorial stones for the sons of Israel as the Lord commanded Moses. They
fashioned the breast pieces, the work of a skilled craftsmen. They made it like
ephod of Gold and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and of finely twisted linen. It
was square – a span long and a span wide and folded double. Then they mounted
four rows of precious a beryl; in the second row a turquoise, a sapphire and an
emerald, in the third row a turquoise, a sapphire and an anathist, in the forth row a
chrisolyte on onyx and a jasper. (Exodus 39:1-13).
It is not difficult to see that the priestly garments as described with
reference to Moses were as gorge ones as those of an emperor or a powerful king.
Jesus never wore any such attire. His clothes were very ordinary like those of a
common man and to ridicule whatever he was wearing, the persecutes made him
to wear scarlet robe – They put a purple robe on him. And they began to call out to
him “Hail the king of Jews”. Again and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they
paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him they took off the purple robe
and put his own clothes on him (Mark 15:17-20).
 The gorgeous robes of the religious leaders irritated Jesus – They like to
walk around in flowing robes (Luke 20:46).
Here we must see in what form Jesus enters Jerusalem described by the
authors of Gospel as Triamphal Entry. His persecutors mocked his dress as well as
his kingdom but before that Jesus made a civiliational reticule while entering
Jerusalem. We came across in modern history are artists civilizational ridicule
when Charlie Chaplin made his famous film known as The Great Dictator. Jesus
civilizational critique came about two thousand years before the Great dictator.
Jesus was not merely an artistic satire. It was the real enactment of a drama to
mock the socio-religious system of his day, in form of a practical satire. The
triumphal entry must be seen as the greatest farse in human history created by the
visionary of revolution – The next day the great crowd that had come for the feast
heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went
out to meet him shouting, “Hosanna!” Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it
(John 12-12:16).
It was very large gathering to mark the unprecedented support and welcome
to him. The people who had brought the donkey for Jesus threw their cloaks on the
colt. (Luke 19:35) – Many people spread their cloaks on the rode, while others
spread branches they had cut off from the fields (Mark 11:8).
This is how the people of Jerusalem bestowed their love and respect for
Jesus, they would naturally have managed to bring a fine horse for him but Jesus
had made up his mind surely to enter Jerusalem as a king but also make a farcical
comment upon the ruling class of his time. This was the best possible satire or a
deliberate parody of style of life and functioning of the ruling class in order to
prove them funny. No droughts the ruling class was offended and this is what was
Jesus desired. The people in flowing gorgeous robes properly understood the spirit
of parody and reacted very strongly- The teachers of the law and the chief priests
tooked for a way to arrest him immediately (Luke 20:19).
I would like to mention here a nineteenth century French painter Honoree
Danmier who was arrested quite a few times by French Government for his
satirical paintings. Having deep sympathy with the toiling people like fishermen,
laundresses and poor mothers scrubbing their children, Danmier painted the
political elites in satirical style. His work portraying the real character of politician
won unenviable notoriety and each week. When his cartoon appeared, ministers of
the state shook in their boots. He was looked up but the sentence failed to subdue
his zeal. The persecution could not discourage him. (Famous Artists and their
models : Thomas Cloven, Pocket Books Inc. 1949, pp. 86, 87).
 The practical force of a royal procession of Jesus was an unbearable
critique of the same ruling class enthusiastically appreciated by the masses. As a
bitter rejoinder the system had nothing else to do but to arrest Jesus and then kill
him. The chapter of the Triumphal Entry is not merely an episode of Jesus going
to sacrifice himself but it is socio-critical thesis of an intellectual son of Man. The
elite, being learned undoubtedly, received the message of the creative force of
Jesus but the commoners in the temple precinct, buying and selling consumer
goods or changing money had to be dealt with differently. Instead of a poetic
force, Jesus had to be prosaic in his message, turning over their tables and hitting
them with a stick – On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered, the temple area and
began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the
tables of money changes and the benches of those selling doves, and would not
allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. (Mark 11:15-16). It
really was a process of socio correction or the beginning of his socio revolution.
Any revolution that has to bring the fundamental change in social order is
supported by very few and abhorred by not only the ruling class but also by the
people who became accustomed to the status quo. These people also stand by
those who resist any social change. A large number of people satisfied with the
order of the day came forward to support the persecutors. The Gospels say that.
But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified and their
insistently demanded that he be crucified and their shouts prevailed. (Luke 23:23).
The anti-segregation laws were very specific and the support of progressive
whites in America in fifteens and six teens but when a black girl tried to enter the
school, even the policemen obstructed her, as the guard, let some white students
through, I walked up to the guard who let them in. he too didn’t move. When I
tried to squeeze past him, he raised hi spinout and then the other guards moved in
and raised their bonnets. Somebody started yelling, Linch her! Linch her! (Eyes on
the Prize, Juan Williams, Penguin Books 1988, p. 101). The movement of the
blacks in America had a very wide support of the whites but still people should –
Lynch her. The cry of “crucify” was also similarly raised by those who never
wanted say social change.
However I wish to go back to the subject raised earlier in this chapter. Jesus
though, said – Do not think. I have come to abolish the law and the prophets
(Mathew 5:17) but he never restrained whenever he found the said LAW :
abstracting his way to social change – One Sabbath Jesus was going through the
grain fields and as his disciples walked along they began to pick some head of
grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look why are they doing what is unlawful on
the Sabbath?....” then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for mom, not man
for the Sabbath” So Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:23-27).
 One can see the dignity of man as strongly highlighted by Jesus. He was
proud of being the son of man and never hesitated to declare it. He must be
knowing what Moses had said – Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy as the
Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your
work, but the seventh day is the Sabbah to the Lord your God. One it you shall not
do any work , neither you, nor your son or daughter nor your manservant or maid
servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey or any of your animals nor the alien within
your gates. (Deteronomy 5:12-14). We can see how clearly defined and detailed is
the law concerning the observance of Sabbath but Jesus challenged it outright.
One another Sabbath he went into a synagogue and was teaching and a man was
thee whose right hand was shriveled. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law ere
looking for a reason to accuse Jesus so they watched him closely to see if he
would heal on the Sabbath. But Jesus know what they were thinking and said to
the man with shriveled hand. “Get up and stand I front of every one” So he got up
and stood there. Then Jesus said to them. “ I ask you, which is lawful on the
Sabbath, to do good or to do evil to same life or destroy it ?” He looked around at
them all and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand”. He did so and his hand
was completely restored. But they were furious and began to discuss with one
another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6:6-11).
On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues and a woman
was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over
and could her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free fro your
infirmity”. Then he put his hands on her and immediately she straitened up and
praised God. Indignant because Jesus had healed on Sabbath the synagogue ruler
said to the people, “These are six days for work. So come and be healed on those
days, not on the Sabbath. “The Lord answered him, you hypocrites, doesn’t each
of you on the Sabbath until is ox or donkey from the stall and lead it to out to give
it water?” (Luke 13:10-15). It is not once or twice but an many occasions he
challenged the law concerning Sabbath, whether made by Moses or by God
himself. Moses gave specific law for divorce but Jesus strongly disagreed - Some
Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his
wife?”
“What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said “Moses permitted
a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away”.
“it was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law”,
Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and he invited to his wife
and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore
what God has journey together let man not separate (Mark 10:2-9).
