This question was posed recently in a group I'm a part of, and I thought it was worth answering from my perspective because I'm a former Protestant who only very gradually became Catholic in his thinking.
One thing to note is that this is an issue that is not specific to Catholics. Members of Eastern Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox congregations who grew up primarily in the U.S. often have the same struggle of trying to reconcile their deeply-ingrained and culturally-acquired assumptions that stem from Protestant thinking with the ancient Christian religious tradition which predates such thinking and is different from it at a paradigmatic level.
This is not even an issue that is specific to members of Christian groups. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, people who are part of various Indian traditions under the umbrella of Hinduism, and so on are often afflicted with this difficulty as well. That said, I'm going to examine the situation of Christianity in particular.
We who were raised in America generally inherit a set of intuitions about the meaning of the word "worship" and the word "pray", the nature of human social hierarchies, the nature of our relationship with religion, the place of the Bible in Christian life, the nature of the Church, what it means to be a Christian, and so on.
Because the United States was heavily influenced by Protestant Christians in its culture, its theological language, its popular ecclesiology, its view of the Bible, and its view of human nature, these intuitions are often Protestant intuitions.
I wrote a fairly lengthy series about my own journey to re-examining and ultimately rejecting those intuitions, and that was not an easy process, given how basic many of them are to someone raised in the United States.
For example, it took me quite a long time to shake the intuition that the Bible is the basis for Christian theological claims and truly understand that the Bible is a written record of early Christian theological claims. I thought that the Bible was what gave Christianity the authority. It turns out that Christian authority vested in the Church gave us the Bible.
It also took me many years to understand why my intuition that Mary's role as Queen of Heaven need not be emphasized was wrong, and to unpack the ways in which my American understanding of social hierarchy had unfairly prejudiced my view of the divine hierarchy.
I also had a defective understanding of my relationship to the Church. I viewed the Church as something I could accept or reject on intellectual grounds, not as the Body of Christ in its earthly fullness to be loved as I love my own body, just as Christ loves the Church.
This intuition that turned out to be false isn't something I developed on my own. I inherited it from an American culture that has largely agreed that attending churches is just a matter of individual preference in practice, even if in theory some of the congregations assent to the traditional ecclesiological view of the 1st-millennium Church that there is one true Church, and outside the one true Church of Christ there is no salvation.
In a similar way, there are many people in the United States who are raised Catholic and nonetheless take the typical post-Reformation view that leaving the Catholic Church to attend services with another congregation is just their personal choice. It's not a schism or anything serious like that. It's just a matter of doing what their conscience tells them.
And given this, it's not surprising that Americans don't see the Catholic Church as an authority to be obeyed, but rather an advisor on morality whose advice can be ignored, because the individual is the final arbiter of what is best for the individual. The Church can't really be an authority over an individual, because the individual is the ultimate authority.
This American individualism is so deeply rooted in the psyche of most Americans that even the most traditional Catholics who strive for obedience to the Church can struggle with it, sometimes going so far as to set themselves against the Church for not living up to their individual standards.
While some might focus on the problem with Protestant theological language flattening the definitions of the words "pray" and "worship" (for good reasons), I am more concerned about the more deeply-rooted intuitions which make it easy for us to rationalize leaving the Church or rejecting Her teaching while still being attached to the Church for other reasons.
Intuitions like these are doing real damage to the Corpus Christi, as they motivate an increasing number to leave, many to dissent, and some to grumble against the Church for not doing more to strike against those who dissent.
Though it's interesting to consider how American culture tends to make even Catholics and members of other ancient religious groups accept intuitions at odds with how their religious traditions understand the world, it's mostly just sad to watch the Body of Christ breaking again.
Ut unum sint.
Related: The Protestant Intuition: Divine Gifts & Human Works
Note: Above is a picture of Martin Luther's edited Bible translated into German.
I'm at the end of my wisdom, and here I will remain as its limits grow into the event horizon of love.
Quotation
He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that we cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
Showing posts with label Hinduism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hinduism. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Saturday, July 14, 2018
The Letter of Bahá'u'lláh to Pope Pius IX
Recently, I was finally able to get a decent copy of an English translation of some of the writings of the Bahá'í faith. I realize that it's not common for Americans to order a book of Bahá'í writing, and folks may wonder, "Why would I do that?"
I haven't studied the Bahá'í faith is an much depth as Buddhism or Islam or various traditions under the umbrella of Hinduism, and I had a desire to at least lessen my ignorance about it.
I opened it up and quickly learned a few things. First, I learned that Bahá'u'lláh wrote a fair number of letters to people of prominence. He wrote to Pope Pius IX, Tsar Alexander II, Napoleon III, Queen Victoria, and the famous Sultan of Persia, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar.
I was a little surprised to see how prominently Bahá'u'lláh's letter to the Pope at the time was featured in the volume. I wasn't sure why the Pope would head up that list in a Bahá'í collection, and I wasn't sure why the Pope was included among a list of very powerful secular rulers of empires.
A little historical context helped me in that regard. It seems that Bahá'u'lláh or someone close to him was at least somewhat familiar with the political troubles in Europe at the time, given the people he chose to write to with warnings and exhortations.
It might look like Bahá'u'lláh was seeing the future in some supernatural way, given that an important part of his warning to the Pope Pius IX turned out to be prophetic-sounding after the events in Rome. He advises the Pope to leave behind his palaces, which would have seemed like very good advice to many people, given that the Pope's armies and city were conquered not too long after the letter was written.
But there were decades of problems leading up to Italy's conquest of the Papal territory, and it would have taken little insight from any non-prophet to predict that getting out of town was a good move for the Pope who prized his own safety first.
I also think it's unlikely that Bahá'u'lláh was actually concerned about giving such advice anyway. His purpose seemed to be primarily theological, given that Bahá'u'lláh opens his letter by exhorting the Pope to abandon his Christian theology and accept the Bahá'í faith. He goes on more in that vein later in the letter:
Like those in the Islamic tradition before him, Bahá'u'lláh viewed Christian theology as corrupted by men, but based on a genuine revelation from Allah. Also like them, he wanted those who had been granted access to the corrupted theologies to leave behind what they had been taught and to proclaim the pure and true revelation.
Bahá'u'lláh continues, as he goes on in the letter, to warn that Christian worship is actually a barrier between the Christian and Allah, and that being well-educated has not kept them from falling into error.
This passage might make it seem like Bahá'u'lláh was claiming to be Jesus Himself, God's Son who was to return at the end of time, but it's important to remember that in Bahá'í cosmology, religion is renewed periodically by Manifestations of God, people who are sent by God precisely for that purpose.
While Bahá'u'lláh seemed to view himself as one of the Manifestations of God, there were many others who were also viewed that way in his religious tradition, including Krishna, Zoroaster, Jesus, and the Buddha. He did not view any religion's revelatory claims as final, though they might be legitimately a partial revelation from Allah in terms of their moral content and theology.
Bahá'u'lláh expected that there would be more people like him to come, that Allah would send more messengers to humanity in other times and places. He was exhorting the Pope and all those he led to abandon their attachments to their current way of understanding religion and accept the latest revelation that he was providing as Bahá'u'lláh.
The renunciation of wealth, even of rich garments, continues to be emphasized as the letter continues. Bahá'u'lláh tells the members of religious orders to leave their cloisters, monasteries, abbeys, and priories so that they can proclaim the Kingdom of God to all the people.
As before, he sees their religious attachments as keeping them from God, and abandoning their current religion as the means to begin reaching God.
This portion of the letter seems to be referring to both the persecutions faced by the fledgling Bahá'í community and Bahá'u'lláh himself, who was imprisoned in Tehran. Being a religious leader has its risks, and facing capture and imprisonment and harsh treatment is certainly something that Bahá'u'lláh shares in common with Jesus, which may be why he uses the imagery of the crucifixion throughout this passage.
It's really a beautifully-written passage, and while it's not the most poetic religious work I've read, it does have a nice poetic element to it. We really see this poetry as we get into the direct appeal to the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff.
The exhortation to sell all the property and liturgical garments in the Papal State and live a life of personal asceticism as a public figure would not be out of place in any Protestant's letter to any Pope, but it is Bahá'u'lláh who is making it this time.
That said, Bahá'u'lláh tries to differentiate himself from the average person who writes the Pope to advise the Pontiff as to the best course of action.
I suspect that the Pope would be very suspicious indeed of anyone from Persia claiming that he was providing a new revelation from Allah and acting as though he were equal to Jesus in authority.
Oddly for a letter to the Pope, Bahá'u'lláh addresses people of all religions and follows it with very specific religious language that Christians and Jews would readily understand, but might be rather obscure to the average Hindu, Buddhist, or even a devout Muslim who had not read the Bible.
You may notice that many of the exhortations of Bahá'u'lláh are reiterations of passages from the Tanakh, the Christian New Testament writings, or the Qur'an. In this case, the part about remaining under the Covenant reminded me of a Quranic passage regarding the Jews as covenant-breakers.
Then he goes on to give them another title, which is "Children of the Kingdom." He tells Christians that they are in darkness, and they need to return to the Light.
Finally, Bahá'u'lláh gets to the crux of the matter. He makes it clear that the new revelation has priority, and that he is the new authority. His letter to the Pope was, from the perspective of Bahá'u'lláh, a letter to a leader of the Church whose deposit of faith had been emptied, a guardian of a flame that had long since been snuffed out by error and corruption.
Bahá'u'lláh saw himself as a Manifestation of God writing an epistle to the lowly Servant of the Servants of God. He understood himself as the Pen of Command, made by the Creator's hand to send these messages.
I'm not sure what Pope Pius IX thought of the letter, or if he even had the chance to read it. He was rather busy at the time with many problems. Nonetheless, I think that he might have been more interested by Bahá'u'lláh's account of his vision of the Maid of Heaven.
That might have been a more compelling place to start the letter to a Pope famous for his Mariology.
The above is a picture of my copy of The Summons of the Lord of Hosts.
I haven't studied the Bahá'í faith is an much depth as Buddhism or Islam or various traditions under the umbrella of Hinduism, and I had a desire to at least lessen my ignorance about it.
I opened it up and quickly learned a few things. First, I learned that Bahá'u'lláh wrote a fair number of letters to people of prominence. He wrote to Pope Pius IX, Tsar Alexander II, Napoleon III, Queen Victoria, and the famous Sultan of Persia, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar.
I was a little surprised to see how prominently Bahá'u'lláh's letter to the Pope at the time was featured in the volume. I wasn't sure why the Pope would head up that list in a Bahá'í collection, and I wasn't sure why the Pope was included among a list of very powerful secular rulers of empires.
"O POPE! Rend the veils asunder! He who is the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, hath come overshadowed with clouds (Rev. 1:7) – the prophecy hath been fulfilled on the part of God, the Almighty, the Unconstrained. It is incumbent upon thee, therefore to dispel the clouds and proclaim Baha'u'llah, the splendor of the Authority of thy Lord; then ascend into the Kingdom of His names and attributes. Thus hath the Supreme Pen command thee, on the part of thy Lord, the Mighty, the Most Powerful.
Verily, He hath come again from heaven another time, even as He came down from it the first time (Jn. 3:13 KJV); beware lest thou oppose Him even as the Pharisees opposed Him the first time without evidence or proof. On His right hand floweth the living waters of grace and on His left hand the choice sweet Wine of Justice; whilst before Him march the angels of Paradise bearing the Divine Standard of His signs (Is. 11:11). Beware lest any name debar thee from God, the Creator of the earth and heaven. Leave thou the creatures and the world behind thee, and turn towards thy Lord, through Whom all the horizons of the earth hath been illumined. We have adorned the Kingdom with the ornament of Our name, El-Abha – The Brightest of Lights (Jn. 3:19-21); thus hath the matter been decided on the part of God, the Creator of all things. Beware lest your theologies and vain imaginations withhold thee after the Sun of Truth hath shone forth above the horizon of the Explanation of thy Lord, the Mighty, the Beneficent. Dost thou dwell in palaces, while the King of Revelation (Rev. 6:16) liveth in the most desolate of abodes? Leave palaces to those who desire them behind, then advance to the Kingdom with spirituality and fragrance."
