Of questions that cannot be answered and answers that cannot be questioned

There is a quote attributed to Richard Feynman that goes something like this : “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned”.

This is a statement that I find an increasing level of resonance with, as I have started interpreting the Christian faith more in the sense of 'trust' (trust in Jesus Christ based on personal experience) as opposed to 'belief'(unquestioning acceptance of an 'approved set' of statements/ beliefs). 

The advantage of a 'trust-centered' approach is that one can experience the presence of God in all kinds of places and times that too even when one doesn't understand how God or even the world works. One also doesn't have to defend a fixed set of beliefs (or argue with people who hold a different set of beliefs) as whatever little one knows is based on personal experience (which is very much subjective) and 'provisional' (to be refined based on new experiences). One is also more likely to be open to other people and other points of view (as compared to the case when one is convinced that one has found the one and only truth and hence everything else is a distraction or even things to be corrected). 

Yes, one won't have the comfort of falling back on 'approved' answers or getting someone else (e.g. a priest) to provide the right answers. One also has to take personal responsibility for one's assumptions and actions(remember,  one can be wrong or even deluded at times) and also live with 'not knowing'. However, this kind of existence has a certain kind of dynamic quality (more like flowing water as opposed to stagnant water), humility and openness to grace! 

Any comments?

Freedom from the problem of freewill

"Do you believe in free will?", asked a friend of mine when we were having a rather philosophical conversation on life. 

When I hear questions on free will, what comes to mind first is a remarkable conversation from the movie 'Last Samurai', between Captain Algren and Katsumoto the Samurai Chief. It goes something like this:

Katsumoto: You believe a man can change his destiny? 

Algren: I think a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed!

The next thing that comes to mind is the famous Schrodinger's cat in Quantum Mechanics- which, in a way, is 'free to be both dead and alive at the same time' till an observation has been made.

So, what is my answer? At this moment, the best answer I am capable of is as follows : "I don't know! I prefer to think that I have free will till it is proved otherwise!"

Any comments/thoughts?

Impermanence, Non-attachment and 'Here and Now' as affirmations of life

I used to work with a friend whose stated philosophy of life was in terms of 'impermanence', 'non-attachment' and 'here and now'. Initially, I felt that this philosophy was a bit pessimistic. Aren't these, at least in some ways, negations of life, achievements in life and a planned approach towards life?

Later, I started feeling that these three attributes are just 'a statement of fact' about what life actually is - and that they are nether good nor bad. 'Seeing things as they really are' is one of the ways in which 'satori' (enlightenment) is defined! Hence, these in a way constitute and enlightened perspective on life. 

Now, I tend to think that these three could even be interpreted as affirmations of life. Impermanence keeps life from getting stagnant. While it does signify some sort of 'destruction', it also destroys the 'unpleasant' things in addition to the 'pleasant things'('this too shall pass'). Non-attachment (in the sense of 'anasakti' in yogic literature) is a great way of being effective in life (or of enjoying life without getting trapped by it). 'Here and now' (of the present moment) is indeed the only real opportunity for us to live life! 

Also, this trio of 'Impermanence', 'Non-attachment' and 'Here and Now' are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. For example, Impermanence of life would call for an approach to life based on 'Non-attachment' and the focus on 'Here and Now'. Similarly, the focus on 'Here and Now' will enable Non-attachment and a dynamic approach to life that enables us to experience value, joy and meaning amidst the impermanence of life. Again, Non-attachment is a key enabler for being in the 'Here and Now' and for not being disconcerted by the impermanence of life.

Yes, this would mean that some of the popular 'pictures of success' in life, like 'lasting achievement', 'final victory', 'living happily ever after' etc. are  unrealistic and holding on to them can cause unnecessary suffering. It is said that even after one becomes 'enlightened' one goes back to the everyday life - the life that 'both gives and takes away', 'both disappoints and pleasantly surprises' etc. 

None of this means that we can't be fully alive.  It also doesn't mean that we can't  have amazing human interactions/deep human connect or that we can't experience joy or that we can't live life fully and meaningfully) - so long as we don't try to 'possess' or hold on to them. It is just that we must meet life on its terms and not ours! After all, we are a part of life (and not the other way around)! 

Any comments/thoughts? 

Resonance

Resonance happens when the frequencies (or wave lengths match, leading to increase in the amplitude of vibration. Resonance happens not only in physics but also in human phenomena. Resonance happens when someone or something matches our 'natural wavelength' and it can be an amazing and intensely human experience.

I guess, our natural wavelength changes - based on (inter alia) our emotional state. Hence, we resonate with different things or different people (or different emotional states in the same person) as our emotional state varies. Of course, human beings have the ability to tune into the frequency of other people ('empathize') at least to a some extent - though that doesn't invalidate the existence of a 'natural frequency'. 

For some reason that I cannot fully understand, I resonate very strongly with the 'Om' sound when I am intensely sad(when I hit the absolute rock-bottom emotionally). If I stay with that sound for a while, it often has a very soothing or even uplifting effect on me. The interesting thing is that in my case this resonance happens only when I am intensely sad. Else, it just sort of 'washes over' me. Maybe, when I am intensely sad, my outer layers of social conditioning and facades get stripped away and my core self ('true self') get revealed, and, then the resonance happens!