 The spiritual rationalization apart, Jesus never gives any concessions even
to the laws of Moses or of any other prophet. Moses commands – You shall not
commit adultery. (Denteronomy 5:18). Jesus allowed the woman accused of
adultery go unpunished – Jesus straitened up and asked her, “Woman where are
they? Has no one condemned you? “ She said, “No one Sir”. Jesus declared,
“Then neither do I condemn you” (John 8:10-11).
Jesus was consonantly contradicting the doctrines of Old Testament and his
part of his character increased his conflicts with religious ideologues of his time.
He didn’t wait to see what was written in the religious book about people suffering
from leprosy. It was supposed to be a dreadful communicable disease and the
person suffering from it had to be quarantined. The person with such an infections
disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his
face and cry out “Unclean, Unclean”. As long as he has the infection he remains
unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp. (Leviticus 13:45-46).
Jesus most affectionately sat with people suffering from leprosy, cleaned
the wounds and treated them. He, even derived with lepers in their homes, quite in
contradiction to the rules of prophets as mentioned in Leviticus – while Jesus was
in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he
saw Jesus he fell with his face to the ground and begged him. “ Lord if you are
willing you can make me clean.” Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man
(Luke 5:12-13).
Even today it is difficult to find a man howsoever rational going to a leper
and touching him with his hand. No prophet other than Jesus in human history
could muster courage to dine at a lepers house – While he was in Bethany
reclining at the table in the house of a man known as Simian the Leper, woman
came with alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke
the jar and poured the perfume on his head. (Mark 14:3). Whereas he stayed and
dined with a leper, he had no hesitation in eating and drinking with sinners.
While Jesus was having dinner at Mathew’s house, many tax collectors and
sinners came and ate with him. (Mathew 9:10).
Jesus recollected this satirically – They say, “He has a demon. The Son of
Man came eating and drinking and they say he is a glutton and a drunkard a friend
of tax collectors and sinners (Mathew 11:18-19). The Son of Man who was
privileged to dine with tax collectors, never heisted to be with the lepers. The
Christian priests who came to India were always eager to serve the lepers who
were despised by everybody in this country.
 Most interesting is the attitude of Jesus towards the concept of sin – As he
went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him. “Rabbi who
sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” Jesus said, “Neither this
man nor his parents sinned but this happened so that the work of God might be
displayed in his life” (John 9:1-3).
The concept of sin is one of the major constituents of Christian theology
Paul used to say that he is the chief sinner. One of the most important features is
that of original sin as per Old Testament wherein a detailed story is linked with it.
The story has inspired quite a large number of poets and painters. The story relates
to what was done by Adam and Eve in Eden Garden and subsequent expulsion of
both. The men, as far the story goes, had eaten the forbidden fruit and this he did
in contravention to the order of God. The said event angered God and the man
along with his subsequent generations was cursed to carry the original sin as if in
his genes. The man, thus, became a sinner by birth.
But the most important was the description of the forbidden fruit of said
garden. God himself identified it while telling Adam - But you must not eat from
the tree of knowledge of good and evil for if you eat it you will surely die (Genesis
2:17) Adam ate the forbidden fruit but he did not die though had to carry the curse
of being a sinner and bound to transmit the sin to coming generations. It is
interesting to note that the first was from the tree of knowledge.
Jesus, incidentally, cursed the high priests of Jerusalem – Woe to you
experts in law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You
yourselves have not entered and you have hundred those who were entering (Luke
11:52). Surely, there appears to be a contradiction between God’s dictation to
Adam and curse of Jesus to people of religious laws. Both mention the word
knowledge. God orders the first man to keep away from he tree of knowledge
while. Jesus attacks angrily the closed doors of knowledge. The contradiction, of
course can be rationalised and dismissed by men of faith but from rational point of
view Jesus, insisting on breaking through the doors of knowledge, stands for
departure from orthodoxy, inspite of his faith in God. I have a reason to highlight
this contradiction and beg to point out the way Jesus handles the concept of sin. I
shall like to remind what I had already quote – his disciples asked, “Rabbi, who
sinned this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus said neither this man
nor his parents sinned” (John 9:1-3).
 He was well versed with Psalm from Old Testament and he must be having
the stanza 51:5 in mind – Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my
mother conceived me. On the question of sin in relation to the man blind from
birth, Jesus deliberately ignores Psalm 51:5 or other such biblical nations. The
modern society has almost rephrased the concept of sin with judicial law. He cares
more about legal procedure than spiritual sin Jesus also eliminates the difference
between the social law and the spiritual sin. He is very comfortable as in pleader
for sinners. He deals with the problem of sin just like a modern man talking social
laws more seriously than religious idea of sin – “If your brother sins, rebut him
and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day and
seven times comes back to you and says, “I repent”, forgive him” (Luke 17:3-4).
Jesus also pointed out the causal factor of sin that which was not done by any
other prophet – “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to
that person through whom they come. It would be better from him to be thrown
into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of
these little ones to sin. “ (Luke 17:1-2). The person who causes someone to
commit sin is more guilty of sin, according to Jesus this is the reason he doesn’t
hate and keep away from tax collectors too. People go to tax collectors to bribe
them for reducing their taxes and thus cause the tax collectors to sin. The modern
legal procedure also takes cognizance of the guilt of those who try to bribe on
officer. This is why Jesus is not very serious about the sin of a woman accused of
adultery or prostitution. The person who corrupts the woman to commit adultery
or goes to share her bed for prostitution is more seriously guilty. The orthodox
face of the sin has therefore been radically revised by Jesus.

18. Re-reading Last Words

 Right from Adam to Mohammed all the prophets die natural death with an
exception of Isaiah who was martyred but his death was not his choice. Jesus was
the only prophet in human history who decided to make his death a thesis of his
theory of civilizational revolution. He contrived the end of his life into the advent
of a new Adam. The feelings of extreme agony and anxiety at the time of his last
prayer in Gethsemane, were the birth paves when he was to give birth to a new
history – he began to be sorrowful and troubled. “My soul is overwhelmed with
sorrow to the point of death” (Matthew 26:37-38) And being in anguish, he prayed
more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. (Luke
22:44). The pain as described by Apostles was the expression of suffering of
giving birth to what he had conceived as a social philosopher. The Son of Man had
decided to die – unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains
only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (John 12:24). When I am
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself (John 12:32). The pain and
anguish of the Son of Man had to be suffered by the history also while giving birth
to new social order – Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be
thrown down. Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There
will be earth quakes in various places and famines. These are the beginning of
birth pains (Mark 13:2, 8). The son of man suffered the birth pains in Gethsemane
and transferred the same to humanity. The new civilization was to materialize out
of the old but with fundamental difference that we have seen in last chapters. Here
we are concerned to move through the mysterious laves of his anxiety that made a
man much more than a man.
Some roots of his anxiety can be traced in his baptism by John the Baptist.
John had said – I baptize you with water but after me will come one more
powerful than I and he will baptize you with fire (Mathew 3:11). Jesus was very
well aware of the meaning of baptizing people with fire. The fire of protest and
discord, the five of an urge to speak, the fire to object and the fire to say that there
is something wrong out there. The son of man knew that if he had to baptize with
fire, the world will not remain the same as before. He had to spend more than a
month and an a half in isolation wandering in difficult terrains of desert thinking
profoundly and at length over what he had to do and how. He desired to dismantle
the lofty system – I tell you the truth, not one tone here will be left on another,
everyone will be thrown down (Mathew 24:2). Solitary wandering in desert made
him to come to the conclusion of how to bring fire on earth that could burn down
the decaying old – I have come to bring fire on earth. (Luke 12:49). It would not
have been very easy to discover the fire that could burn the stagnation of human
history. He had seen the unfortunate failure of Geatotos’ swords. The son of man
wanted more effective double edged sword to cut down unpromising culture
growth outflanking the civilizational creativity – I have not come to bring peace
but a sword (Mathew 10:34).