A little historical context helped me in that regard. It seems that Bahá'u'lláh or someone close to him was at least somewhat familiar with the political troubles in Europe at the time, given the people he chose to write to with warnings and exhortations.
It might look like Bahá'u'lláh was seeing the future in some supernatural way, given that an important part of his warning to the Pope Pius IX turned out to be prophetic-sounding after the events in Rome. He advises the Pope to leave behind his palaces, which would have seemed like very good advice to many people, given that the Pope's armies and city were conquered not too long after the letter was written.
But there were decades of problems leading up to Italy's conquest of the Papal territory, and it would have taken little insight from any non-prophet to predict that getting out of town was a good move for the Pope who prized his own safety first.
I also think it's unlikely that Bahá'u'lláh was actually concerned about giving such advice anyway. His purpose seemed to be primarily theological, given that Bahá'u'lláh opens his letter by exhorting the Pope to abandon his Christian theology and accept the Bahá'í faith. He goes on more in that vein later in the letter:
"Beware lest theologies of men prevent thee from accepting the King of the known, or the world distract thee from Him who created it and set it upon its course. Arise in the name of thy Lord, the God of Mercy, amidst the peoples of the earth, and seize thou the Cup of life with the hands of confidence. First drink thou therefrom, and proffer it then to such as turn toward it amongst the peoples of all faiths. Thus hath the Moon of Explanation shone forth from the horizon of wisdom and evidence.
Rend asunder the veils of man-made theology lest they prevent thee from the court of Him Who is My Name, the Everlasting, the Self-Subsistent. Call thou to remembrance Him Who was the Spirit - Jesus - Who, when He came, the most learned of His age pronounced judgement against Him in His own country, whilst he who was only a fisherman believed in Him. Take heed, then, ye men of understanding heart! Thou, in truth, art one of the suns of the heaven of His names. Guard thyself, lest darkness spread its veils over thee, and fold thee away from His light. Look at that which has been sent down in the Bible on the part of thy Lord, the Almighty, the Generous.
Say: O assembly of learned men, withhold your pens, for the sound of the Supreme Pen hath been raised between the earth and the heaven. Set aside that which ye have and accept what We have explained unto thee with power and authority. That Hour which was hidden in the knowledge of God hath come, whereupon all the atoms of the earth have proclaimed: “The Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:9-10, 22) is Come seated upon David's throne! Hasten unto Him with submissiveness and penitence. O people of the earth!” Say: Lo, I made Myself your ransom for the sake of your lives (1 Tim. 2:5, 6), but when I come unto you another time (Heb. 9:28) I see you fleeing from Me (Rev. 6:16); therefore doth the eye of My compassion weep over My people; fear God, O ye people of observation."
Like those in the Islamic tradition before him, Bahá'u'lláh viewed Christian theology as corrupted by men, but based on a genuine revelation from Allah. Also like them, he wanted those who had been granted access to the corrupted theologies to leave behind what they had been taught and to proclaim the pure and true revelation.
Bahá'u'lláh continues, as he goes on in the letter, to warn that Christian worship is actually a barrier between the Christian and Allah, and that being well-educated has not kept them from falling into error.
"Consider those who opposed the Son, when He came unto them with sovereignty and power. How many the Pharisees who were waiting to behold Him, and were lamenting over their separation from Him! And yet, when the fragrance of His coming was wafted over them, and His beauty was unveiled, they turned aside from Him and disputed with Him. Thus have we expounded unto thee that which was written in the Bible and Holy Scriptures. None save a very few, who were destitute of any power amongst men, turned towards His face. And yet today every man endowed with power and invested with sovereignty prideth himself on His Name! In like manner, consider how numerous, in these days, are the monks who, in My Name, have secluded themselves in their churches, and who, when the appointed time was fulfilled, and We unveiled Our beauty, knew Us not, though they call upon Me at eventide and at dawn. We see them clinging to My Name—Jesus—yet veiled from Myself. Verily, this is a strange marvel (2 Thess. 2:11 KJV). Say: Beware lest your devotions preventeth you from meeting the One to Whom you are Devoted, and your worship debar you from the One Who is the Object of all Worship.
Rend asunder the veils of vain-imaginings and false expectation. Verily this is your Lord the Omnipotent, the Omniscient! He hath come for the life of the world, life abundantly, and to unite all who dwell upon the whole surface of the earth. Come ye, O people, to the Rising-place of Revelation and tarry not even for a moment. Do ye read the Gospel of the New Testament and yet still do not acknowledge the All-Glorious Lord? This beseemeth you not, O concourse of learned men!
Say: Should ye deny this Revelation, by what proof have ye believed in God? Produce it! Thus the matter hath been revealed (2 Thess. 2:3 KJV) by the Supreme Pen on the part of your Lord El-Abha, in this Epistle from whose horizon the Light has shone. How many servants are there whose actions and deeds (Rev. 20:12,13; 22:12) became veils for themselves whereby they were withheld (Rev. 21:27) from coming nearer to God, the Sender of Breath."
This passage might make it seem like Bahá'u'lláh was claiming to be Jesus Himself, God's Son who was to return at the end of time, but it's important to remember that in Bahá'í cosmology, religion is renewed periodically by Manifestations of God, people who are sent by God precisely for that purpose.
While Bahá'u'lláh seemed to view himself as one of the Manifestations of God, there were many others who were also viewed that way in his religious tradition, including Krishna, Zoroaster, Jesus, and the Buddha. He did not view any religion's revelatory claims as final, though they might be legitimately a partial revelation from Allah in terms of their moral content and theology.
Bahá'u'lláh expected that there would be more people like him to come, that Allah would send more messengers to humanity in other times and places. He was exhorting the Pope and all those he led to abandon their attachments to their current way of understanding religion and accept the latest revelation that he was providing as Bahá'u'lláh.
"O concourse of monks! The fragrances of the All-Merciful have wafted over all creation. Happy the man that hath forsaken his desires, and taken fast hold of guidance. Verily he is one of those who have attained unto the presence of God in this Day and gazing upon all the inhabitants of the earth seeth them frightened and terrorized (Isaiah 2:10, 19) save those chosen by God, He who layeth low the necks of men.
Do ye adorn your bodies while the garment of God is intensely red with the blood of hatred by that which came upon Him on the part of the people of willful blindness? Come out of your abodes and bid the people to enter into the Kingdom of God, the King of the Day of Judgment. The Word which the Son concealed is made manifest. It hath been sent down in the form of the human temple in this day. Blessed be the Lord Who is the Father! (Is. 9:6, 7) He, verily, is come unto the nations in His Most Great Majesty. Turn your faces towards Him, O concourse of the righteous!
O people of all religions! We see you are wandering erringly in the waterless desert of loss; ye are the fish of this Sea, why do ye withhold yourselves from your Sustainer? Verily, the Sea is surging before your faces; hasten unto Him from all regions. This is the day whereon the Rock (Peter) crieth out and shouteth, and celebrateth the praise of its Lord, the All-Possessing, the Most High, saying: “Lo! The Father is come, and that which ye were promised in the Kingdom is fulfilled!” This is the Word which was preserved behind the veil of might, and when the promised time came, it shone forth from the horizon of the Primal Will with manifest signs."
The renunciation of wealth, even of rich garments, continues to be emphasized as the letter continues. Bahá'u'lláh tells the members of religious orders to leave their cloisters, monasteries, abbeys, and priories so that they can proclaim the Kingdom of God to all the people.
As before, he sees their religious attachments as keeping them from God, and abandoning their current religion as the means to begin reaching God.
"My body hath borne imprisonment that your souls may be released from bondage, and We have consented to be abased that ye may be exalted. Follow the Lord of glory and dominion, and not every ungodly oppressor. My body longeth for the cross, and Mine head awaiteth the thrust of the spear, in the path of the All-Merciful, that the world may be purged from its transgressions. Thus the Sun of Wisdom hath shone forth from the horizon of the command of Him Who is the King of all names and attributes.
The people of the Qur'án have risen against Us, and tormented Us with such a torment that the Holy Spirit lamented, and the thunder roared out, and the eyes of the clouds wept over Us. From amongst the unbelievers some imagined that afflictions could withholdeth Baha from fulfilling that which God the Creator of All Things hath Willed. Say unto them: No, by Him who causeth the rains to fall, nothing withholdeth Him from the mention of His Lord.
By the Righteousness of God! Even though they burn Him on the earth, verily He will lift up His head in the midst of the sea, and will cry: “Verily, He is God of whatsoever is in the heaven and the earth!” And if they cast Him into a darksome pit, they will find Him seated on earth's loftiest heights calling aloud to all mankind: ''Lo, the Desire of the World is come in His majesty, His sovereignty, His transcendent dominion!'' And if He be buried beneath the depths of the earth, His Spirit soaring to the apex of heaven shall peal the summons: ''Behold ye the coming of Baha with the Kingdom of God, the Most Holy, the Gracious, the All-Powerful!'' And though they shed His blood, every drop thereof shall cry out and invoke God by this Name, whereby the perfume of His raiment is diffused throughout all regions."
This portion of the letter seems to be referring to both the persecutions faced by the fledgling Bahá'í community and Bahá'u'lláh himself, who was imprisoned in Tehran. Being a religious leader has its risks, and facing capture and imprisonment and harsh treatment is certainly something that Bahá'u'lláh shares in common with Jesus, which may be why he uses the imagery of the crucifixion throughout this passage.
It's really a beautifully-written passage, and while it's not the most poetic religious work I've read, it does have a nice poetic element to it. We really see this poetry as we get into the direct appeal to the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff.
"Though while threatened under the swords of the enemies, We call the people unto God, the Creator of the earth and heaven, and We assist Him so greatly that We could not be hindered either by the hosts of the oppressors nor the influence of the liars. Say, O people of the earth: Crush to pieces the idols of imagination, by the name of your Lord, the Mighty, the Benevolent, then advance unto Him in this Day, which God hath made the King of Days.
O Supreme Pontiff! Incline thine ear unto that which the Fashioner of mouldering bones counselleth thee, as voiced by Him Who is His Most Great Name. Sell all the embellished ornaments thou dost possess, and expend them in the path of God, Who causeth the night to return upon the day, and the day to return upon the night. Abandon thy kingdom unto the kings, and emerge from thy habitation, with thy face set towards the Kingdom, and, detached from the world, then speak forth the praises of thy Lord betwixt earth and heaven. Thus hath bidden thee He Who is the Possessor of Names, on the part of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Knowing. Exhort thou the kings and say: ''Deal equitably with men. Beware lest ye transgress the bounds fixed in the Book.'' This indeed becometh thee. Beware lest thou appropriate unto thyself the things of the world and the riches thereof. Leave them unto such as desire them, and cleave unto that which hath been enjoined upon thee by Him Who is the Lord of creation. Should any one come unto thee with the whole treasures of the earth, be as thy Lord hath been: turn not thy sight toward them. Thus hath the Tongue of Revelation uttered that which God hath made the ornament of the Book of Renovation.
Consider the pearl! Verily, its luster is in itself, but if thou coverest it with silk it assuredly veileth the beauty and qualities thereof. Such is man, his nobility is in his virtues, and not in that which covereth him, and not in toys and childish things (1 Cor. 13:11). Know, then, that thy true adornment is the Love of God and thy devotion to naught else save Him, and not to the allurements and luxuries of the world which thou hast in thy possession: leave them to those who desire them and come to God, who causeth the rivers to flow."
The exhortation to sell all the property and liturgical garments in the Papal State and live a life of personal asceticism as a public figure would not be out of place in any Protestant's letter to any Pope, but it is Bahá'u'lláh who is making it this time.
That said, Bahá'u'lláh tries to differentiate himself from the average person who writes the Pope to advise the Pontiff as to the best course of action.
