The Buddha, Jesus and Mahatma Gandhi are three persons
whom I found myself admiring as I grew older though not proportionately
wiser. I don’t share their great
qualities, feeble as I am. In fact, I
may find myself towards the middle of the spectrum if we construct such a
continuum of human qualities and personality traits as the one envisaged by philosopher
Spinoza. Is what another philosopher,
Nietzsche, said of himself true for me too: “What I am not, that for me is God
and virtue” [in Thus Spoke Zarathustra]?
If I apply Spinoza’s classification, these three
luminaries whom I have grown to admire belong to the category of people who
regarded love as the primary virtue,
considered all people to be equally precious, and resisted evil by returning
good. Spinoza argued that people like
Jesus and Buddha constructed an ethical system that stressed feminine virtues. At the other end of that spectrum are people
like Machiavelli and Nietzsche [and most administrators I’ve been fated to live
with] who stressed masculine virtues,
acknowledged the essential inequalities of human beings, relished the risks of
conquest and rule, and identified virtue with power. Towards the middle of
that spectrum lie people like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle [oh, so antique!] who
identified virtue with intelligence. An informed and rational mind can make better
decisions than one guided by love or power, says Spinoza – and I agree.
As the world gets ready to celebrate the birth
anniversary of Jesus (Christmas), I found myself overcome by an urge to explore
why I admire Jesus in spite of his emphasis on love and compassion, virtues
that I can’t claim to possess. I know
well that I don’t deify what I am not, a la Nietzsche.
The first thing I like about Jesus is that he questioned the very fundamentals of his
religion, Judaism. Jesus was
crucified by the Jewish priests. The
priests did not like Jesus’ questioning of their religion and the way it was being
practised. He drove out the commercial entrepreneurs out of the synagogue [John
2:15]. He accused the religious teachers
of being hypocrites [Mathew 23: 1-15].
Jesus argued that merely
following religious rituals or laws would not guarantee anyone salvation. “Not every one who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’
shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is
in heaven,” said Jesus [Mathew 7:21].
Jesus wanted people to live a life based on certain fundamental values
and principles, especially love, and not merely follow rules and observe rituals.
The Sabbath was not as holy for Jesus as for his
religious leaders. It is better to do
good to other people on Sabbath than merely observe it as a ritualistic holiday,
said Jesus [Mathew 12:12, Mark: 3:4].
What Jesus wanted people to do was to have purity of
heart, rather than follow rituals. Good
actions will ensue automatically. It is
the inner goodness and the good deeds which follow automatically that really
mattered to Jesus. He did not value the
man who claimed to be “not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers...”
but claimed to “fast twice a week, give tithes of all that I get.” Jesus argued
that the man who admitted his weaknesses in all humility and sought to keep his
heart pure was the real religious person [Luke 18: 11-14].
Women who committed adultery were to be stoned to death,
according to the Jewish law. When such a
woman was brought to Jesus, he said, “Let him who is without sin among you be
the first to throw a stone at her” [John 8: 7].
Jesus accepted the fallibility of human beings. What he asked people was to rise after each
fall, learning the lesson from it, and to become a better human being.
The prodigal son’s homecoming is a far greater
occasion for celebration than the dutiful son’s regular goodness [Luke 15:
11-32]. Bringing the lost sheep back to
the fold was more important than tending the regular flock [Mathew 18: 12-14,
Luke 15: 3-7].
Restoring goodness to each individual – that was what
Jesus wanted.
Religion was not his concern. Rituals were not at all his concern. Mere recitation of prayers meant little to
him.
In fact, he did not even found a religion. The Catholic theologian, Hans Kung, says, “he
(Jesus) did not seek to found a separate community distinct from Israel with
its own creed and cult, or to call to life an organization with its own
constitution and offices, let alone a great religious edifice. No, according to all the evidence, Jesus did
not found a church in his lifetime.” [The
Catholic Church, Phoenix Press, 2002, page 11]
I admire Jesus, the man, the visionary, the philosopher. His message is still relevant, as far as I am
concerned. His churches, however, don’t
remind me of his message. So I shall
celebrate Christmas in my own private way.
Wish you a Meaningful Christmas.
[Note: All the Biblical quotes are taken from the
Revised Standard Version.]
Thanks and wish you a Merry Christmas.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Pattu.
DeleteA very Merry (and enlightened, as obvious from the post) Christmas to you and family, dear Matheikal. :). God bless.
ReplyDeleteAditi, I don't claim enlightenment. I'd like to follow the middle way of Spinoza, the thinking person's way.
DeleteI'm delighted to understand that you still care to read me.
If you take an economic perspective of what you have said, you land up in Libduration Theology, as I understand you and LT!
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas to you, in the way it makes sense to you, away from all religions.
RE
You know why LT failed? The Pope and his cardinals have too much money!
DeleteOops, that was Liberation Theology (the explanation not for you, but any visitors to your space who may search for "Libduration"!).
DeleteAnd, LT was fighting for the un-monied! They had and still have no chance. Remember the Archbishop who got assassinated?
RE
The world can be a much better place without religion.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt, Jahid.
Deletei agree with you 100%.. his message of purity and inner goodness is what stands out about him.. i wish u a Meaningful Christmas as you call it.. :)
ReplyDeleteThank you for the wishes.
DeleteFantastic post. Loved it.
ReplyDelete