 He had undoubtedly seen the unfortunate role of the sword zealots were
banking upon. So he had to have his sword of a different kinds. He had to temper
his words to make the double adged sword for his war against a deceased history
using the terminology of Althusser, a radical Marxist philosopher, I can say, the
Son of Man was living in a complex society constituted by Repressive State
Apparatus and Ideological State Apparatus functioning side by side. The religious
system had become completely repressive. The state apparatus of Rome though,
worked with ideological concerns for the purpose of is glorification, was
systematically pampering the repression state apparatus functioning under the
Pharisees and the Sadducees. This complexity had taken toll of human rationale
making the struggle of Jesus much more difficult. Being aware of the intricacies of
this system, the son of Man, ultimately devised his strategy of ultimate war seen
never before inhuman history. His triumphal march to the city of Jerusalem is a
matchless example of this surprisingly unrivalled warfare.
We have known the warlords, army general or the kings who wear steel
helmets, headgears, equipped with swords and spears, riding over finest bread of
horsed to face the enemies. This son of man chose to lead his march riding over a
donkey neither a chartist nor an elephant nor a stalling. The disciples went and did
as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the calf, placed their
cloaks an them and Jesus sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on
the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road
(Mathew 21:6-8). The donkey ride was a dramatic critique of pompous royalty of
political and religious elite. Nobody else could have created such an effective
force of the ruling class. It was a premeditate reticule and a practical satire on the
system he had decided to dislodge from its position. The message went home.
‘Hosanna’, - shouted the crowd that followed him, ‘Bless is he who comes
Blessed is the king of Israel! (John 12:13).
The king of their revolutionary empire came riding over a donkey. The
satire wounded the repressive stall apparatus and it reacted. This is what was
desired by Son of man and the beginning of the end of the aberrant history was
around the corner. The corner stone was now going to have his day - He who falls
on this stone shall be broken to pieces but he on whom it falls will be crushed
(Matthew 21:44).
The Pharisees told Jesus to silence his followers. Jesus said – I tell you if
they keep quiet, the stone, will cry out (Luke 19:40). The corner stone was to
become alive and crush the decaying culture. The corner stone of his word was
now to dismantle the degenerate history to the extent that not one stone was to be
left upon another.
 The impact of the invasion of donkey riding one man army was to be seen
by those who had vision a not who had eyes but were intellectually blind. Their
clumsy retaliation was not less than a fare – We had found this man subverting our
nation. (Luke 23:2). It is interesting to see that they were anxious to stand by a
nation which was not theirs at all, They were still craving for their promised land,
yet they were accusing Jesus that he was subverting their nation. It can be said,
here, that the Jewish theocrats, failure to understand the real meaning of Son of
Man’s assault facilitated the future of Christianity. They crucified him believing
that this will put an end to the struggle of Jesus. This is where they were trapped.
They in a way helped in materializing the plan of Jesus. If Jesus succeeded in his
civilizational objective. It was because of the outdated, ineffective armaments of
his adversaries who were unable to foresee the massive impact of the explosion of
his word. They never knew what hit their history by his chain reacting words – It
is finished (J 19:30). His work was completed – The curtain of the temple was torn
in two. (Luke 23:45). The heaving curtain, blinding the way to knowledge was
torn apart by his sacrifice. This was the work to be accomplished, though at an
exorbitant cost. The suffering of Son of Man before his death was perhaps never
known before. John the Baptist also suffered death but it was not as painful and
humiliating as that of Jesus. He was beheaded. Socrates had to die to his views.
The servant returned with the man who was to administer the poison; he was
carrying it ready prepare in a cup. When Socretes saw him he said; Well my good
yellow, you understand these things; what ought I to do?’
‘Just drink it’, he said, and then walk about until you feel weight in your
legs and then lie down, then if will act of its own accord.’
As he spoke he handed the cup to socretes, who received it quite cheerfully.
... … ….
Such was the end of our comrade, who was, we may fairly say, of all those
whom we knew in on time, the bravest and also the wisest and most upright man.
- Plato, the last days of Socretes : Tr. Hugh
- Tredennick, Penguin Books, 1954 pp. 108-9
 A very large number of people faced horrible deaths during Nazi holocaust
of twentieth century Europe but the tragedy was trust upon them andnot willingly
invited. None of the dead people committed his life fro such death. Still I shall like
to mention the tragic fate of check writer and political activist Julus Fucic during
the period of Nazi trocities, particularly because of his last words – We are seed
sown under the earth, Peter. That is our generation. That is what we call ourselves.
Not all of us will germinate, not all of us will come up when the spring comes…
But do not think Peter, that will fear this. Not all of us will come up, but also not
all of us will perish. This too we know, with this too we live. The rustling of the
full grown corn will hide the trample on the graves, they will be forgotten,
everything will be forgotten, the anxiety and the sorrow – only the harvest will tell
your generation on our behalf, whether we be alive or dead : take and eat, this is
our body. (Report from the Gallows : Julus Fucik, john Spencer and co. 1957, pp.
142-3) Fucik has very carefully used the words from Gospels. Fuciks words can
help us decipher the archeology of the citadel of culture that was erected by the
death of Jesus.
T.J. Eliot had written a stage ply on martyrdom of Thomas Becket, the
Bishop of Canterbury. The knights, after killing the Bishop, justifies their act and
one of the killer declares – I am a man of action and not of words. (Murder in
Cathedra, oxford University Press, 1977, p. 83). It is a very meaningful comment
an senseless killing of a person who refused submission before injustice whether it
were Pharisees and Sadducees or the killer knights of unrepentant king, they were
merely the tools of action working against the words or the wisdom. It was the for
these people the son of man had said-Father dorgivr them, for they do not know
what they are doing (Luke 23:34) They were the people of build action living far
away from the world of words. They were not acquaint with the words and had
never known the freedom of creativity. Lastly, the son of man addressed the future
of civilization through a very unique language of his pain and suffering, never
before used to communicate his disagreements.
Jesus, according to testimony of gospel, successful dodged his adversaries
surrounding him to kill, quote a few times- Again they tried to seize him but he
escaped their grasp. (John 10:39) so from that day an they plotted to take his life.
Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the Jews. Instead he
withdrew to a region neat the desert to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed
with his deseiples.(John 11:53:54)
 Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane at momet of olives at might when it was
dark. He could see the people coming to arrest him with torches from distance. He
knew what was going to happen to him and he had ample of time to escape and
disappear in a place like Mont of olives but he did not do that. He waited peace
fully to be arrested though he knew that – The son of man will be betrayed to the
chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condense him to death and will
turu him over to Gentiles to be mocked and flopped and himself designed his
sufferings. We know, just before the Passover feast. So he got up from the meal,
took off his outer clothing and rapped a towel around his waist. After that he
poured water into basin and began to wash his disciples feet.(John 13:1-5)
The disciples could hardly decipher this language, and the son of man knew
it – you do not realize what I am doing.(John 13:7) The disciples did not
understand the real meaning of this act of washing their feet and I feel that it was
not properly understood even after his death, by the spiritualists. The most
sensitive moment was rather taken literally just to mean a moment act of service.