"All that was said by the tongue of the Son was spoken in proverbs (parables and figures), whereas He who speaketh today speaks plainly and does not use them (Jn. 16:25 KJV). Beware not to take hold of the cord of vain-imagination and withhold thyself from the plain truth of what was ordained in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the Bounteous. Should the inebriation of the wine of My verses seize thee, and thou determinest to present thyself before the throne of thy Lord, the Creator of earth and heaven, make My love thy vesture, and thy shield remembrance of Me, and thy provision reliance upon God, the Revealer of all power.
O people of the Son! We have sent unto you once again John the Baptist (in the person of the Bab as My precursor). Verily, He crieth in the wilderness of the Bayan: “O Peoples of the world! Clear your eyes, for the day of vision and meeting the Promised One is now!” “O people of the Gospel, prepare the way, for the Day whereon the Glory of the Lord (Baha'u'llah) shall come (Mk. 8:38), hath drawn nigh. Prepare yourselves to enter His Kingdom.” Thus was the matter decreed on the part of God, Who causes Dawn to Break.
Hearken unto the strains which the Dove of Eternity hath sung upon the Branches of the Divine Lote Tree and which is vocal with the melody: “O peoples of the earth, We have sent unto you Him who was named John to baptize you with water that your bodies might be purified for the Appearance of the Messiah, the Christ. He in turn hath purified you with the Fire of Love and with the Water of the Spirit in preparation for These Days whereon the All-Merciful hath willed to cleanse your bodies with the Water of Life, by the hands of His loving-kindness. This is indeed the Father, whereof Isaiah gave you tidings (Isaiah 9:6, 7 and ch. 2 and 11), and the Comforter (John 16:7-15 KJV) from whom Jesus hath received His Covenant.” O concourse of learned people! Open your eyes that you may see your Lord sitting on the Throne (1 Chon. 29:23) in Glory and Might."Bahá'u'lláh makes the claim that his predecessor the Bab is John the Baptist returned to the Earth, once again preparing the way for a Manifestation of God. His frequent references to the New Testament and the Old Testament of the Bible may be meant to persuade the Pope, but I am very doubtful that it did anything to persuade.
I suspect that the Pope would be very suspicious indeed of anyone from Persia claiming that he was providing a new revelation from Allah and acting as though he were equal to Jesus in authority.
"Say, O people of all Religions! Be not of those who followed the Pharisees and thus they were veiled from the Messiah, the Christ. Verily, they are in forgetfulness and error. The Ancient Beauty hath come in the Most Great Name and hath desired to admit all the people into His Most Holy Kingdom, that the pure in heart may see the Kingdom of God before His Face (Mt. 5:8). Hasten unto Him and follow not every denying infidel. And if the eye of any one oppose him in this, it behooveth him to pluck it out (Mk. 9:47). Thus was it written by the Pen of the Ancient of Days as bidden by Him Who is the Lord of all creation. He hath verily come again a second time for your deliverance and salvation (Heb. 9:28). O people of creation, will ye kill Him yet once more, He Who desireth to grant you eternal Life? Fear God, O people of discernment.
O people! Hearken unto that which is revealed to you on the part of thy Lord in El-Abha. Turn unto God, the Lord of this life, and the life to come. Thus commandeth you the Rising-place of the Sun of Inspiration on the part of the Creator of all human kind. We have created you for the light, and We do not like to leave you for the fire. Come out, O people, therefore from darkness through this Sun of Reality which has shone forth from the horizon of the grace of God. Then advance unto Him with purified hearts and assured souls, seeing eyes and bright faces. This is that whereby the King of Fate admonisheth you, from the region of the Most Great Outlook, that ye may be attracted by the Voice to the Kingdom of His Names.
Blessed is he who remains under the provisions of the Covenant, and woe unto him who breaketh the promise and denieth God, the Knower of secrets. Say: Lo! This is the Day of Grace! Come ye that I may make you kings of the realm of My Kingdom (Rev. 1:6). If ye obey Me, you will see that which We have promised you, and I will make you the friends of My Soul in the realm of My Majesty (Is. ch. 35) and the Companions of My Beauty in the heaven of My Power forevermore. And if ye disobey Me (Deut. ch. 28), I will be patient through My Mercy, perchance that ye will awake and arise from the couch of heedlessness. Thus hath My forbearance preceded you. Fear God and follow not those who have turned away from the Face while they invoke His Name at the dawn-tide and in the night season too."
Oddly for a letter to the Pope, Bahá'u'lláh addresses people of all religions and follows it with very specific religious language that Christians and Jews would readily understand, but might be rather obscure to the average Hindu, Buddhist, or even a devout Muslim who had not read the Bible.
You may notice that many of the exhortations of Bahá'u'lláh are reiterations of passages from the Tanakh, the Christian New Testament writings, or the Qur'an. In this case, the part about remaining under the Covenant reminded me of a Quranic passage regarding the Jews as covenant-breakers.
"Verily, the Harvest Day hath come and all things are separated one from another. That which was chosen is stored in the vessels of justice, and into the fire was cast what was fitted for it. Thus hath decided thy Lord, the Mighty, the Beloved, in this Promised Day. Verily He ordaineth whatsoever He pleaseth. There is no God but He, the Mighty, the Subduer! The Sifter did not wish but to store every good thing for Myself. He did not speak but to inform you of My Cause and guide you into the Path of Him by whose mention all the sacred Books of the world are adorned.
Say: O concourse of Christians! We have, on a previous occasion, revealed Ourself unto you, and ye recognized Me not. This is yet another occasion vouchsafed unto you. This is the Day of God; turn ye unto Him. Verily He hath come down from heaven as He came down from heaven the first time (Jn. 3:13 KJV) and desired to shelter you under the shadow of His Mercy. Verily, He is the Exalted, the Mighty, the Defender. The Beloved One loveth not that ye be consumed with the fire of your desires. Were ye to be shut out as by a veil from Him, this would be for no other reason than your own waywardness and ignorance. Ye make mention of Me, and know Me not. Ye call upon Me, and are heedless of My Revelation and of My Appearance, after I have come unto you from the heaven of prophecy with My Most Great Glory. Burn away the veils in My Name through the Power of My Dominion that ye may find a way to the Lord.
The King of Glory continually proclaims from the horizon of the Pavilion of Might and Greatness saying: “O people of the Gospel! They who were not in the Kingdom have now entered it, whilst We behold you, in this day, tarrying at the gate. Rend the veils asunder by the power of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Bounteous, and enter, then, in My Name My Kingdom. Thus biddeth you He Who desireth for you everlasting life. Verily, He is powerful over all things. Blessed are they who have known the light and hastened toward it. Behold! They are in the Kingdom, they eat and drink with the elect."The various titles which Bahá'u'lláh gives to Christians throughout the letter are interesting. From "People of the Son" to "People of the Gospel" he emphasizes the continuity of his proclamations with the existing Christian religious traditions while calling the faithful Christians out of them.
Then he goes on to give them another title, which is "Children of the Kingdom." He tells Christians that they are in darkness, and they need to return to the Light.
"We behold you, O children of the Kingdom, in darkness. This, verily, beseemeth you not. Are ye, in the face of the Light (Jn. 3:19-21), fearful because of your deeds? Direct yourselves towards Him. Verily, thy Glorious Lord hath honored His country by His coming, blessed His lands with His footsteps. Thus We teach you plainly the path to Him (Jn.14:6) whereof Jesus hath prophesied. I, verily, bear witness for him even as he hath borne witness unto Me. Verily, He said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: “Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind.” Thus has the decree been ordained in this Epistle written by the Pen of Command."
Finally, Bahá'u'lláh gets to the crux of the matter. He makes it clear that the new revelation has priority, and that he is the new authority. His letter to the Pope was, from the perspective of Bahá'u'lláh, a letter to a leader of the Church whose deposit of faith had been emptied, a guardian of a flame that had long since been snuffed out by error and corruption.
Bahá'u'lláh saw himself as a Manifestation of God writing an epistle to the lowly Servant of the Servants of God. He understood himself as the Pen of Command, made by the Creator's hand to send these messages.
I'm not sure what Pope Pius IX thought of the letter, or if he even had the chance to read it. He was rather busy at the time with many problems. Nonetheless, I think that he might have been more interested by Bahá'u'lláh's account of his vision of the Maid of Heaven.
That might have been a more compelling place to start the letter to a Pope famous for his Mariology.
The above is a picture of my copy of The Summons of the Lord of Hosts.
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Unfair Questions: Was Jesus a Buddhist monk named Issa?
Recently, an article which claims that "Jesus Was a Buddhist Monk Named Issa Who Spent Time in India and Tibet" was brought to my attention.
Given that I've studied both Buddhism and Christianity in an unusual amount of depth for a layperson, and that I've seen some interesting parallels between them, you might think that this is something I would leap to believe. But even when I was first introduced to it, I didn't buy in. I just thought it was an interesting possibility.
When I went to college for my first degree, I encountered this idea that perhaps Jesus traveled to India and became a Buddhist monk for a number of years before returning to his homeland. At the time, I thought it was an interesting and exciting idea (partially because this was shortly before I seriously considered converting to Buddhism).
Why does this theory remain so popular? For several reasons. The first being its explanatory power.
The explanatory power of this theory is that it explains where Jesus was between the Presentation at the Temple and the period of time shortly before his public ministry began at the Wedding at Cana. It fills a big narrative gap in the story of Jesus' life, which we like because we are not comfortable with narrative gaps once we notice them.
There's not inherently anything wrong with wanting to fill in gaps in our knowledge. That kind of desire is generally good. At the same time, we ought to be careful about how we find the missing pieces of knowledge. We need a way to assess which explanation is more likely to be accurate before using it to complete the narrative.
This helps us avoid getting conned. One common way of persuading people to believe falsehoods is to call their attention to a gap in their narrative, and then propose a way of filling that gap which pulls on their heartstrings and their confirmation bias leads them to believe without properly checking the evidence. (You can see this tactic being used in the BBC documentary displayed at the end of the article.)
The other appeal of the theory is that it fits the intuitions of many people who believe instinctively that for a religious figure to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, he must be a cross-cultural figure with universal appeal. And because there is a high degree of fascination with Buddhism in the West along with high levels of residual belief in Christ, it's natural to gravitate to a theory that connects them and (from their perspective) lends legitimacy to both religious traditions.
It also pokes those stodgy close-minded establishment Christian groups in the eye and subverts their beliefs, which is another advantage for many who are cynical about the religious groups in their home countries in the West. These are the parts where the confirmation bias is coming in.
The trick here is validate folks' residual attachment to Jesus as a great religious figure and/or personal savior while also feeding their dislike of traditional Christian religious perspectives. Everyone involved gets to feel like they are subverting the oppressive traditional and institutional religious groups while at the same time confirming their own more enlightened views.
This isn't a new technique, and it's used quite regularly today, but if we're not aware of it, it's easy to fall for it, whatever your religious views might be.
All that said, what do we use to fill in the narrative gap?
The simple answer is that we examine competing theories and see which theory is supported by the available evidence.
Is the story told by Nicolas Notovitch, the theory that Jesus traveled to India and studied as a Buddhist, supported by the evidence?
No. Actually, a well-known scholar of Eastern religions (he prepared the English translations of the Jain works in my personal library), found out pretty quickly that Notovitch fabricated his claims.
Even Bart Ehrman, a secular scholar of the history of religions who is happy to prod traditional Christian believers using historical evidence, admits that this theory was just started as a hoax.
It takes only a short time to check this information, and does not require extensive research.
So why would people continue to peddle his theory?
I will leave it to my readers to fill in the gap in the narrative as to their motives.
Related: How similar are the births of the world's major religious figures?
Given that I've studied both Buddhism and Christianity in an unusual amount of depth for a layperson, and that I've seen some interesting parallels between them, you might think that this is something I would leap to believe. But even when I was first introduced to it, I didn't buy in. I just thought it was an interesting possibility.
When I went to college for my first degree, I encountered this idea that perhaps Jesus traveled to India and became a Buddhist monk for a number of years before returning to his homeland. At the time, I thought it was an interesting and exciting idea (partially because this was shortly before I seriously considered converting to Buddhism).
