Saturday, March 29, 2014

Parable of the Sower -- Revisited



ARE RELIGIONS really fair to individual differences in spiritual aptitude between people? This thought struck me while recently reading the Parable of the Sower. After telling the parable in public, Jesus gives a private explanation to his disciples, which struck me as rather unfair.  The parable itself is fine:        
       As the sower goes to his field, some grain spills and falls on different types of terrain such as rocks, fallow land and fertile land. Only those grains that fell on fertile land take root and yield fruit. 
     Jesus is pointing out that only those who are ready will be able to take advantage of his teaching. As for the unfortunate majority, Jesus says,
                   “Though seeing, they do not see;
                     though hearing, they do not hear or understand".
Here's the theological problem: Is Jesus accepting the listener’s weakness, or is He is shifting the responsibility to his listener? Is the average mans Mainstream Christianity, however, has used this parable to put the burden on the flock. “You don’t listen because you are a sinner and will be burnt like chaff during harvesting.” The fearful followers chant “Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa” and try to force themselves into the supposed path that might lead them to heaven. But they continue to suffer spiritually.
*
A CLASSIC EXAMPLE is the lifelong spiritual struggle of Mother Teresa.(2) According to her own admission she yearned for spiritual experience of God, but never could, and till her last days remained in a state of fearful uncertainty whether Jesus and soul actually existed, and wondering there was any purpose for her sacrifices. We all know that Mother Teresa did much more than anyone of us to be Christ-like and we are all rightfully in admiration of her sacrifice. Considering that she toiled all her life without experiencing divine presence even once means that her life must have been miserable. What she did was to TRY to love others as herself, in the absence of that key spiritual engine  --- that  intuitive, experiential realization that she and her neighbor are not different, but one. For a mystic like Jesus this must have been a natural state, which was why He was so naturally able exhort, “love your neighbor yourself, love your enemies.” As this experience of unity came so naturally and effortlessly to Jesus, it is possible that he could not understand why others didn’t seem to get it.
     What follows from Mother Teresa’s experience is this: individual differences in people are only the way peoples’ brains are genetically wired, and have little do with good or evil. Good deeds, especially those done with expectations of rewards don't necessarily bring in spiritual rewards.
         Due to the current advances in neurology and psychology we understand much more than, say, 20 years ago, about the biological nature of spirituality. It seems that a saintly person, who is saintly because he is having spiritual experiences, need not be venerated, but someone like Mother Teresa, who is doing saintly things in spite of spiritual pain, needs to be respected and venerated. Conversely, one should avoid condemning those who have not had spiritual experiences or leading a different type of lie “sinners.”
*
J. Krishnamurti said towards the end of
his life that few people understood him,
let alone change their lives.
ALL MASTERS HAVE EXPRESSED DISAPPOINTMENT THAT their followers were not able to understand them. Almost 2000 years after Jesus, J. Krishnamurti expressed the same frustration.
      In his novelette Ilusions Richard Bach masterfully describes the utter loneliness of a fictitious modern Messiah among eager crowds that throng him --- because not one has the ears for the simple truth he aches to share.
       Among psychologists, Eric Berne correctly summed up the inevitable physical reality of this problem: "It may be that human race has no hope, but there is, for individual members in it."
       If we look the phenomenon of spirituality carefully, we might start wondering what purpose did all these masters and prophet serve? From the Buddha through Jesus to Sankaracharya and J. Krishamurti --- all seem to have failed in providing spiritual succor for their followers. Curiously, people who are ready may not need masters --- they are masters themselves, and they should keep quiet and not use their spirituality to make a living. This is because the vast majority of humanity won't be benefited from the masters.
  *
 THIS IS A CONTENTIOUS STATEMENT so I’ll need to provide solid explanation. Take well meaning but unfortunate spiritual sufferers such as Mother Teresa. Extreme evangelical Christians would claim she won’t be saved because she never had the “rapture” meaning could not be born again. It is a gift, they would point out, which won’t come from deeds but from grace [in effect they are saying that "being saved" is a rigged lottery where the winning numbers are decided in advance but even the losers are encouraged to participate to increase the revenue of the church.]
     The evangelists' support seems to come from this extremely unfortunate statement attributed to Jesus: "the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside, everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding."(Mark 4:12).
        Isn't this unfair, dishonest -- even cruel? Surely no decent person would ever do this, let alone Jesus! My conviction is that Jesus himself could never have made this comment. It was added much later by evangelists and scribes who wanted to add exclusivity to their  new Christian Believers' Club. Considering the terrible pressure early Christianity was in, I wouldn’t blame them for changing scriptures in manner that suited them, but using the same argument in twenty first century  is a hit below the belt.

THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS hopefully exposed the theological illogicality of the exclusive “saving,” and have shown how religions use individual differences negatively, to create wedge between people. Religions have thus failed in leading people to spirituality, and have instead built walls between people.
        This leaves us only a single tool  --- the ancient Eastern wisdom, which, incidentally, finds support from neuroscience.  When the problem of spirituality is looked from the point of eastern mysticism and neuroscience, it becomes clear that TWO serious blocks stand in the way of a spiritual aspirant.
       Block No. 1. Our very ego, which takes the form of the urge to benefit from the Masters, which motivates us to follow them, in the hope of rapture or heaven or any other “better-than-the-present” state of existence. That is the primary block.
       Block No. 2. The very fact that we are human. The spiritual path --- advocated by Jesus or the Buddha or Ramana Maharishi --- requires us that we should accept the present moment as it is, without any expectations for any change. For that our desires should end. For desires to end we must stop thinking. For thinking to stop we (the notion of “I”) must cease to exist. The reverse of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" should occur. In other words, a rebirth is required.
      These two mega blocks cannot be surmounted by acts of will. This requires a nervous system which is ready for dropping the sense of self without any expectations of reward or fear of punishment. A state of total emptiness. When that happens, one automatically, effortlessly begins to love one’s enemy, and then there is no difference between Jesus and us and  we become “perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”
So my contention is that people are not blocked from understanding Jesus or J Krishnamurti not because they don't want to, but because they are human. They walk away from the Masters because they cannot grasp their messages. And there is no one who can help them.
*
      Readers please feel free to comment. We are all learning from each other!
*
* 
*
 REFERENCES

 *


No comments:

Post a Comment