The said act has been misunderstood because of spiritualists’ failure to read the
mind of Jesus ironically living with one cross, prepared to move to another cross
to die a painful death. Irony of living with one cross was to knowing bear the
presence of the one of the disciples who was to betray him the piece of bread
dipped in his dish. Judas was no less a killer than those who demanded him to be
crucified.
A very sensitive novel cancer word by the Russian writer Solzhenitsyn
opens with pavel Nikolainich, suffering from malignant tumor, being admitted in a
Hospital. Pavel, every now and then tries to feel his tumor and knows how awful it
is to live with a dead by Tumor pavel got admitted in a canner ward of a hospital.
The tragedy of the last days of Jesus was also the same. The son of man was living
with a malignant disciple of his own and he knew that instead of going for any
treatment, he had to die an extremely painful death because of his tumor called
Judas. He did not intend to teach his disciples to serve the mankind by this act. He
could have taught them the spirit to serve just by giving a sermon. He did not do
that. The son of man, actually decided to wash the feet of Judas, Jesus wanted to
touch and feel the cancerous growth tenderly, the way pavel of cancer ward
touched and felt the malignant growth by the side of his neck.
 Jesus had launched his assault riding over an ass the first instrument of his
bitter satire against the aberrant history and he knew that the said fight was also
going to inflict most painful injuries on his person to take the toll of his life,
ultimately. His action to wash the feet of the most important instrument of his
murder, he was in fact, himself scourging his defunct personality. He also knew
the reality of his other disciples too. He was aware of the fact that the moment the
confrontation with his enemies start they were not only going to desert but also to
deny him- this very might you will all fall away on account of me.(matthew 26:31)
He wept while entering the gate of Jerusalem along with cheering crowd and
exited disciples for he knew that the crowd shouting mosannashall turu bood
thirsty demanding his death. The realization itself would have been a painful
scourging.
The Gospels say that about the ninth hour Jesus cried our in a loud voice-
Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani meaning- my God my God, why have you forsaken
me? (matthew 27:46) According to all the spiritual interpretations Jesus is
supposed to address God.
The last words as quoted by matthew have also been repeated by mark, but
Luke and John have different versions of the same. According to John his last
words were- It is finished. Luke says that his last words were-Father into your
hands I commit my spirit.
John was, undoubtedly by the side of the cross when Jesus died bit he wrote
the Gospel about a century after the death of son of man. His primary objective
was not to tell the story of the life of prophet but to prove that Christ is God and
has supernatural colours while painting the personality of Jesus and to tell people
that the objective of son of man was fulfilled by his death on cross. Mot the last
words but the entire life and death of Jesus was a lengthy statement- The word was
God.(John 1:1)Since he was god, he according to the belief of John must have
expressed his satisfaction over the accomplishment of his task in this world after
his death.
Matthew and mark seem to be more faithful to actuality by quoting his last
words as eloi eloi or eli eli (as per some manuscripts) etc. This verson seems to be
more probable because of the reaction of onlookers recorded – when some of
those standing near heard this, they said, “ Listen he is calling Elijah”(mark 15:35)
 Anyone standing there, surrounded by a crowd of thousands, rejoicing or
weeping could have mistaken the word Eli as Elijah. But it still more surprising to
see that the last words of Jesus are yet to be correctly understood. During the last
two thousand years, almost every interpreter has seen these last words as
expression of extreme pain and anxiety of Jesus who found himself forsaken by
God I earnestly believe that here his last words have been grossly misunderstood.
He was merely swearing by God to express his disappointment over being
deserted by his own people. It had naturally been a painful experience to see that
the thousands of his admirers shouting hosanna had suddenly been replaced by
people demanding his crucifixion. This is what made him to swear by God to
question his own self about his loneliness at the time of his death. He, in fact, asks
himself, why, by God, he was now all alone? He has always lived for others,
worked to ameliorate the lot of suffering people and now was dying for mankind.
We know he was offered the kingdoms of the world and their splender “All this I
will give you if you will bow down and worship me”. (matthew 4:9) with his
brilliance and wisdom, it was not difficult for him to become a collaborator and
emass wealth but he opted to work for civilization revolutions. And now he was
on the cross all alone. It was a very natural reaction to say loudly that by God he
was all alone to face the most horrible death. He was not complaining that God
deserted him. He was not questioning himself in the name of God, why his
mission was conniving to an end in the company of two criminals where were
those for whom he was giving his life in his will ? Were they really there
dedicated to carry forward him mission ?
Who is this YOU in the painful expression of Jesus from the cross ? Is it
God he is addressing ? Certainly not. He was remembering his disciples who used
to say – Lord I am ready to go with you to prison and to death (Luke 22:33). He
promised but deserted him and not even that. He told the people in temple that he
never knew Jesus – Woman I don’t know him (Luke 22:57).
The most tragic event of the life of Jesus is the behavior of his most dear
disciples in Gethsemane. Jesus know that he was going to be killed and that also in
a very gruesome way – The Son of Man… will be handled over to Gentiles. They
will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him (Luke 10:32).
The anxiety coupled with depression was experiences by Jesus the moment
he entered Gethsemane. There are not many instances of him offering prayer. He
was eager to pray but was also going through the agony of whatever was to be
done to him. He was sweating like blood coming out of his body – and being in
anguish he prayed more earnestly and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to
the grout (Luke 22:44).
My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and
keep watch with me (Mathew 26:38).
 He knew what ordered he had to go through and he was almost loosing his
courage. He was so week that he almost feel face down to ground. His anxiety
increased he would have last his life there itself. That is why he wanted his
disciple closely, but the three of them who had accompanied him dosed off due to
eating and drinking the same evening. He found them sleeping because their eyes
wee heavy (Mathew 22:43)
Nothing to tell about Hosanna enthusiasts, the dearest of Jesus were not
very serious about his suffering. After eating and drinking they were eager to sleep
though they had seen the sweat of anxiety of Jesus dropping like blood. Jesus
wanted them to look after him in case of his weakness. My soul is overwhelmed
with sorrow to the point of death (Mathew 26:38). That is why he desired if at
least his dear disciples were there to share his agony but they were found sleeping
whenever he saw them after prayer. This is what ultimately forced him to exclaim
– why have you all forsaken? Why did you not try to see what anxiety he was
undergoing! And after all this, he faced the historical irony of his life when the
closest of him behave as if Jesus was completely alive to them. She looked
closely at him and said, “This man was with him”.
But he denied it “woman I don’t know him”.
A little later some one else saw him and said, “You also are one of them”.
“Man I am not’ Peter replied.
About an hour later another asserted “Certainly this fellow was with him
for he is a Galilian.”
Peter replied, “Man I don’t know what you are talking about” (Luke 22:56-
60).
When Jesus was being denied by his nearest and strongest called the ROCK
– The man who were guarding Jesus began mocking and heating him. They blind
folded him and demanded, “Prophecy! Who hit you”. And they said many other
insulting things to him (Luke 22:63-65).
What could have been the reply of this Son of Man when he knew that he
was fatally hit by his own men. His reaction was very realistic – By God. Why
they deserted me ?
It is not that he never knew this. He had bitterly observed – But the time is
coming and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his home. You will
leave me alone (John 16:32).
 His bitterness could be understood by the fact that even his own family
failed to appreciate what was being whatever he wanted to do. He was a lone piper
who sayen backwardness, orthodoxy and intellectual blindness rallied around this
lonely man after his death. He died almost disillusioned on the cross but his spirit
regenerated the human history for the times to come.