Why does this theory remain so popular? For several reasons. The first being its explanatory power.
The explanatory power of this theory is that it explains where Jesus was between the Presentation at the Temple and the period of time shortly before his public ministry began at the Wedding at Cana. It fills a big narrative gap in the story of Jesus' life, which we like because we are not comfortable with narrative gaps once we notice them.
There's not inherently anything wrong with wanting to fill in gaps in our knowledge. That kind of desire is generally good. At the same time, we ought to be careful about how we find the missing pieces of knowledge. We need a way to assess which explanation is more likely to be accurate before using it to complete the narrative.
This helps us avoid getting conned. One common way of persuading people to believe falsehoods is to call their attention to a gap in their narrative, and then propose a way of filling that gap which pulls on their heartstrings and their confirmation bias leads them to believe without properly checking the evidence. (You can see this tactic being used in the BBC documentary displayed at the end of the article.)
The other appeal of the theory is that it fits the intuitions of many people who believe instinctively that for a religious figure to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, he must be a cross-cultural figure with universal appeal. And because there is a high degree of fascination with Buddhism in the West along with high levels of residual belief in Christ, it's natural to gravitate to a theory that connects them and (from their perspective) lends legitimacy to both religious traditions.
It also pokes those stodgy close-minded establishment Christian groups in the eye and subverts their beliefs, which is another advantage for many who are cynical about the religious groups in their home countries in the West. These are the parts where the confirmation bias is coming in.
The trick here is validate folks' residual attachment to Jesus as a great religious figure and/or personal savior while also feeding their dislike of traditional Christian religious perspectives. Everyone involved gets to feel like they are subverting the oppressive traditional and institutional religious groups while at the same time confirming their own more enlightened views.
This isn't a new technique, and it's used quite regularly today, but if we're not aware of it, it's easy to fall for it, whatever your religious views might be.
All that said, what do we use to fill in the narrative gap?
The simple answer is that we examine competing theories and see which theory is supported by the available evidence.
Is the story told by Nicolas Notovitch, the theory that Jesus traveled to India and studied as a Buddhist, supported by the evidence?
No. Actually, a well-known scholar of Eastern religions (he prepared the English translations of the Jain works in my personal library), found out pretty quickly that Notovitch fabricated his claims.
Even Bart Ehrman, a secular scholar of the history of religions who is happy to prod traditional Christian believers using historical evidence, admits that this theory was just started as a hoax.
It takes only a short time to check this information, and does not require extensive research.
So why would people continue to peddle his theory?
I will leave it to my readers to fill in the gap in the narrative as to their motives.
Related: How similar are the births of the world's major religious figures?
Thursday, February 8, 2018
Fair Questions: Why doesn't science show that Buddhist monks are less afraid of death?
Recently, I was pointed to an article in Newsweek which described a study that was done to test the hypothesis that the Buddhist belief that the self (as we generally think of it, a persisting reality) is an illusion would result in Buddhist monks having less fear of death compared to lay Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians.
This hypothesis was thoroughly falsified. The Tibetan Buddhist monks actually reported more fear of self-annihilation upon dying than any of the other groups. And in the test of selflessness (which should be a result of practicing the Buddhist focus on impermanence), they were actually less selfless than others. This was an interesting day for science, and it's always nice to see a hypothesis falsified, because that's scientific progress.
The researcher quoted in the Newsweek article seemed quite surprised by the results. I worry that this is largely because the researcher doesn't understand Buddhism very well, though I could be very wrong about that. My own grasp of Buddhism is better than the average Westerner (as you can see from my extensive writings on it), but is certainly not complete.
At the very least, you can read in the paper they wrote after the study that the researchers relied on knowledgeable Tibetan Buddhist scholar-monks to calibrate their survey questions and understand the degree to which the answers conformed to standard Tibetan Buddhist teaching. That's good methodology.
I do have some suspicions about the possible causes of the research results with regard to the Tibetan Buddhist monks being less selfless than the lay Buddhists in Tibet and Bhutan. I also have some suspicions with regard to the fact that they appeared to be more afraid of self-annihilation. Regarding the fear of self-annihilation, I think they need to do a comparable study with other Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists (both lay and monastic).
The reason I suggest that they should do more research with other Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists is that the Mahayana tradition generally and the Vajrayana tradition of Tibetan Buddhism specifically has some beliefs that are different from Theravada Buddhism which are relevant to how one would view death.
In Mahayana teachings, there's a strong emphasis on buddha-nature and Buddhahood, and actualizing Buddhahood would cause one to essentially live forever as a bodhisattva. Monks are traditionally considered to be the ones most likely to reach that state (as you can read here), and they would have the most to lose by self-annihilation upon death. On the other hand, lay Buddhists have to be resigned to the high probability of suffering a long time (perhaps millions or billions of years) on another plane of existence, so self-annihilation might not look so bad from their perspective.
Theravada teaching tends to more emphasize the cessation of existence within the cycle of saṃsāra (being reborn over and over again and suffering for all or most of eternity). From that perspective too, self-annihilation could look pretty good.
Another important point with regard to the selfishness of the monks when presented with the life-extending medicine is that traditional Buddhist teaching places monks and care for the basic material needs of monks very high on the moral priorities list because they are the most likely to become enlightened and escape saṃsāra. Therefore, one might have less incentive to extend the lifespan of someone who is very likely to die and be reborn in a naraka and suffer for millions or billions of years before getting another chance to be a monk and gain the opportunity to escape saṃsāra.
That said, there may be a deeper and simpler reason that serious Buddhist practitioners who meditate often would be more attached to their own continued existence. During deep meditation, one can find a tranquility or a bliss which far surpasses the banality of daily life in the quality of experience.
One can also notice that while there is no self in the way that we typically think of it as a persisting psychological reality, there is something which is aware of the contents of the psyche, and that something is what remains with us even after a deep meditation which changes us so dramatically that we can no longer pretend that there is a persisting psychological reality which is the ground of our being.
It is this something which is aware that presumably persists through the endless cycles of death and rebirth known as saṃsāra, through both the terrifying and torturous narakas and the highest heavenly planes. One would guess that Buddhist monastics would be highly cognizant of the fact that this something which persists through life after life, if it were to cease, would mean the cessation of their own being, and their chance at living on as an enlightened bodhisattva.
While none of them would believe that a simple lack of a persisting psychological reality (known popularly as the self) is anything to fear because meditation would make it obvious to them that it is not anything to fear, they might be quite fearful of the final cessation of that something which is aware.
After all, they've developed a closeness with it through meditation that most people never develop. They may have become attached to this something through long familiarity, and it may be wrenching to consider losing it forever, this truly persisting thing without which we would not experience bliss or tranquility (so far as we know).
I'm not saying that any of these beliefs or experiences are necessarily causally related to the greater fear of death or the selfish behavior of the Buddhist monks.
I don't know with certainty why Tibetan Buddhist monks would have a greater fear of death than lay Buddhists or members of other religions in the same geographical area.
But I do think the researchers need to consider the complexity of Buddhist beliefs when thinking about these experiments and what they measure.
Related: What is the role of the Sangha in Buddhism?
By Stephen Shephard - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1130661
This hypothesis was thoroughly falsified. The Tibetan Buddhist monks actually reported more fear of self-annihilation upon dying than any of the other groups. And in the test of selflessness (which should be a result of practicing the Buddhist focus on impermanence), they were actually less selfless than others. This was an interesting day for science, and it's always nice to see a hypothesis falsified, because that's scientific progress.
The researcher quoted in the Newsweek article seemed quite surprised by the results. I worry that this is largely because the researcher doesn't understand Buddhism very well, though I could be very wrong about that. My own grasp of Buddhism is better than the average Westerner (as you can see from my extensive writings on it), but is certainly not complete.
At the very least, you can read in the paper they wrote after the study that the researchers relied on knowledgeable Tibetan Buddhist scholar-monks to calibrate their survey questions and understand the degree to which the answers conformed to standard Tibetan Buddhist teaching. That's good methodology.
I do have some suspicions about the possible causes of the research results with regard to the Tibetan Buddhist monks being less selfless than the lay Buddhists in Tibet and Bhutan. I also have some suspicions with regard to the fact that they appeared to be more afraid of self-annihilation. Regarding the fear of self-annihilation, I think they need to do a comparable study with other Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists (both lay and monastic).
The reason I suggest that they should do more research with other Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists is that the Mahayana tradition generally and the Vajrayana tradition of Tibetan Buddhism specifically has some beliefs that are different from Theravada Buddhism which are relevant to how one would view death.
In Mahayana teachings, there's a strong emphasis on buddha-nature and Buddhahood, and actualizing Buddhahood would cause one to essentially live forever as a bodhisattva. Monks are traditionally considered to be the ones most likely to reach that state (as you can read here), and they would have the most to lose by self-annihilation upon death. On the other hand, lay Buddhists have to be resigned to the high probability of suffering a long time (perhaps millions or billions of years) on another plane of existence, so self-annihilation might not look so bad from their perspective.
Theravada teaching tends to more emphasize the cessation of existence within the cycle of saṃsāra (being reborn over and over again and suffering for all or most of eternity). From that perspective too, self-annihilation could look pretty good.
Another important point with regard to the selfishness of the monks when presented with the life-extending medicine is that traditional Buddhist teaching places monks and care for the basic material needs of monks very high on the moral priorities list because they are the most likely to become enlightened and escape saṃsāra. Therefore, one might have less incentive to extend the lifespan of someone who is very likely to die and be reborn in a naraka and suffer for millions or billions of years before getting another chance to be a monk and gain the opportunity to escape saṃsāra.
That said, there may be a deeper and simpler reason that serious Buddhist practitioners who meditate often would be more attached to their own continued existence. During deep meditation, one can find a tranquility or a bliss which far surpasses the banality of daily life in the quality of experience.
One can also notice that while there is no self in the way that we typically think of it as a persisting psychological reality, there is something which is aware of the contents of the psyche, and that something is what remains with us even after a deep meditation which changes us so dramatically that we can no longer pretend that there is a persisting psychological reality which is the ground of our being.
It is this something which is aware that presumably persists through the endless cycles of death and rebirth known as saṃsāra, through both the terrifying and torturous narakas and the highest heavenly planes. One would guess that Buddhist monastics would be highly cognizant of the fact that this something which persists through life after life, if it were to cease, would mean the cessation of their own being, and their chance at living on as an enlightened bodhisattva.
While none of them would believe that a simple lack of a persisting psychological reality (known popularly as the self) is anything to fear because meditation would make it obvious to them that it is not anything to fear, they might be quite fearful of the final cessation of that something which is aware.
After all, they've developed a closeness with it through meditation that most people never develop. They may have become attached to this something through long familiarity, and it may be wrenching to consider losing it forever, this truly persisting thing without which we would not experience bliss or tranquility (so far as we know).
I'm not saying that any of these beliefs or experiences are necessarily causally related to the greater fear of death or the selfish behavior of the Buddhist monks.
I don't know with certainty why Tibetan Buddhist monks would have a greater fear of death than lay Buddhists or members of other religions in the same geographical area.
But I do think the researchers need to consider the complexity of Buddhist beliefs when thinking about these experiments and what they measure.
Related: What is the role of the Sangha in Buddhism?
By Stephen Shephard - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1130661
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Fair Questions: Should Christians take yoga classes?
It's been a while since I've read any articles from Matt Walsh, but this one was shared with me recently, and it has created quite a controversy, as much of his writing does. In this one, he makes the argument that Christians should not, generally speaking, participate in yoga.
I'll be very candid about my own situation with yoga: I have never taken a yoga class, and don't see much point in starting now. I have a very nice stretching routine of my own that leaves me loose and limber and strengthens the muscles. That said, I have studied it from a religious perspective and have a basic understanding of its spiritual implications and its relationship to Hinduism.
Based on my familiarity with the religious side of yoga and my traditionally-minded Catholic faith (which I share with Matt Walsh), you might understandably assume that I agree with him that Christians should avoid yoga in general.
