dear jasjit,
a nice post on christianity!!!
the christian religion as u say are still thriving because of the fact that there is a concept of hell and heaven ...most of the people in the world are happy if they have a concept(religion)which is easy to follow ...they dont want their beliefs to be shattered or questioned ..even though da vinci code challenged the old customs of the church..there was no answers which were given by the vatican..
may be we are in a age where we can demystify our own ignorance which has surrounded us for centuries..
and may truth lead us the way.....

Dear Jasjit

Fantastic piece. I hadn't heard about the gospel of Judas. Of course the church will brand it as heresy and move on from there. We think that religions are about god, but the truth is that they are really just about man and his own petty ambitions and power plays. No wonder out of thirty gospels there are only four which get known as the Bible. Who chose these and why they chose them particularly? The choice can only be self serving otherwise all thirty would have formed the bible.

"...how do millions still bow before static legacies with gaping holes in them?"

They bow because they do not want to question themsleves about the reasons behind the gaping holes. Fear of questioning the self is perhaps the greatest fear of all.

hi Jasjit, i dont think jesus asked judas to take on the role of betraying him deliberately. I think judas actually betrayed him. jesus knowing that all act as per the scheme of things, understood and forgave judas action. moreover, as we often discuss here we are at the center of whatever good or bad happens to us, jesus too would have understood this and this would have been more reason for him to forgive judas.

but as other followers would not have understand all this easily..so jesus, moreover taking help of the above fact that we cause whatever happens to us to happen, felt himself right in saying to them that he had himself asked judas to betray him.

the words used by jesus in describing it - that judas betrayed him "to free me of the man who clothes me" - could be taken as slightly with tongue in cheek like those used by ramakrishana parmahansa in the following story:

once ramakrishana was in very much pain and was crying. when he began crying louder and louder a close desciple sitting nearby said:"I know you are just playacting. you are not the body that pin can reach you and make you cry." to which ramakrishana replied obviously tongue firmly in cheek: "this rascal has really found me out ohh"

so, jesus could also have used the words with double intention. one was to satisfy the gnostics. they could well have understood what he said. and the other was to slightly mock at the betrayer..he just betrayed me to free me of the man who was clothing me...oh how true..!!

so in my opinion all were correct. chruch was correct because judas actually betrayed jesus. gnostics and gospel was correct because they had heard jesus say that actually he had himself made judas betray him. judas betrayed him and history is full of such people. jesus was right in both ways, as he told the gnostics and as he mocked at judas.

people go from one extreme to the other but i think truth in the above way lies in the middle.

Hi Harb

Reading your words brings up three thoughts in me:

1) To rest at the middle the pendulum must swing through both extremes. The middle path can only be understood when the extremes have been sought and known.

2) A zen saying I read somewhere, "trust no one so that you can trust all equally."

3)"If you meet a fencing master on the road,
You may give him your sword,
If you meet a poet,
You may offer him your poem.
When you meet others,
Say only a part of what you intend.
Never give the whole thing at once."
- Mu-mon

Hi Preethi

"may be we are in a age where we can demystify our own ignorance which has surrounded us for centuries..
and may truth lead us the way.....". Well said!

Shagufta & Chaitali
Absolutely true!

:)

Jasjit

I too walked out of the film "Passion of Christ" and wondered for a long time as to what the hell Mel Gibson thought he was doing. However given his own background....he's a 'born again'....I made peace with his portrayal of Christ. When the box office began to reap in millions I was alarmed yet again at the volumes who were moved by the film and supported it. I guess it was an overwhelming reminder of how the psyche of many revolves around and buys into the concept of sin and carries huge amounts of religious guilt.

Why else would a film which had not one word/display of Christ's wisdom or compassion, be so popular? IMO the film should have been titled "The Violence of Christianity".

anusheh, let me try to answer your question in the light of jasjit's "all is as it should be."

like our selves, cultural selves - and here the christian cultural self - too have four layers i.e., the physical layer (body), emotional layer (body), intellectual layer and finally spiritual/intelligent/wisdom/compassion layer.

and like ourselves again, cultural selves too are given food/work/exercise/entertainment according to each layer.

we give physical work to our physical body, love/hate/fighting/travelling to the emotionl body, books/ideas/discussions to the intellectual body and finally intelligence/compassion/wisdom to the spiritual body.

and likewise we give them foods. we cannot make the physical/emotional body do with mere fruits, vitamins and minerals, nor the intellectual body with mere carbohydrates or the like, nor for that matter our spiritual body with heavy foods. similarly, we cannot give the cultural physical/emotional body much of intellectual/intelligent/wise/compassionate 'food', nor for that matter, cultural intellectual body much of spiritual wisdom/love/compassion, nor yet to spiritual body 'heavy food' of the kind of "passion of christ".

the reason this film has run into millions is the same our heavy food - meant for our physical/emotional bodies - seems to be as much more as compard to vitamins,minerals, fruits and the like...really meant for the intellectual and spiritual bodies. each part is beng given what it requires to help the whole 'body' move forth/evolve....and finally the whole dies in what we say apcalypses of one kind or the other at one cycle level or the other. nothing goes for ever, things again begin..some from the middle, some from ab inition...each according to where they were previously on the great chain of beings scale or on the great scheme of things scale and thus "all is as it should be."

hope i have proved jasjit's thesis at last to get pass marks...but note i consider myself pass with only 60% marks and not 33%...it was drilled into our minds in the engineering collge.

now, pass ke fail lol!!

welcome saukanya...you are enjoying what i am only dreaming of...travelling...

Good Morning Harb

It is in the SOT that whatever you do this year you will win a 100% marks. :)

Of course you are right. Religion is so populist because it appeals to the mass need of placebos for a baser consciousness.

WOW!

Dear Harb

Thank you for the explanation. I think you're absolutely right about this. Films like these are food for our root selves.

Thanks for that
love

jasjit, anusheh, how you explain it better and in far less words...

I thought Mel Gibson was a Catholic, not a born-again. They are two different sects.

Dear Videsi Gori

Born again is actually a term used for I think any Christian who returns to the authority and teachings of the church, so to speak. In Mel Gibson's case I don't know if you're aware but there is a fascinating story on how he nearly died in an accident which totally destroyed his face and had to go through some four/five years of acute suffering, surgeries etc. until he was picked up and helped out by a priest who made him promise that he would be a good Catholic. And he himself admits to then becoming a born again Christian and going on to father some 8 children or so...all within the tenets of his newly discovered faith.