“Farewell, my people. Try to reshape your lives. All here is new, all must
begin new… listen now to this tale. One summer there was a plague of rats in
Scyros. …But one day a flute player came to the city…He began playing on his
flute and all the rats came out…. And the flute player with his rats vanished for
ever.”
- The Flies, a drama by jean Paul Sartre,
Penguin Books, 192, p. 316

19. Epilogue

Knowing the Hindu Mind As Against Christianity

 I had an opportunity to know the psyche, behavior and the mind of a Hindu
very intimately since my family itself was the hotbed of communal hatred. My
maternal grand father, a renowned Sanskrit scholar and a major Hindu novelist
was a fanatic Hindu. So were my father and his younger brother who was very
active propagator of Arya Samaj cult. Hinduism, never being an organized
religion, has consistently cultivating anarchy of faith. Having no given book like
Bible or Quran, a Hindu has all sorts of book to worship, most of them never
having anything to do with theological systems at all. Books like Satya Narayana
Katha, Somvar Vrat Katha etc. may amuse an objective reader for their funny
contents.
The Hindus, though have no given book like Bible or Qoran, they have
been anxious to prove that the Vedas were given by God or Brahma while the text
of these four books does not mention it anywhere. The Vedas do not subscribe
monotheism either. A western reader may be perplexed to know that as early as in
seventh century B.C. a Sanskrit grammarian Kautsa had said that the Vedas do not
contain any meaningful thoughts or anything spiritually significant. Vedas do not
have any undisputed interpretation even today. A widely circulated translation that
is available today is based on a fourteenth century A.D. Commentary by
Sayanacharya though more than half a dozen other commentaries of other ancient
scholars are also available. Interestingly no one commentary agrees with the other.
Even the first major interpreter of Vedas, Yaskacharya of sixth century B.C. had
admitted that the real meaning of the Vedas is difficult to understand because of
their absurdity.
But still more interesting is the fact that the Upnishadas and the book called
Gitaa are not faithful to the Vedas. This is the reason the Hindus never had any
religious laws or commandments. Certain social laws were certainly provided by
persons who were supposed to be leaders of community by virtue of their
acceptability as religious leaders like Vashishtha, Gotanea, Apastamb etc. later to
be finally compiled in form of the Code of Monk or the Mannomrite.
 But the most aberrant feature of this social structure called the Hinduism is
its law of human inequality. Right from the Vedas upto the story books like
Ramayana and Mahabharata, nothing is acceptable to Hinduism minus the human
segregation or social inequality. The Hindus have more than one hundred twenty
religious code books. All of them contain lengthy chapters to state that a very
large section of Hindu society consisting of craftsmen including painters,
musicians, sculptors, theatre artists etc. are the Shudras, not entitled to any social
rights to equality with higher castes. They are not allowed to fresh food or new
clothes. Their women were severely punished if they wore anything over the upper
part of the body. The life of a shudra was worse than that of a slave in ancient
western society. These inhuman segregationist social laws were to be strictly
enforced according to the wishes of the Brahmins who had influenced the rulers to
this effect.
This was the cultural character of the Indians of the Hindu when the first of
the Christian preachers entered the Southern part of India in the first century A.D.
It is said that ht first important Christina to land upon the shores of South India
was no less a person than Saint Thomas himself who was ultimately presented and
killed by Brahmins but not before sowing the Gospel seed in North of Cochin. It
was the year of about 52 A.D. he is said to have preached among the small Jewish
colony there and later moved to many other places such as Palayar,
Gokamangalam, Niranam, Chayal and Quilon etc. and succeeded in converting a
large number of Indians. His task would not have been very difficult because of
the very character of Christianity that did not believe in inequality of man and
offered equal social and theological rights to the downtrodden people of India. The
religious ethos of Christianity must have impressed the Shudra populace who were
to carve the Hindu idols, build the structure of a temple but after that were never
allowed to enter the said temples. Thus the history of Christianity in India is
almost as old as its history elsewhere in the world.
Now the Hindu intellectuals debate this issue from a different angle. From
the last decades of nineteenth century Indians social history, certain important
leaders emerged from the Shudra Community to challenge the Hindu laws of
segregation and a movement was launched to liberate the down trodden from the
Hindu order. A methodically organized movement was launched by Dr. Ambedkar
in mid twenties addressed to the depressed class people to serve all cultural links
with Hinduism culminating into mass conversion. Dr. Ambedkar preferred
Buddhism and this movement gave way to a burning debate on this issue.
 When I gave an open call through my news paper column asking backward
class and scheduled class people to severe all relations from Hinduism and convert
themselves to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, the Hindi intellectuals started a
tirade to oppose the call. Some of them argued that the castisism doesn’t spare a
person even after his conversion in Islam or Christianity my communist literary
friends were quite vocal on this point. They wanted to assert that the segregationist
factor of castesism does not provide any freedom even after conversion. They
cited the example of converted Muslims and Christian who in their opinion faced
segregation even after their conversion. They were also prompt to cite hat the
Churches in southern part of India were having partitions in their community halls
to separate seating arrangements for high halls to separate seating arrangements
for high caste Christians. This had undoubtedly been true. But we have to go
through the circumstances that caused this unholy partition never seen in the
Christian religious system.
The conversion of Hindus into Christianity started from the day of its
history in India as elsewhere throughout the world. The social history of India has
never been properly written and so is the case of the history of Christianity in
India.
The people accusing Indian Christianity or Islam deliberately ignore the
fact that the Hindu system’s infections character does not spare any other
theocracy to save itself from the attack of the virus of social segregation.
Now we must see the Indian social structure and the placement of real
Hindu order within it. Hindus are undoubtedly a minority community in India yet
they control the entire social political, economic and cultural activity of this
nation. This statement may seen to be unrealistic to a western reader but it should
be understood in the background of certain legal points available in India
Government archives. The government of Britain occupied the Indian
subcontinent in later half of nineteenth century. They decided causes to be taken
and this decree caused an interesting controversy. The people other than Muslims,
Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews were being listed as Hindus by the census
officers. The listed Hindus included all the Shudras also. The Brahmin leaders
were annoyed by this and wrote letters to the British Government asking them not
to enlist the depressed class as Hindus. Again, in the beginning of twentieth
century, fearing that the Hindus shall become a minority community in Assembly
elections, they once more told the British officials to enlist depressed class and the
tribal also as Hindus.
This episode must suffice to prove that the people of depressed class were
never actually an integral part of Hinduism and that there people were constantly
living a life of indignity and humiliation.
 A large number of depressed and backward class people must have found
relief in their proximity with Christianity because of the very humane character of
this faith. The Christian preacher coming to India never knew why a cables, a
washer man, a fisherman or a barber be segregated and insulted since their own
prophet hailed form a carpenters family and almost all the Apostles belonged to
similar working class families. Jesus broke the bread and offered to each of his
disciples irrespective of his profession or caste. This must have deeply influenced
those down trodden who came into contact with Christian preachers.
But the Brahmins here would not have been very happy with this faith. We
know that these very Brahmins used to call a Christian a mlechcha meaning dirty
and unclean. Even the converts in many cases found the principle of equality
inconvenient. As I have already stated the detailed social history of that period is
not available and surely find the church in India also afflicted by Cartelism. So
much so that certain Churches raised partitions to seat upper caste converts
separately from the lower caste converts. Some interesting events have later been
recorded citing such unholy instances. To have a better glimpse of this situation I
shall like to quote theologies Rev. C.B. Firth – There was another crisis too.