But I don't. That said, I do think he makes a better argument than most Christians who take an anti-yoga stance, and that Christians should take this argument seriously. Also, he correctly points out the poor reasoning for participating in yoga that is commonly utilized by Christians to justify their choice, and that's worthwhile.
First, let's examine some of the bad arguments made by Christians against yoga.
Argument #1 is, to put it mildly, patently absurd. If that were true, any child playing around performing odd animal poses after being inspired by visiting a zoo would accidentally fall into the worship of pagan gods/exposure to demonic activity when they happened to be in a pose used in yoga classes. This is not an argument that, on its face, has any real merit to it.
Argument #2 has some merit to it, but within limits. It's certainly true that exposure to Indian religions, whether via yoga classes that emphasize Indian spirituality or visiting a Buddhist temple, can lead people to grow interested in those religions and move away from Christianity. That is a good point to make. On the other hand, many yoga classes are so secularized and stripped of traditional Indian spiritual meaning that this risk becomes very, very low. A devout Christian attending these highly secularized kinds of yoga classes probably has basically zero risk of converting to an ancient Indian yogic tradition.
Matt Walsh makes a slightly different argument. He asks us to consider that, if it's the case that there are other forms of exercise that give us the same benefits and aren't embedded with or drawn from Indian yogic traditions, why not just do those forms of exercise instead?
My guess is that most Christians who do yoga do so for a couple of reasons. For one, it's very popular right now and classes are widely available. Pilates classes are just not offered as often as yoga these days. Exercise classes that are widely available will get more people attending, so if Matt Walsh wants Christians to do other exercises, probably one of the most useful things he can do is take concrete steps to make alternatives to yoga classes widely available.
For two, many people seem to find it genuinely therapeutic and physically healthy once they try it, or they do "hot yoga" because it's a fitness challenge.
For three, some people do it because they are interested in exploring other religious traditions. These folks are probably the ones that Matt Walsh and other Christians who speak out against yoga are most worried about, and that's completely fair. Those are the folks they should be most worried about.
But he and others are not just worried about the folks who are interested in exploring other religious traditions. He makes an additional argument to support the claim that performing yoga poses is inherently a Hindu spiritual practice regardless of your intentions.
It's a pretty good prima facie argument, and I want to address it. Walsh claims that:
To his credit, this was true at one point. In fact, for most of recorded human history, it was true. That's because for most of human history, what people meant by the word "yoga" is the general category of the kind of spiritual practice Walsh is describing (albeit somewhat overly simplistically).
But in comes our consumeristic American culture with its ability to de-sacralize and de-spiritualize almost anything to make it palatable to as many people as will pay for it.
Does anyone really imagine that people who wear rosaries as a fashion statement are participating in a Roman Catholic contemplative spiritual practice whether they intend to or not? Does anyone really imagine that people who have Byzantine icons of Our Lady (solely because they think it's a nice painting to hang on the wall that matches the decor) are necessarily participating in Eastern Christian veneration of icons?
Does anyone take seriously the idea that Western atheists who practice forms of Buddhist meditation strictly for its therapeutic benefits are actually attaining enlightenment via non-clinging as the Buddha instructed?
I certainly hope not. The challenge here is understanding that there are multiple meanings of these words. What a practicing Buddhist monk in the Theravada tradition means by "meditation" and what a Western atheist means by "meditation" are two different things.
When someone who wears rosary beads as a fashion statement says the word, "rosary" what they're referring to is a bunch of beads and a cross or crucifix in a particular configuration. When devout Catholics say the word, "Rosary" what they're referring to is a contemplative form of prayer that they practice regularly in which they use beads to help count the prayers.
In the same way, when people who are focused on yoga as a spiritual exercise use the term "yoga" what they mean is not all the same thing as those who only know of "yoga" as extra-challenging stretching techniques.
So when Matt Walsh claims that the definition of "yoga" is such that it's an inherently spiritual practice, that's true for the traditional definition of yoga, but not for the new consumeristic American definition of yoga. And so his argument there really doesn't apply to the latter.
All that said, I would not encourage Christians to take yoga classes. I would, however, encourage Christians who do take yoga classes to consider Walsh's question about why we don't just use alternative exercises.
If it's just because the yoga classes are all that's available and you value the group exercise, then that's fair enough. If you as a Christian have an attachment to Eastern religious traditions and want to do it for that reason, then it's probably best to do some soul-searching and prayer to discern God's will.
The above is a depiction of Krishna dancing.
I'll be very candid about my own situation with yoga: I have never taken a yoga class, and don't see much point in starting now. I have a very nice stretching routine of my own that leaves me loose and limber and strengthens the muscles. That said, I have studied it from a religious perspective and have a basic understanding of its spiritual implications and its relationship to Hinduism.
See Related Podcast and Post: The Yoga of Krishna
But I don't. That said, I do think he makes a better argument than most Christians who take an anti-yoga stance, and that Christians should take this argument seriously. Also, he correctly points out the poor reasoning for participating in yoga that is commonly utilized by Christians to justify their choice, and that's worthwhile.
First, let's examine some of the bad arguments made by Christians against yoga.
1. Performing yoga poses is inherently a Hindu spiritual practice regardless of your intentions, and regardless of your spiritual state it will draw you into contact with demonic activity and/or cause you to be worshiping pagan gods.
2. Yoga is a practice of a pagan religion and participating in it is risky because it could lead you to explore pagan religions and eventually convert to one of them.
Argument #1 is, to put it mildly, patently absurd. If that were true, any child playing around performing odd animal poses after being inspired by visiting a zoo would accidentally fall into the worship of pagan gods/exposure to demonic activity when they happened to be in a pose used in yoga classes. This is not an argument that, on its face, has any real merit to it.
Argument #2 has some merit to it, but within limits. It's certainly true that exposure to Indian religions, whether via yoga classes that emphasize Indian spirituality or visiting a Buddhist temple, can lead people to grow interested in those religions and move away from Christianity. That is a good point to make. On the other hand, many yoga classes are so secularized and stripped of traditional Indian spiritual meaning that this risk becomes very, very low. A devout Christian attending these highly secularized kinds of yoga classes probably has basically zero risk of converting to an ancient Indian yogic tradition.
Matt Walsh makes a slightly different argument. He asks us to consider that, if it's the case that there are other forms of exercise that give us the same benefits and aren't embedded with or drawn from Indian yogic traditions, why not just do those forms of exercise instead?
My guess is that most Christians who do yoga do so for a couple of reasons. For one, it's very popular right now and classes are widely available. Pilates classes are just not offered as often as yoga these days. Exercise classes that are widely available will get more people attending, so if Matt Walsh wants Christians to do other exercises, probably one of the most useful things he can do is take concrete steps to make alternatives to yoga classes widely available.
For two, many people seem to find it genuinely therapeutic and physically healthy once they try it, or they do "hot yoga" because it's a fitness challenge.
For three, some people do it because they are interested in exploring other religious traditions. These folks are probably the ones that Matt Walsh and other Christians who speak out against yoga are most worried about, and that's completely fair. Those are the folks they should be most worried about.
But he and others are not just worried about the folks who are interested in exploring other religious traditions. He makes an additional argument to support the claim that performing yoga poses is inherently a Hindu spiritual practice regardless of your intentions.
It's a pretty good prima facie argument, and I want to address it. Walsh claims that:
"The whole point of yoga is that you can't sever its physicality from its spirituality. That's literally the definition of yoga. It would seem that a "non-spiritual yoga" is a contradiction in terms. It's like trying to make G-rated porn. Either its G-rated or its porn. It can't really be both. Either it's yoga or its non-spiritual. It can't really be both."
To his credit, this was true at one point. In fact, for most of recorded human history, it was true. That's because for most of human history, what people meant by the word "yoga" is the general category of the kind of spiritual practice Walsh is describing (albeit somewhat overly simplistically).
But in comes our consumeristic American culture with its ability to de-sacralize and de-spiritualize almost anything to make it palatable to as many people as will pay for it.
Does anyone really imagine that people who wear rosaries as a fashion statement are participating in a Roman Catholic contemplative spiritual practice whether they intend to or not? Does anyone really imagine that people who have Byzantine icons of Our Lady (solely because they think it's a nice painting to hang on the wall that matches the decor) are necessarily participating in Eastern Christian veneration of icons?
Does anyone take seriously the idea that Western atheists who practice forms of Buddhist meditation strictly for its therapeutic benefits are actually attaining enlightenment via non-clinging as the Buddha instructed?
I certainly hope not. The challenge here is understanding that there are multiple meanings of these words. What a practicing Buddhist monk in the Theravada tradition means by "meditation" and what a Western atheist means by "meditation" are two different things.
When someone who wears rosary beads as a fashion statement says the word, "rosary" what they're referring to is a bunch of beads and a cross or crucifix in a particular configuration. When devout Catholics say the word, "Rosary" what they're referring to is a contemplative form of prayer that they practice regularly in which they use beads to help count the prayers.
In the same way, when people who are focused on yoga as a spiritual exercise use the term "yoga" what they mean is not all the same thing as those who only know of "yoga" as extra-challenging stretching techniques.
So when Matt Walsh claims that the definition of "yoga" is such that it's an inherently spiritual practice, that's true for the traditional definition of yoga, but not for the new consumeristic American definition of yoga. And so his argument there really doesn't apply to the latter.
All that said, I would not encourage Christians to take yoga classes. I would, however, encourage Christians who do take yoga classes to consider Walsh's question about why we don't just use alternative exercises.
If it's just because the yoga classes are all that's available and you value the group exercise, then that's fair enough. If you as a Christian have an attachment to Eastern religious traditions and want to do it for that reason, then it's probably best to do some soul-searching and prayer to discern God's will.
The above is a depiction of Krishna dancing.
Friday, March 24, 2017
Bhagavad Gita: The Meditation of Krishna
Listen to the embedded podcast version of this post or read the written version below.
Previously, in The Wisdom of Krishna, I examined what Krishna taught Arjuna about the nature and practice of wisdom. Shortly after the teachings on wisdom referenced previously, Krishna goes on to teach Arjuna about the practice of meditation. What we generally think of as meditation in the West is related to, but not quite the same as the meditation spoken of by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.
As I've mentioned before, the Bhagavad Gita is a discourse that strikes at the heart of spiritual matters, and it is a discourse that takes place on a great battlefield at the climax of the great epic known as the Mahabharata. The battle is about to be joined by great warriors, and it is at this time of calm before the storm that Krishna helps Arjuna to understand his place in this life and the nature of spiritual fulfillment.
After Krishna has answered his question about how to live wisely, he speaks further about unity with Brahman and the nature of Brahman. And later he moves on to the practice of meditation, which he recommends to all spiritual aspirants.
After reiterating previous points about the contemplative life and the active life both being paths to union with the divine life, Krishna comes back to another familiar concept: Ātman. This is the word being translated as "the Self" as distinct from one's self in the sense of the ego. Unlike the self of the ego, that incorrigible pursuer of transient desires, Ātman is the most true and most real self, the enduring consciousness which can partake in the divine life.
The fullness of the ego and the fullness of Ātman are not compatible with one another. We can see this clearly in the lives of those who have given themselves over to their addictions. They become shadows of the true Self we know can shine forth from within them; the addict is lost to us, not because they have suffered physical death, but because they have pushed out the potential for the glory of human flourishing in favor of the next temporary high which does not ultimately satisfy.
Union with the divine means that our enslavement to the ego's constant call to the next pleasure, the next worry about what will happen to us, or the next attempt to avoid any small pain must be abolished. Only our wills can be made strong enough to free us of the chains of desire which bind the ego, and only the consistent weakening of our wills can leave us trapped in addictions.
Strengthening our will in selfless service allows us to fight the ego's control more effectively, and as we release more of the ego's control over our lives, we can see more clearly the true Self, Ātman. This helps us to meditate because it increasingly liberates us from our daily worries, and the meditation in turn helps us to overthrow more of the ego's control so that we can seek union with the divine.
Krishna teaches us that this conquering of the ego results in being able to transcend our previous constant focus on concerns about the material world, about the pursuit of possessions and wealth or social standing and prestige. Paradoxically, it is precisely this detachment which leads people to become well-respected by many.
It is the person who participates in the divine life who can deal with people as they truly are, both recognizing their strengths and weaknesses and wondrous inherent value without performing those cold calculations made by the ego to determine whether our actions directly benefit us or not. It is the conquering of the selfish instinct that leads us to be more like the divine sustainer of all that is: Vishnu.
Vishnu, whose avatar at this point and time is Krishna, speaking with Arjuna before a great battle, rains the blessings of life down upon the good and evil people alike, upon friends and enemies, and upon those who are supportive and those who are hostile. This is part and parcel of the divine life: to give selflessly, even to those who hate you and set themselves against you.
Now that Krishna has expounded a bit on the benefit of meditation, he explains to Arjuna how to go about meditating:
The description Krishna provides of how one ought to meditate is drawn from traditional Indian contemplative practices regarding seating and posture and one-pointedness. But this meditation is not the meditation of contemporary mindfulness movements. Rather than directing us to stand clear of our own minds, Krishna bids us to fill our minds with an unwavering contemplation of the divine life which is embodied in Krishna.
He warns us that the taking of ascetic practices to extremes or self-indulgence in transient pleasures will prevent us from effective meditation. When the mind is addicted to seeking the next transient pleasure and avoiding the next feeling of pain, it cannot focus sufficiently in meditation. And when the mind is distracted by constant hunger pangs and the pain of dehydration, it is also unable to focus sufficiently.
Effective meditation is less a matter of extremes and more a matter of finding a healthy balance. To meditate is to walk a tightrope over the abyss of our own thoughts, and to feed our tendency for self-indulgence or unhealthy self-denial is to lose the balance necessary for perfecting the tightrope walk of the mind.
Krishna teaches us that the cultivation of the ability to walk on the tightrope over the abyss of the mind leads to the freedom of being able to experience one's own eternal consciousness without the impediments of the worries and cravings that constantly intrude upon our attempts to find lasting joy. A healthy asceticism, the balanced self-denial of one who does not indulge in excessive eating or drinking before a tightrope walk and also does not starve or dehydrate himself before the tightrope walk, is what will help us to find serenity within the landscapes of the mind's eye.
This balance allows us to walk the narrow path to union with the divine, to oneness with Brahman, the creative principle which underlies and suffuses all that exists, including our own consciousness. This union with the divine is both a fuller participation in the divine life and a fuller realization of our own life.
Once we have begun to see the divine life in ourselves, we cannot help but see it in others, how it suffuses the whole world and brings it to the flowering of terrifying beauty. And we cannot help but see how inextricably bound up our lives are with the lives of others, how their sorrows become our sorrows and their joys become our joys.
This is a lovely response to Arjuna's question, but he still has doubts after Krishna's exposition of the power of meditation. Arjuna asks, "O Krishna, the stillness of divine union which you describe is beyond my comprehension. How can the mind, which is so restless, attain lasting peace? Krishna, the mind is restless, turbulent, powerful, violent; trying to control it is like trying to tame the wind."
Arjuna is very right here that the kind of meditation described by Krishna is extremely difficult to attain. I know from experience that it takes great effort to gain the ability to find this kind of serenity for even a short while. And Krishna acknowledges this:
This, however, does not completely assuage Arjuna's doubts. He asks another question: "Krishna, what happens to one who has faith but who lacks self-control and wanders from the path, not attaining success in yoga? If he becomes deluded on the spiritual path, will he lose the support of both worlds, like a cloud scattered in the sky? Krishna, you can dispel all doubts; remove this doubt which binds me."
Arjuna recognizes that faith alone will not carry him through, at least not faith in the divine as a mere belief held in a philosophical way. He sees instinctively that there is a grave spiritual danger in belief without having the self-control to live out that belief in the radical way described by Krishna.
Krishna exhorts him to let the belief push him forward until it is possible to gain the necessary self-control, to grow in the capacity for meditation rather than giving up because perfection in meditation cannot be acquired quickly.
Krishna goes on to reassure Arjuna that his efforts, even if they do not lead quickly to perfection, are indeed worthwhile. Krishna does not want Arjuna to make his reaching perfection the enemy of reaching what is good and closer to perfection than where he was before. Krishna does not ask us to make perfection a matter of our unhealthy attachment to immediate gratification.
To indulge in our desire for immediate gratification with regard to the spiritual life defeats the purpose of the spiritual life and leaves us trapped in the cycle of reliance on transient pleasures from which Krishna is trying to help liberate us.
Though perfection in meditation takes time and consistent effort, union with the divine and fullness of life for ourselves is worth it. And as Krishna advised Arjuna, to lose all selfishness in true and sincere worship roots us deeply in precisely this union with the divine and fullness of life.
This is the meditation of Krishna, the immersion of our consciousness into the ocean of the divine life, the strength of our faith propelling us into the depths of oneness with all that lives, buoyed up by waves of divine energy so that we might not drown in oneness, instead living fully within and inseparably from the ultimate cause of our lives.
Note: The above is a depiction of Krishna dancing.
Previously, in The Wisdom of Krishna, I examined what Krishna taught Arjuna about the nature and practice of wisdom. Shortly after the teachings on wisdom referenced previously, Krishna goes on to teach Arjuna about the practice of meditation. What we generally think of as meditation in the West is related to, but not quite the same as the meditation spoken of by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.
As I've mentioned before, the Bhagavad Gita is a discourse that strikes at the heart of spiritual matters, and it is a discourse that takes place on a great battlefield at the climax of the great epic known as the Mahabharata. The battle is about to be joined by great warriors, and it is at this time of calm before the storm that Krishna helps Arjuna to understand his place in this life and the nature of spiritual fulfillment.
After Krishna has answered his question about how to live wisely, he speaks further about unity with Brahman and the nature of Brahman. And later he moves on to the practice of meditation, which he recommends to all spiritual aspirants.
"It is not those who lack energy or refrain from action, but those who work without expectation of reward who attain the goal of meditation. Theirs is the true renunciation. Therefore, Arjuna, you should understand that renunciation and the performance of selfless service are the same. Those who cannot renounce attachment to the results of their work are far from the path.
For aspirants who want to climb the mountain of spiritual awareness, the path is selfless work; for those who have ascended to yoga the path is stillness and peace. When you have freed yourself from attachment to the results of work, and from desires for the enjoyment of sense objects, you will ascend to the unitive state.
Reshape yourself through the power of your will; never let yourself be degraded by self-will. The will is the only friend of the Self, and the will is the only enemy of the Self.
To those who have conquered themselves, the will is a friend. But it is the enemy of those who have not found the Self within them."
After reiterating previous points about the contemplative life and the active life both being paths to union with the divine life, Krishna comes back to another familiar concept: Ātman. This is the word being translated as "the Self" as distinct from one's self in the sense of the ego. Unlike the self of the ego, that incorrigible pursuer of transient desires, Ātman is the most true and most real self, the enduring consciousness which can partake in the divine life.
The fullness of the ego and the fullness of Ātman are not compatible with one another. We can see this clearly in the lives of those who have given themselves over to their addictions. They become shadows of the true Self we know can shine forth from within them; the addict is lost to us, not because they have suffered physical death, but because they have pushed out the potential for the glory of human flourishing in favor of the next temporary high which does not ultimately satisfy.
Union with the divine means that our enslavement to the ego's constant call to the next pleasure, the next worry about what will happen to us, or the next attempt to avoid any small pain must be abolished. Only our wills can be made strong enough to free us of the chains of desire which bind the ego, and only the consistent weakening of our wills can leave us trapped in addictions.
Strengthening our will in selfless service allows us to fight the ego's control more effectively, and as we release more of the ego's control over our lives, we can see more clearly the true Self, Ātman. This helps us to meditate because it increasingly liberates us from our daily worries, and the meditation in turn helps us to overthrow more of the ego's control so that we can seek union with the divine.
"The supreme Reality stands revealed in the consciousness of those who have conquered themselves. They live in peace, alike in cold and heat, pleasure and pain, praise and blame.
They are completely fulfilled by spiritual wisdom and Self-realization. Having conquered their senses, they have climbed to the summit of human consciousness. To such people a clod of dirt, a stone, and gold are the same. They are equally disposed to family, enemies, and friends, to those who support them and those who are hostile, to the good and the evil alike. Because they are impartial, they rise to great heights.
Those who aspire to the state of yoga should seek the Self in inner solitude through meditation. With body and mind controlled they should constantly practice one-pointedness, free from expectations and attachment to material possessions."
Krishna teaches us that this conquering of the ego results in being able to transcend our previous constant focus on concerns about the material world, about the pursuit of possessions and wealth or social standing and prestige. Paradoxically, it is precisely this detachment which leads people to become well-respected by many.
It is the person who participates in the divine life who can deal with people as they truly are, both recognizing their strengths and weaknesses and wondrous inherent value without performing those cold calculations made by the ego to determine whether our actions directly benefit us or not. It is the conquering of the selfish instinct that leads us to be more like the divine sustainer of all that is: Vishnu.
Vishnu, whose avatar at this point and time is Krishna, speaking with Arjuna before a great battle, rains the blessings of life down upon the good and evil people alike, upon friends and enemies, and upon those who are supportive and those who are hostile. This is part and parcel of the divine life: to give selflessly, even to those who hate you and set themselves against you.
Now that Krishna has expounded a bit on the benefit of meditation, he explains to Arjuna how to go about meditating:
"Select a clean spot, neither too high nor too low, and seat yourself firmly on a cloth, a deerskin, and kusha grass. Then, once seated, strive to still your thoughts. Make your mind one-pointed in meditation, and your heart will be purified. Hold your body, head, and neck firmly in a straight line, and keep your eyes from wandering. With all fear dissolved in the peace of the Self and all actions dedicated to Brahman, controlling the mind and fixing it on me, sit in meditation with me as your only goal. With senses and mind constantly controlled through meditation, united with the Self within, an aspirant attains nirvana, the state of abiding joy and peace in me.
Arjuna, those who eat too much or eat too little, who sleep too much or sleep too little, will not succeed in meditation. But those who are temperate in eating and sleeping, work and recreation, will come to the end of sorrow through meditation. Through constant effort they learn to withdraw the mind from selfish cravings and absorb it in the Self. Thus they attain the state of union."
The description Krishna provides of how one ought to meditate is drawn from traditional Indian contemplative practices regarding seating and posture and one-pointedness. But this meditation is not the meditation of contemporary mindfulness movements. Rather than directing us to stand clear of our own minds, Krishna bids us to fill our minds with an unwavering contemplation of the divine life which is embodied in Krishna.
He warns us that the taking of ascetic practices to extremes or self-indulgence in transient pleasures will prevent us from effective meditation. When the mind is addicted to seeking the next transient pleasure and avoiding the next feeling of pain, it cannot focus sufficiently in meditation. And when the mind is distracted by constant hunger pangs and the pain of dehydration, it is also unable to focus sufficiently.
Effective meditation is less a matter of extremes and more a matter of finding a healthy balance. To meditate is to walk a tightrope over the abyss of our own thoughts, and to feed our tendency for self-indulgence or unhealthy self-denial is to lose the balance necessary for perfecting the tightrope walk of the mind.
"When meditation is mastered, the mind is unwavering like the flame of a lamp in a windless place. In the still mind, in the depths of meditation, the Self reveals itself. Beholding the Self by means of the Self, an aspirant knows the joy and peace of complete fulfillment. Having attained that abiding joy of the senses, revealed in the stilled mind, they never swerve from the eternal truth. They desire nothing else and cannot be shaken by the heaviest burden of sorrow.
The practice of meditation frees one from all affliction. This is the path of yoga. Follow it with determination and sustained enthusiasm. Renouncing wholeheartedly all selfish desires and expectations, use your will to control the senses. Little by little, through patience and repeated effort, the mind will become stilled in the Self.