Schultze, who assumed the leadership among the new comers, caused a
disturbance in the Tamil congregation by a well meaning but rash attack on caste
in the Church. The earlier recognized among the converts a distinction between
those who came from various Shudra castes and those from the castes now known
as scheduled. In the new Jerusalem Church, which was cruciform, the Shudra men
sat on the one side of the nave and the others on the other; at holy Communion
Hall the Shudras men and women, communicated first and the others afterwards.
Schultze tried to stop the distinction by order but the only result was opposition
and discontent. (Indian Church History : ISPK, 2005 pp. 137-8). Unfortunately the
order by Schulte had to be revoked to restore peace. Still more interesting in a
court case of 1916 wherein the Shudra Christians, claiming separate place in the
church as customary right. When their claim was refuse by the authority of the
church they filed a case in the court. Madras High Court however ultimately
dismissed their petition. But the whole episode is a glaring testimony of the very
complex caste factor in India which cold Plague any effort to combat the evil
system.
Apart from cartelism, the Hinduism carefully nurses some other evils that
hinder the culture growth of this subcontinent of India. The illiteracy and poverty
both have direct roots in the very structure of Hinduism. The Hindu theology does
not permit the spreading of education neither it encourages wisdom or knowledge.
 It must be a surprise to western scholars and Indian watchers that the
Brahmin culture or the Hinduism never produced any significant philosophc
writing. Whatever serious philosophical work was done by the Buddhists like
Nagarjuna, Maitreyanath, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dingnathu Dharmkirti,
Sheelbhadra, Shant rakshit etc. some of these Buddhist philosophers made
contributions in the field of Epistemology, Logic and Subjective Idealism. We find
them active upto the seventh century when the Brahmin theocrats were at their
peak. The Brahmins in India were sharing political power through the ruling kings
who had to depend upon religious priests for coronation rituals etc. because of the
myth that the priests were in direct contact with gods and goddesses and that the
ethereal power had political control over people through the kings and spiritual
control via the priest. The social codes given by the Brahmins in India said that the
kings must follow the advices of his Roy. Brahmin priest – When the king wakes
up in the morning, he must sit with the Brahmins knowing Vedas and religious
codes and must function as told by the Brahmins (Mannusmriti 7:37). The king
must serve the learned Brahmins, put himself under the discipline of them and
should follow their instruction. (Yagyavalkya Smriti, as quoted by Swarnlata,
dissertation, Lata Publication, Hindi, p.25).
This is how the Brahmins exerted their influence to force the state power to
work as per their wishes. Brahmin defined the religion itself in a way to wake the
theocracy their own subservient I shall like to quote from their code – The Vedas
have layed down the fundamentals whatever is memorized by Brahmin scholars or
whatever is observed by them. Similarly the character of a religious elite or
whatever phases him is also religion (Manusmriti 2:6).
This very system was strongly opposed and discredited by Buddha in the
fifth century B.C. however the pockets of Brahmin influence could not be
uprooted completely. The emperor Ashoka, though, controlled almost the entire
subcontinent but the Brahmanism survived because of the strong adherence of
Ashoka to the principle of secularism. This had disastrous effect upon Buddhism
as well as Secularism. A later ruler of Ashokan empire, emperor Brihadrath was
assassinated by Brahmin commander of his forces and the Brahmin kingdom was
established. The Buddhism was suppressed and Buddhist monks presented
wherever the Brahmins had the upper hand in politics but the Buddhist
philosophers survived, somehow, upto the end of the first millennium A.D.
 Although a lot has been written about the myth of so called Hindu
philosophy, absolutely no evidence is available about any serious work in this
field of thought. The Hindus have certainly produced quite a large number of
literature about spirituality but it is more poetry than philosophy barring a few
minor works like Nyaya Sutra or the Yoga. The Upanishadas are merely the
spiritual poetry like the works of early Egyptians. The Upanishadas and the
ancient Egyptian poetry must be studied together to see the surprising similarity of
ides, minus the Brahmins fetish quite obvious in Upanishadas.
Ofcourse a sort of pseudo philosophy can be seen in 9th century A.D.
scholar known as Shankarchary and he needs a closer study since he is the person
who laid the foundation as the Bhakti movement that is the movement of blind
devotion to gods and goddesses. Without any expectation of reward the devotee
offers prayers and sings and dances in front of the idols in the temples. Complete
biographics of the gods and goddesses were conceived by poets and their activities
from birth to childhood and after, were not only dramatized but a large number of
folk and classical literature was creased.
As I have already said from the later period of the first millennium upto this
day the devotional literature continues to be produced. I had written quote a few
essays on the subject to trace the roots of this Bhakti movement deep into
Christianity in India. The strongly dissenting scholars of the Hindu history find the
theory inconvenient though their opinion smacks of a Hindu complex to defend its
identity. Hinduism cannot borrow they believe.
It is noteworthy that some Christian scholars of Indian history of Church
have observed that “the Bhakti religion that aspect of Hinduism which is most
nearly akin to the spirit of Christianity makes the best preparation for “Christianity
in South India. (The Heritage of the Indian Christian : S.P.C.K in India, Madras
1942, pp. 72-3).
 We would have to go through some details of the Indian history, before
going any further on this matter. The Brahmins in ancient India had strictly denied
the workmen and artesian the right to education. The Buddhism in opposition to
this Brahmnic segregation had its doors of knowledge open to all irrespective of
the so called cast. Buddhism, gave way to a new and more popular sect called
Mahayana. This sect became more powerful particularly amongst the
nonpracticing civilian Buddhists. The idolatry and extremely colourfull rituals
caught the imagination of common man. It must be particularly noted that the
entire Indian subcontinent was not under the influence of Brahmins the Buddhist
Tripitaka as well as the grammar book of Panini, both provide sufficient evidence
telling us that the Brahmin had isolated pockets of influence scattered here and
there. The first non-Buddhist or rather a state hostile to Buddhism came into
existence in 100 years before Christ. The hostility of this kingdom is a known fact
of Indian history. There were many places where Brahmins were not welcomed
and at times persecuted too. Slowly the Brahmins also started changing their
religious character stressing more upon worship of gods than the costly Yagyas or
burnt offerings. This was the period when the epics on the themes of gods like
Rama and Krishna were given the final shape and this was the period when the
masses already following the Mahayna rituals with eagerness also got inclined
towards the idolatry of Brahmins. The first millennium of the Christian era of
Indian history consequently of witnessed a transformation of theological psyche of
masses just keen to worship any species of god for their redemption.
The very first century A.D. history of India came into direct contact with
Christianity that must have attracts the working class, the same people already
impressed by the outward glamour of idolatry of the Buddhists and the Hindus,
though not very happy with caste discrimination. They, therefore had reasons for
attraction towards the preaching of very significant people like St. Thomas or St.
Peter. This was happening in the Southern part of the Indian subcontinent and this
is where the Brahmanism was still more deeply rooted than the other parts where
the greatest challenge to the Hindu religious ideology. To be brief we see a strong
tradition of Buddhist philosophy upto almost the eighth century A.D. 5 th or 6th
century philosopher Dingnath had almost been universally acclaimed and then we
see great Buddhist thinkers like Dharmakirti of 7th and Shant Rakshita of 8th
century A.D. whose works were anxiously welcome abroad.
 There is a popular story of a very important 8 th century Brahmin thinker
Kumaril Bhatta who is said to have inspired Shankaracharya of 9th century A.D.