Wherever the mind wanders, restless and diffuse in its search for satisfaction without, lead it within; train it to rest in the Self. Abiding joy comes to those who still the mind. Freeing themselves from the taint of self-will, with their consciousness unified, they become one with Brahman."
Krishna teaches us that the cultivation of the ability to walk on the tightrope over the abyss of the mind leads to the freedom of being able to experience one's own eternal consciousness without the impediments of the worries and cravings that constantly intrude upon our attempts to find lasting joy. A healthy asceticism, the balanced self-denial of one who does not indulge in excessive eating or drinking before a tightrope walk and also does not starve or dehydrate himself before the tightrope walk, is what will help us to find serenity within the landscapes of the mind's eye.
This balance allows us to walk the narrow path to union with the divine, to oneness with Brahman, the creative principle which underlies and suffuses all that exists, including our own consciousness. This union with the divine is both a fuller participation in the divine life and a fuller realization of our own life.
"The infinite joy of touching Brahman is easily attained by those who are free from the burden of evil and established within themselves. They see the Self in every creature and all creation in the Self. With consciousness unified through meditation, they see everything with an equal eye.
I am ever present to those who have realized me in every creature. Seeing all life as my manifestation, they are never separated from me. They worship me in the hearts of all, and all their actions proceed from me. Wherever they may live, they abide in me.
When a person responds to the sorrows and joys of others as if they were his own, he has attained the highest state of spiritual union."
Once we have begun to see the divine life in ourselves, we cannot help but see it in others, how it suffuses the whole world and brings it to the flowering of terrifying beauty. And we cannot help but see how inextricably bound up our lives are with the lives of others, how their sorrows become our sorrows and their joys become our joys.
This is a lovely response to Arjuna's question, but he still has doubts after Krishna's exposition of the power of meditation. Arjuna asks, "O Krishna, the stillness of divine union which you describe is beyond my comprehension. How can the mind, which is so restless, attain lasting peace? Krishna, the mind is restless, turbulent, powerful, violent; trying to control it is like trying to tame the wind."
Arjuna is very right here that the kind of meditation described by Krishna is extremely difficult to attain. I know from experience that it takes great effort to gain the ability to find this kind of serenity for even a short while. And Krishna acknowledges this:
"It is true that the mind is restless and difficult to control. But it can be conquered, Arjuna, through regular practice and detachment. Those who lack self-control will find it difficult to progress in meditation; but those who are self-controlled, striving earnestly through the right means, will attain the goal."
This, however, does not completely assuage Arjuna's doubts. He asks another question: "Krishna, what happens to one who has faith but who lacks self-control and wanders from the path, not attaining success in yoga? If he becomes deluded on the spiritual path, will he lose the support of both worlds, like a cloud scattered in the sky? Krishna, you can dispel all doubts; remove this doubt which binds me."
Arjuna recognizes that faith alone will not carry him through, at least not faith in the divine as a mere belief held in a philosophical way. He sees instinctively that there is a grave spiritual danger in belief without having the self-control to live out that belief in the radical way described by Krishna.
Krishna exhorts him to let the belief push him forward until it is possible to gain the necessary self-control, to grow in the capacity for meditation rather than giving up because perfection in meditation cannot be acquired quickly.
"Arjuna, my son, such a person will not be destroyed. No one who does good work will ever come to a bad end, either here or in the world to come.
When such people die, they go to other realms where the righteous live. They dwell there for countless years and then are reborn into a home which is pure and prosperous. Or they may be born into a family where meditation is practiced; to be born into such a family is extremely rare. The wisdom they have acquired in previous lives will be reawakened, Arjuna, and they will strive even harder for Self-realization. Indeed, they will be driven on by the strength of their past disciplines. Even one who inquires after the practice of meditation rises above those who simply perform rituals.
Through constant effort over many lifetimes, a person becomes purified of all selfish desires and attains the supreme goal of life.
Meditation is superior to severe asceticism and the path of knowledge. It is also superior to selfless service. May you attain the goal of meditation, Arjuna! Even among those who meditate, that man or woman who worships me with perfect faith, completely absorbed in me, is the most firmly established in yoga."
Krishna goes on to reassure Arjuna that his efforts, even if they do not lead quickly to perfection, are indeed worthwhile. Krishna does not want Arjuna to make his reaching perfection the enemy of reaching what is good and closer to perfection than where he was before. Krishna does not ask us to make perfection a matter of our unhealthy attachment to immediate gratification.
To indulge in our desire for immediate gratification with regard to the spiritual life defeats the purpose of the spiritual life and leaves us trapped in the cycle of reliance on transient pleasures from which Krishna is trying to help liberate us.
Though perfection in meditation takes time and consistent effort, union with the divine and fullness of life for ourselves is worth it. And as Krishna advised Arjuna, to lose all selfishness in true and sincere worship roots us deeply in precisely this union with the divine and fullness of life.
This is the meditation of Krishna, the immersion of our consciousness into the ocean of the divine life, the strength of our faith propelling us into the depths of oneness with all that lives, buoyed up by waves of divine energy so that we might not drown in oneness, instead living fully within and inseparably from the ultimate cause of our lives.
The Yoga of Krishna - The Wisdom of Krishna - The Meditation of Krishna
Note: The above is a depiction of Krishna dancing.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Bhagavad Gita: The Wisdom of Krishna
Listen to the embedded podcast version of this post or read the written version below.
Previously, in The Yoga of Krishna, I examined what Krishna taught Arjuna about the nature of yoga in some depth. Immediately after the teachings on yoga referenced previously, Krishna goes on to teach Arjuna about the nature of wisdom.
What we generally think of as wisdom in the West is not the wisdom spoken of by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. As I've mentioned before, the Bhagavad Gita is a discourse that strikes at the heart of spiritual matters, and it is a discourse that takes place on a great battlefield at the climax of the great epic known as the Mahabharata. The battle is about to be joined by great warriors, and it is at this time of calm before the storm that Krishna helps Arjuna to understand his place in this life and the nature of spiritual fulfillment.
After Krishna has answered his question about whether he ought to fight the battle before him or abandon it, Arjuna asks another question: "Tell me of those who live established in wisdom, ever aware of the Self, O Krishna. How do they talk? How sit? How move about?"
As before, Krishna gives an answer which has real depth and meaning; this is not the dismissive answer of a parent who just wants his child to get on with doing what was asked. This is the answer of a parent who truly wishes to teach his child wisdom for living well, who truly wants his child to flourish.
The word translated as Self here is Ātman, the eternally enduring consciousness Krishna described previously. The wisdom of the Self is a wisdom of an eternal perspective, not the wisdom of one who frantically scrambles to escape immediate death. The wisdom Krishna refers to here is the the wisdom that comes from detachment from the sensual comforts of this world.
Krishna's description of those who are bound by their attachments to the simple stimulus-response game of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain sounds eerily like he's describing someone who is addicted to painkillers, or methamphetamines, or even marijuana or alcohol. He's describing those of us who are still attached to the comforts of this world as addicts who are stuck in a cycle of seeking transient pleasures, blissfully unaware of our downward spiral because we only allow ourselves to focus on the next temporary high.
The danger of the mind which is not integrated and unable to be focused in its attention is that its disunity frustrates our capacity to truly enjoy the many good things in life. Instead, we leap toward whatever pleases us superficially and away from whatever displeases us without regard to whether these are rational choices. Krishna invites into the process of uniting our mind around the singular purpose of union with the divine life he embodies, asking us to re-order our lives by putting this transcendent purpose first and letting everything else fall into place.
Arjuna pushes back against all this mystical-sounding advice by asking Krishna an additional question: "O Krishna, you have said that knowledge is greater than action; why then do you ask me to wage this terrible war? Your advice seems inconsistent. Give me one path to follow to the supreme good."
We are probably inclined to sympathize with Arjuna's question here. We might wonder how the path of wisdom Krishna just described is coherent with his admonition to Arjuna to carry out his duty as a warrior by killing other great warriors he respects immensely. However, Krishna rejects Arjuna's false dilemma and explains that the path of wisdom and the path of following one's duties even against one's inclinations are the same path, that they are not the separate paths we imagine them to be.
There have been two paths in many religions, and these are generally the more active life and the more contemplative life. This is just as true of Christianity and Islam as it is of Buddhism and Hinduism. Fortunately, these paths which appear to be quite different lead to the same destination when walked with sincerity.
Both the contemplative and active life contain elements of the other, as Krishna points out in the next passage. Both of these lifestyles, rightly focused on the purpose of union of the divine life, re-shape our lives because they are selfless. These paths are both the path of rejecting the life of selfishness in favor of eternal union, a re-orienting of life toward what is transcendent, the life that is above and beyond our pursuit of transient pleasures and aversion to temporary pains.
Krishna teaches us here that humanity was created with a general telos to act, and specifically to act selflessly. And not just that we have this inborn purpose, but also that this selfless service for the good of others is what connects us ever more profoundly with the divine life. He explains that what nourishes life itself in this world is the result of selfless worship and service, and that we should want to reciprocate that divine selfless giving which is the ultimate cause of all that we enjoy in this world.
He also teaches us that even perfectly natural actions which are not inherently moral or immoral (such as eating) are imbued with a moral dimension because of the intentions we bring to them. The problem with eating for pleasure isn't that we're eating, but rather that we are doing so selfishly rather than because it keeps us strong enough to give selflessly of ourselves to serve the genuine good of others.
What's more, Krishna teaches us that our capacity for selfless action is grounded in the very divine life which created us, the ultimate reality known as Brahman, the immutable cause of all that is. We are most truly our Self when we participate in the selfless action which is a reflection of the selfless, creative, and life-giving action of Brahman.
He points out that we are happiest when we are not devoted to seeking our own immediate pleasure and avoiding our own immediate pain, when we are not bound by the chains which we wrap lovingly around the ego as a result of our addictions, chains that inevitably result from even those addictions to things which are not inherently bad for us, but enslave us nonetheless because we still perform them selfishly.
In his wisdom, Krishna understands that it is our human instinct to follow those who are behaving in an excellent way when we are exposed to their actions. It is by observing the actions of the wise that we learn how to live as they do, selflessly giving both the fruits of their actions and the fruits of their contemplation for the welfare of all.
Arjuna's problem isn't that he isn't conscientious enough, but rather that his reluctance to follow his dharma is rooted in selfish reasons rather than selfless ones. Krishna offers himself as a model to Arjuna, inviting him to selflessly work according to his nature as a warrior just as Krishna selflessly works according to his nature as the avatar of the divine sustainer of all things (Vishnu).
The wisdom of Krishna teaches us that the more we seek to grow to be like those who are most wise, both the human and divine sages, the more we become wise ourselves. Krishna shows us that wisdom is not merely a matter of knowledge. The greatest wisdom is not gained through the study of esoteric ideas and ancient texts, but rather through cultivating a relationship with the wise here in this world who point us to the divine wisdom so that we can encounter it more fully in the next world.
Note: The above is a depiction of Krishna dancing.
Previously, in The Yoga of Krishna, I examined what Krishna taught Arjuna about the nature of yoga in some depth. Immediately after the teachings on yoga referenced previously, Krishna goes on to teach Arjuna about the nature of wisdom.
What we generally think of as wisdom in the West is not the wisdom spoken of by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. As I've mentioned before, the Bhagavad Gita is a discourse that strikes at the heart of spiritual matters, and it is a discourse that takes place on a great battlefield at the climax of the great epic known as the Mahabharata. The battle is about to be joined by great warriors, and it is at this time of calm before the storm that Krishna helps Arjuna to understand his place in this life and the nature of spiritual fulfillment.
After Krishna has answered his question about whether he ought to fight the battle before him or abandon it, Arjuna asks another question: "Tell me of those who live established in wisdom, ever aware of the Self, O Krishna. How do they talk? How sit? How move about?"
As before, Krishna gives an answer which has real depth and meaning; this is not the dismissive answer of a parent who just wants his child to get on with doing what was asked. This is the answer of a parent who truly wishes to teach his child wisdom for living well, who truly wants his child to flourish.