According to the story Kumaril was passing by the palace of a Buddhist king. He
heard a Brahmin queen asking him from a widow. “Tell me who shall revive the
Vedas” Kumaril is said to have accepted the challenge, deboted with Buddhist
scholars and after his defeat he got himself immolate. It is daid Shankaramat
kumaril while he was immolating himself and promised to carry forward Kumarils
task. Now we have to see the theoretical work of Shankara in this very perspective
and I shall briefly try to review his writings here.
The 9th century thinker Shankara or Shankaracharya, was a poet also, said
to have written a couple of good lyrical poem. Shankar never wrote any
noteworthy original work of philosophy. He merely interpreted ten upanishada,
Gita and the Brahmsutra of ancient Hindu thinker Badrayana. None else in Indian
history of though has been so avidly selebrate as Shankara. Even the interpreters
of Vedas. Sayana, Uvvata, Mahidhara etc. could not attain the position occupied
by Shankara. Why? We have to keep in mind that interpreter of Vedas had only
one objective that is to make the Vedas intelligible which had become obscure due
to its language which was not to be easily understood by the classical Sanskrit
scholar. The ancient grammarian of about 7th century B.C. Yaskacharya in opening
remarks of his famous book called Nirukta has clarified that Vedas had to be made
easy for people at large. Scholars from Yaskacharya of 1 st millennium B.C. to
Sayana uvvata and Mahidhara etc. of the second Millenium A.D. could restore
mass popularity to Vedas and common man was deeply attacked towards the
Mahayana and later towards Christianity. The Brahmanism was more deeply
rooted in the Southern part of India than the North. That is why the effort to
resuscitate Hinduism was urgently needed and the task was undertaken to be
accomplished by Brahmin scholars of South. Scholars like Shankra under the thin
garb of philosophy of Vedanta produced a novel form of Hinduism cleverly
appropriating a large number of elements derived from the Mahayana and the
Christianity.
 I wish to mention there that the orthodox Hindu theologists criticized
Shankara as Pseudo-Buddhist. Shankara, inspite of strong criticism from
traditional Hindus, continue his work. Though he professed to be working to
formulate the philosophy of Vedanta his principal objective was to give new lease
of life to the Hindu social structure called Varna. Ashrama, that is the system of
social segregation. He banked upon the Upanishadas and Gita because both of
them stood for belief in place of knowledge. The Gita said – Sanshayatma
Vinashyati (The inquisitive man is destroyed 4:40). Similarly the quest for
knowledge is opposed by Upanishada writer – Naesha tarkena matirapneyaishad
2:9) (These things can’t be understood by logic or reason). Buddha stressed upon
logic and reason and Jesus wanted to oppose reason and stressed upon the belief
without reason. He propagated pure worship and borrowed the image from
Mahayana Buddhist and Christians. Hindus, though had a large number of
supernatural beings but they did not had any tradition of theological centres – like
Buddhist Viharas or Christian churches. Shankara borrowed this system to found
Mathas like Churches having a chief priest just like a bishop. Just like Jesus or the
Bodhisatva image, the followers of Shankara installed in image of Krishna or
Rama. The so called philosophy of Vedant, instead of developing as an intellectual
discipline amongst the later followers of Shankra, culminated into a tradition of
colourful worship, singing and dancing I ecstasy in decorative precincts of
temples. The later Vedanta going out of the way to counter Christianity adopted
expression such as Ahav – Brahmasmi (I am the Supreme God) just like the words
of Jesus – I am he.
The thesis of Shankara came in full bloom in form of the Hindu Bhakti
movement incorporating a lot of elements of Christian faith and system of worship
almost immediately after him. German thinker Heinrich Zimmer has cited an
interesting observation by Richard Garbe Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics and
I quote – “Among the commentators who dissent from Shankara’s interpretation
of Vedanta”, Garbe proceeds to say,” and who represent one or other of the
philosophical and religious stand points of various sects, the most renowned is
Ramanuja, who lived in the eleventh century after Christ. Ramanuja, in his
exposition… introduces… views which are nearly related to the Christian stand
points (The Philosophies of India: Meridian Books, 1956 p. 458).
 Hinduism, not being an organized religion, having no prophet or given
book has been longing for any religious order Brahmins founded who were aliens
to this land and are still aliens even after thirty five centuries. They never mixed
up with other people, always treated others lower in status, but have been clever
enough to influence the ruling class. The Brahmins have been having total control
over any religions or spiritual activity and has never allowed any non-Brahmin to
become priest or to perform the Yagya, a ritual of burnt offerings to spiritual
images. The ancient Hindu history tells us very interesting stories of Brahmins
playing magical tricks to deceive and outwit the kings. The kings as usual were
mostly used to a highly affluent life style, having a very rich harm of a large
number of queens and concubines. Inspite of a band of medical practitioner
helping the kings to increase their sexual powers, the most of the kings remained
childless. The Brahmin cleverly offered their services to help them have a heir to
the throne. They performed the ritual of yagya with burnt offerings and produced a
fruit to be eaten by the queen who used to be invariably pregnant. The practice is
still prevalent among Hindus though in most of the cases the child giving ritual
performing Brahmins are exposed an in many cases jailed for sexual molestations.
The childless kings were highly impressed by the Brahmin pretending to bring
about the spiritual pregnancy. The Brahmins could not have confronted the
organized religion of Buddhists directly to influence the Indian people at large but
they must have found it easy to influence the king and compel him to counter
Buddhism. Once again the advent of Christianity in the first century A.D., again
on organized religion, become a threat to Brahmanism operating through a
disorderly faith called Hinduism.
The Bhakti movement or idol worship never had any tradition in Hinduism.
That is why it became an easy system of spirituality. That is why it became an
easy system of spirituality which never needed any methodical order of faith or
philosophy. Shankar in 9th century A.D. tried for the first time to build religious
centuries to spread the faith appointing the Hindu religious chiefs at four corners
of subcontinent like the Bishops but they could never function like patriarchs since
they never had any tradition of Apostles or the Gospels.
 We must see that certain concepts were borrowed strait away from
Christianity one of them being that of the repentance. No ancient Hindu religious
book or scripture has ever talked about repentance but the propagators of Vedanta
included the repentance as one of the ten activities of faith. And one can ask why
only ten? Why not eleven or nine activities of faith? It is further interesting to see
that the founder of the reformist Hindu movement Dayanand Saraswati also layed
down ten laws of the Arya Samaj like the ten commandments, Moses. The Hindu
Bhakti movement also borrowed directly two religious activities of the Christian
Churches that is the religious songs and the stories of incarnation. The Hindus
never had any concept of incarnation which was directly taken out of the Gospels.
The Apostle interpreted the words of Jesus such as “I am he” to formulate the
concept of incarnation. The story of the life of Rama and Krishna was made to
prove that they were also the incarnation of God and Krishna was particularly
described to have performed the miracles like those done by Jesus. The writings of
psalm or the Song of Songs were replaced by writings of the Bhakti poets Surdasa
and Pulsidasa and their songs were very widely used in the Hindu Temples. The
Sanskrit poets wrote Stotras to be sung in praise of Hindu gods and Goddesses.
The said Stotras were ofcourse written by individual in their personal address to
gods while the Stotras or songs written by Bhakti poets were for the purpose of
public performance in temples the way songs of Psalm are recited in church
services.
As for the concept of sin is concerned the ancient Hind scriptures do not
mention any such thing. We do not find anything such as repentance also. But the
later Hindu thinkers added the provision of repentance also. This is how Shankara
and other Vedantic thinkers carefully schemed to counter the infact of Christianity
on the million of Indian subcontinent.