"They live in wisdom who see themselves in all and all in them, who have renounced every selfish desire and sense craving tormenting the heart. Neither agitated by grief nor hankering after pleasure, they live free from lust and fear and anger. Established in meditation, they are truly wise. Fettered no more by selfish attachments, they are neither elated by good fortune nor depressed by bad. Such are the seers.
Even as a tortoise draws in its limbs, the wise can draw in their senses at will. Aspirants abstain from sense pleasures, but they still crave for them. These cravings all disappear when they see the highest goal. Even of those who tread the path, the stormy senses can sweep off the mind. They live in wisdom who subdue their senses and keep their minds ever absorbed in me.
When you keep thinking about sense objects, attachment comes. Attachment breeds desire, the lust of possession that burns to anger. Anger clouds the judgment; you can no longer learn from past mistakes. Lost is the power to choose between what is wise and what is unwise, and your life is utter waste. But when you move amidst the world of sense, free from attachment and aversion alike, there comes the peace in which all sorrows end, and you live in the wisdom of the Self."
The word translated as Self here is Ātman, the eternally enduring consciousness Krishna described previously. The wisdom of the Self is a wisdom of an eternal perspective, not the wisdom of one who frantically scrambles to escape immediate death. The wisdom Krishna refers to here is the the wisdom that comes from detachment from the sensual comforts of this world.
Krishna's description of those who are bound by their attachments to the simple stimulus-response game of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain sounds eerily like he's describing someone who is addicted to painkillers, or methamphetamines, or even marijuana or alcohol. He's describing those of us who are still attached to the comforts of this world as addicts who are stuck in a cycle of seeking transient pleasures, blissfully unaware of our downward spiral because we only allow ourselves to focus on the next temporary high.
"The disunited mind is far from wise; how can it meditate? How be at peace? When you know no peace, how can you know joy? When you let your mind follow the call of the senses, they carry away your better judgment as storms drive a boat off its charted course on the sea.
Use all your power to free the senses from attachment and aversion alike, and live in the full wisdom of the Self. Such a sage awakes to light in the night of all creatures. That which the world calls day is the night of ignorance to the wise.
As rivers flow into the ocean but cannot make the vast ocean overflow, so flow the streams of the sense-world into the sea of peace that is the sage. But this is not so with the desirer of desires.
They are forever free who renounce all selfish desires and break away from the ego-cage of 'I,' 'me,' and 'mine' to be united with the Lord. This is the supreme state. Attain to this, and pass from death to immortality."
The danger of the mind which is not integrated and unable to be focused in its attention is that its disunity frustrates our capacity to truly enjoy the many good things in life. Instead, we leap toward whatever pleases us superficially and away from whatever displeases us without regard to whether these are rational choices. Krishna invites into the process of uniting our mind around the singular purpose of union with the divine life he embodies, asking us to re-order our lives by putting this transcendent purpose first and letting everything else fall into place.
Arjuna pushes back against all this mystical-sounding advice by asking Krishna an additional question: "O Krishna, you have said that knowledge is greater than action; why then do you ask me to wage this terrible war? Your advice seems inconsistent. Give me one path to follow to the supreme good."
We are probably inclined to sympathize with Arjuna's question here. We might wonder how the path of wisdom Krishna just described is coherent with his admonition to Arjuna to carry out his duty as a warrior by killing other great warriors he respects immensely. However, Krishna rejects Arjuna's false dilemma and explains that the path of wisdom and the path of following one's duties even against one's inclinations are the same path, that they are not the separate paths we imagine them to be.
"At the beginning of time I declared two paths for the pure heart: jnana yoga, the contemplative path of spiritual wisdom, and karma yoga, the active path of selfless service.
One who shirks action does not attain freedom; no one can gain perfection by abstaining from work. Indeed, there is no one who rests for even an instant; all creatures are driven to action by their own nature.
Those who abstain from action while allowing the mind to dwell on sensual pleasure cannot be called sincere spiritual aspirants. But they excel who control their senses through the mind, using them for selfless service."
There have been two paths in many religions, and these are generally the more active life and the more contemplative life. This is just as true of Christianity and Islam as it is of Buddhism and Hinduism. Fortunately, these paths which appear to be quite different lead to the same destination when walked with sincerity.
Both the contemplative and active life contain elements of the other, as Krishna points out in the next passage. Both of these lifestyles, rightly focused on the purpose of union of the divine life, re-shape our lives because they are selfless. These paths are both the path of rejecting the life of selfishness in favor of eternal union, a re-orienting of life toward what is transcendent, the life that is above and beyond our pursuit of transient pleasures and aversion to temporary pains.
"Fulfill all your duties; action is better than inaction. Even to maintain your body, Arjuna, you are obliged to act. Selfish action imprisons the world. Act selflessly, without any thought of personal profit.
At the beginning, mankind and the obligation of selfless service were created together. 'Through selfless service, you will always be fruitful and find the fulfillment of your desires': this is the promise of the Creator.
Honor and cherish the devas as they honor and cherish you; through this honor and love you will attain the supreme good. All human desires are fulfilled by the devas, who are pleased by selfless service. But anyone who enjoys the things given by the devas without offering selfless acts in return is a thief.
The spiritually minded, who eat in the spirit of service, are freed from all their sins; but the selfish, who prepare food for their own satisfaction, eat sin. Living creatures are nourished by food, and food is nourished by rain; rain itself is the water of life, which comes down from selfless worship and service."
Krishna teaches us here that humanity was created with a general telos to act, and specifically to act selflessly. And not just that we have this inborn purpose, but also that this selfless service for the good of others is what connects us ever more profoundly with the divine life. He explains that what nourishes life itself in this world is the result of selfless worship and service, and that we should want to reciprocate that divine selfless giving which is the ultimate cause of all that we enjoy in this world.
He also teaches us that even perfectly natural actions which are not inherently moral or immoral (such as eating) are imbued with a moral dimension because of the intentions we bring to them. The problem with eating for pleasure isn't that we're eating, but rather that we are doing so selfishly rather than because it keeps us strong enough to give selflessly of ourselves to serve the genuine good of others.
"Every selfless act, Arjuna, is born from Brahman, the eternal, infinite Godhead. Brahman is present in every act of service. All life turns on this law, O Arjuna. Those who violate it, indulging the senses for their own pleasure and ignoring the needs of others, have wasted their life. But those who realize the Self are always satisfied.
Having found the source of joy and fulfillment, they no longer seek happiness from the external world. They have nothing to gain or lose by any action; neither people nor things can affect their security.
Strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world; by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. Do your work with the welfare of others always in mind. It was by such work that Janaka attained perfection; others too have followed his path."
What's more, Krishna teaches us that our capacity for selfless action is grounded in the very divine life which created us, the ultimate reality known as Brahman, the immutable cause of all that is. We are most truly our Self when we participate in the selfless action which is a reflection of the selfless, creative, and life-giving action of Brahman.
He points out that we are happiest when we are not devoted to seeking our own immediate pleasure and avoiding our own immediate pain, when we are not bound by the chains which we wrap lovingly around the ego as a result of our addictions, chains that inevitably result from even those addictions to things which are not inherently bad for us, but enslave us nonetheless because we still perform them selfishly.
"What the outstanding person does, others will try to do. The standards such people create will be followed by the whole world. There is nothing in the three worlds for me to gain, Arjuna, nor is there anything I do not have; I continue to act, but I am not driven by any need of my own. If I ever refrained from continuous work, everyone would immediately follow my example. If I stopped working I would be the cause of cosmic chaos, and finally of the destruction of this world and these people.
The ignorant work for their own profit, Arjuna; the wise work for the welfare of the world, without thought for themselves. By abstaining from work you will confuse the ignorant, who are engrossed in their actions. Perform all work carefully, guided by compassion."
In his wisdom, Krishna understands that it is our human instinct to follow those who are behaving in an excellent way when we are exposed to their actions. It is by observing the actions of the wise that we learn how to live as they do, selflessly giving both the fruits of their actions and the fruits of their contemplation for the welfare of all.
Arjuna's problem isn't that he isn't conscientious enough, but rather that his reluctance to follow his dharma is rooted in selfish reasons rather than selfless ones. Krishna offers himself as a model to Arjuna, inviting him to selflessly work according to his nature as a warrior just as Krishna selflessly works according to his nature as the avatar of the divine sustainer of all things (Vishnu).
The wisdom of Krishna teaches us that the more we seek to grow to be like those who are most wise, both the human and divine sages, the more we become wise ourselves. Krishna shows us that wisdom is not merely a matter of knowledge. The greatest wisdom is not gained through the study of esoteric ideas and ancient texts, but rather through cultivating a relationship with the wise here in this world who point us to the divine wisdom so that we can encounter it more fully in the next world.
The Yoga of Krishna - The Wisdom of Krishna - The Meditation of Krishna
Note: The above is a depiction of Krishna dancing.
Monday, January 2, 2017
Fair Questions: How similar are the births of the world's major religious figures?
I recently stumbled upon a meme that was shared on a social media platform. The image above makes a variety of claims about pre-Christian religious figures in order to assert their similarity to Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps with the purpose of implying that Christianity's founding was derivative, a re-hashed old story.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Christianity's founding was just a re-hash of an old story. If so, the creator of this meme has completely failed to demonstrate that. If the creator had bothered to even go so far as to check the Wikipedia article on miraculous births of religious figures, he or she would have found that many of these claims about pre-Christian religious figures are simply false.
Let's take stock of the birth narratives of Horus, Mithra, Krishna, and Dionysus.
- According to Plutarch, Isis made a golden phallus so that Osiris could impregnate her after his own got tragically removed. Other tales have his penis surviving the adventure in the Nile so that he could impregnate her the old-fashioned way. The conception and birth of Horus wasn't exactly virginal.
- Last I checked, Mithra was either born of a rock or existed eternally, depending on whether we're talking about the Iranian or later Graeco-Roman understanding. Either way, not born of a virgin.
- Krishna's mother Devaki was married to a quite fertile husband and had 7 babies pass through her womb before Krishna came along. It seems rather unlikely that this would count as a virgin birth, and it doesn't seem as if it was intended to be.
- Depending on which Dionysus we're talking about, he could have been born of Zeus's thigh, a woman Zeus impregnated, or one of multiple goddesses Zeus impregnated. The only one that might have been a virgin is Semele, and I don't know of any textual evidence that she was said to be a virgin.
The birth narrative of the Buddha actually seems to be more similar to the birth narrative of Jesus Christ than these others listed here, and it's not particularly similar to the birth narrative of Christ, as you can read for yourself here.
The claims made in this meme about the births of the various pre-Christian religious figures are either flagrantly false or based on unclear evidence. And that's just the birth-related claims. It gets worse if we examine the other claims. For example, Krishna was not a carpenter, nor was he resurrected (though as an avatar of Vishnu he was repeatedly reborn), nor was he called "Son of God," a phrase that wouldn't even make sense in the Hindu pantheon.
One of his many titles is Son of Aditi, who is the mother of various Vedic gods. But because Hinduism is a broad term describing lots of different religions that share a similar cosmology, there are disagreements between texts and religious communities as to whether she can be identified with the Supreme Godhead Brahma.
There are actually similarities between Jesus and other religious figures. It's just that the creator of the above meme apparently didn't know about this: the better argument for the similarity between Dionysus and Jesus would be that both are dying-and-rising gods. But even there, the circumstances are not so similar that it appears to be a case of re-hashing another religion's story.
It seems really unfair to these various ancient religions to spread falsehoods about them, regardless of how noble the purpose of doing so might be. Surely, there are better ways to criticize Christianity than to lie about other religions.
I have a lot more respect for people who rationally critique Christianity head-on rather than critiquing Christianity by making false claims about other religious traditions.
* * *
Note: The image above is one of many memes that attempt to demonstrate that various religions are strikingly similar. There are many others, and they generally follow the same basic format of pretending lots of religions are much more similar than they actually are based on insufficient evidence at best and based on no evidence at worst.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)