I have used the term the Indian subcontinent in place of the word India or
the Bharata as has been used by all the histories of ancient history. The reason is
that this subcontinent never enjoyed the status of nationhood. This subcontinent,
like other subcontinents of Europe or Africa had always been hosting a large
number of different and independent nationalities having different languages,
currencies of their own and autonomous defense forces until the Britain subdued
almost all of them to establish a huge state called India. In nineteenth century. The
different independent states or nations inside this subcontinent ofcourse had a soar
of cultural unity since most of the kingdoms had Brahmin Prime Ministers or the
official priests of courts. That is how the Brahmins could enforce their social and
religious laws. But even then there were strong nations where the Brahmin were
not welcome or rather they were publicly humiliate and persecuted. The epic of
Mahabharata mentions many such independent nations where the Brahmanic laws
were not applicable. Panini, the great Sanskrit Gramarian mentions the names of a
large number of kingdoms where the Brahmanic laws were not applicable as also
the small states exclusively populated by Brahmins.
 I have used the term alien Brahmins which is not usually subscribed by
modern Indian historians. The modern Indian historian as also all the European
writers of Indian history believe that the aliens, who invaded India, were the
Aryans. They defeated the inhabitants of this subcontinent and victimized the
defeated people to make them Shudras and Dasas, that is the Slavs. The invaders
called themselves the Aryans.
This is a very strange generalization. The Brahmin literature does not
suppostl the theory that the Aryans were invaders who had divided themselves into
Brahmins Kshatrias and who Vaishyas that is the priest, the state rulers and the
businessmen. But with an exception of a single couplet in the tenth and the lastly
written chapter of Rigveda, the writings like the Upanishadas. Brahmins, Puranas
and even Manuskuriti do not use the word Aryan for the three elite classes.
Manusmriti, the most important of the Hindu socio-religious code, mentions two
separate areas or countries as the Brahmavarta inhabited by the Brahmins and the
Aryavarta where the Aryans lived.
The twentieth century archaeologist discovered a large number of ancient
stone inscriptions of Ashoka, the Buddhist emperor of Indian subcontinent. These
inscriptions clearly mention the Brahmins and the /Aryans separately. We can see
the 5th rock edict of Ashoka. The fourth and fifth lines in the inscription clearly say
– To save and develop the faith and for the pleasure and betterment of the lives of
religious Greeks, Kambojas, Gandharas, Rshrikas – Pitanicas and also the
servants, Aryans, Brahmins… and so on.
We find the Brahmins and the Aryans mentioned in the said stone
inscription of Ashoka separately as differently social identifies. The Brahmins in
Ashokan history were not Aryans. The 5th century Brahmin Gramarian Panini has
mentioned the word Arya only once an there also not as any racial identity but
only as an epithet – Aryo Brahman kumarayoh (Ashtadhyaye- Sutrapatha 6-2:58).
It only means to say that the son of a respectable Brahmin or the respectable son of
a Brahmin. Panini mentions the Brahmins as a race and not the Aryans. The oldest
Vedic Sanskrit thesaurus by 7th Century B.C. The Nighatu does not include the
word Arya. If Aryans were a race authoring the Vedas, the seventh century
compiler of the said Vedic thesaurus, Yaskacharya would obviously have included
their racial identity – the Aryans. The word Arya appears only in the tenth chapter
or the Mandela of Rig-Veda which is a much later addition. The original Rig-Veda
had only nine Mandalay, subsequently a sort of postscript written in much later
Sanskrit cannot be trusted for it historicity.
The word Arya never commonly used in Brahmin scriptures is provided very large
space in Buddhist scriptures. But here also it does not refer to any racial identity. It
is always used as an epithet meaning respectable, learned or highly placed in
society. It has been widely used in philosophical principles of Buddhist theology.
Arya Satya (Splendid truth), Arya Gyana (Noble knowledge) Arya paryeshana
(Noble search) etc. are some of the most significant philosophical concepts of
Buddhism while we do not find them in Brahmin theology at all.
I do not know why the historians of ancient Indian history have ignored the
fact that the wood Arya was never used by Brahmins to identify them nor it was
used anywhere as a concept of their philosopher. The Buddhist called their
ideology the road to nobility (Arya marga) while the Brahmins believed that the
way can be formed through Vedas (OPathi ca Chandasi, Panini, 6.3:108). The
practitioners in Indian history, all the time talking about the Aryan invasion in
India, should also have seen who were the Brahmans and why they distanced
themselves from other Aryans if they were also the part of one racial monolith ? it
should also have been rationally verified if the Brahmins in Indian subcontinent
had only socio-cultural relationship with ABRAHAM. Hindus do not worship
Brahma. There is only one temple of Brahma out of the thousands of them related
to other gods. And why there is no leftover of the so called Aryans into the place
of their origin? The Brahmins of course are still found inside Arab world now
known as Hussein Brahmins, probably the leftovers of the Brahmin tribe that came
to India and very cleverly influenced the rulers of this subcontinent.
It is not my purpose however to deal with this topic in detail but this fact
has also to be kept in mind before analyzing the social sufferings of Indian
populace due to religious and caste hatred of the dominant creed of Brahmanism.
 The history of this subcontinent tells us that the Brahmins persecuted the
indigenous population for the last about three thousand five hundred years. The
Kshtriyas or the feudal nobility and the kings in most of the cases, were influenced
by them but large number of the people of ruling community knows as the
kshatrias who resisted Brahmins were killed by Brahmin worriers. The
mythological Hindu history refers to a large number of such stories. The ugliest
part of the Hindu history is inkibed with communal violence right from day one of
Brahmin invasion. No religious book other than Rig-Veda is so full of war cries as
that of the Brahmins. The Rig-Veda is the largest collection of poems dedicate to
war. The Vedic god in Rig-Veda kills a woman of indigenous people along with
her newly born child. The same communal cruelty is part of the Hindu religious
ethos even today. Christian and Muslims, both have to face Hindu communal
assault. No Christian can distribute or sell the Christian literature without being
beaten up in Hindu dominated areas. The Christian congregations are being
attacked, pastors openly beaten up, nuns assaulted and the churches ransacked and
burnt. The irony is that the police openly practicing Hinduism also openly sides
and favour the attackers and arrest Christians under the pretax that the Hindus
were forcibly being converted.
The most gruesome example of the Hindu atrocities against Christian faith
was the brutal killings of Graham Stains and his children burnt alive in the Indian
state of Orrisa. The accusation again being the same that is the forced conversion.
The Muslim youth, now, have to live in fear because anybody or every
Muslim is suspected terrorist. About five thousand Muslim women, Men and
children including the unborn baby of a pregnant woman were murdered or burnt
alive. The Hindu idols are overnight planted at non Hindu places of worship and
the said place later declared a Hindu shrine. Efforts have been continuing fro the
last about fifty years to forcibly occupy most famous of Muslim tombs, one of the
wonders of the world known as Taj- Mahal, claiming that it was a Hindu temple.
Most of the major Buddhist shrines have already been appropriated by
Hindis forcibly, including the Bihar where Buddha attained enlightenment.
The Indian socio-cultural history has to understand how the whole
world is covered by the Christianity, the Islam and the Buddhism leaving a very
minuseulir space to Hinduism in the central part of India only. The reasons of
cultural expansion of the faiths other than Hinduism has been a matter of careful
study and I have tried to find out why and how the Christianity leads in spite of the
so called ‘clash of civilizations’. It is interesting to see that the Hinduism has
absolutely no role to play in this ‘conflict’ too.