The sound of the word 'Om' is considered to represent or even convey the ineffability and the depths of the divine Mystery. It is some sort of an inarticulate exclamation that is uttered when one senses the presence of the divine. So, the sound of the word 'Om' makes sense only in the context of a spiritual experience. Else, it remains just a word. Seen in this light, these resonance with 'Om' happening for me only under certain circumstances makes eminent sense!

'Om' is also considered to be the primordial sound of creation or the original vibration of the universe. In that sense, it has striking similarities with John 1:1 in the Bible ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"). Of course, the reference in John 1:1 is to Jesus as the 'Word' or 'logos' (John 1:14 - "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"). Therefore, personally speaking, I don't find any conflict between this resonance and my Christian faith- especially since these days I am interpreting the word 'faith' more in its original meaning of 'trust' (trust in Jesus Christ based on personal experience) as opposed to 'belief'!

Any comments? 

Different speeds, Different worlds

 Today, I happened to wake up very early and hence I had quite a bit of extra time at hand. Hence, instead of doing a brisk morning walk, I decided to walk slowly, covering the same distance in double the time. It was quite an interesting experience. I saw a lot of things that I had never noticed before, though I was following exactly the same path. I guess the world 'looks' (or 'becomes') different when we change our pace.

Of course, we see this in multiple scenarios. For example, what we see when we drive around a place is very different from what we see when we walk around the same place. What surprised me was the variation just based on the speed of walking. Maybe, different speeds of walking puts us in different frames of mind. Maybe, different frames of mind makes us see different things apart from possibly impacting the walking speed. Maybe, all these happen! 

This reminded me of a 'puzzle' that had captured my imagination when I started studying Physics. Assume that we have a static charge sitting somewhere peacefully, minding its own business. Now, if I stand still near it, I will experience an electrostatic field. If I walk past it at constant speed, I will experience a magnetic field. If I accelerate past it, I will experience an electromagnetic field. Therefore, I will experience different things based on what I am doing, though the electric charge is just sitting there while all this is happening*. So, the questions becomes 'what is really there'? 

In a way, this highlights the fact that while the 'objective reality' (if there is indeed such a thing) doesn't change, our 'subjective reality' can change our perception of the world. While this (that we can see what we want to see) might seem quite trivial (or as a case of 'blinding flash of the obvious') at first glance, it might not remain so when we realize that our sense-making process and hence the group/organization/societal reality is socially constructed to a very large extent!

Another interesting thing about the 'walking experience' is the how our experience changes when we come back to the same place to walk after a long time, say after a few years. In a way, the experience both changes and remains the same. It is because both the place and ourselves have changed and remained the same in various ways. I guess this (change and continuity at the same time) is what triggers nostalgia! It enables us to remember in a deep sense, that of 're-member' (being a member again) and hence it can indeed be an avenue for renewal. 

*Note: This is happening because of my relative motion with respect to the charge. A static charge creates an electrostatic filed around it. But, a moving change creates a magnetic field and an accelerated charge creates an electromagnetic field. 

Of the Universal, the Particular and Oneness

What is oneness? Does the oneness of the universal and the particular negate the existence of the particular? When a river flows into the ocean, does it cease to exist?

I have been thinking about these questions quite a bit in the last few weeks. These thoughts got triggered primarily from three sources. The first was an exploration of the 'dvaita', 'advaita' and 'vishitadvaita' schools of thought. The second was the Gospel of John in the Bible, especially John 14: 20 ("On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you"). The third was Hegelian Metaphysics that talks about the synthesis of the thesis and the antithesis. 

So, what is my 'final conclusion'? Thank God, I no longer have any compulsion to arrive at any such 'final conclusion'. I have come to realize that, especially in matters like this, it is much better to let my questions and answers evolve (and to observe how and why they evolve in a particular manner). I guess, my recent explorations on the 'Philosophy of Science' also helped a lot. The nature of 'truth' in science is always tentative - based on the available data at a particular point of time - and it get revised (if required) as more data becomes available.

So, let me just share my 'current thinking on this matter': 

To me, the particular (e.g. the individual) and the universal ('God') are integrated - in the sense of being of the same essence (same nature) - though this does not totally negate their separate existence. The particular is the universal without ceasing to be particular. 

There are two types of oneness, oneness among the particular entities and oneness between the particular and the universal. Individuality (and diversity) at the level of the particular is indeed possible, while maintaining the essential unity (like 'each apple from the same apple tree can be slightly different - while very much remaining as an apple - and as the fruit of the same apple tree'). We must remember that the 'synthesis' of 'oneness and otherness' is much more than a simple 'negation' (as it also includes the element of 'preservation').

'Inseparable' doesn't necessarily mean 'indistinguishable'. 'Togetherness' (thou art with me) can also be a form of oneness. "I am in you and you are in me", doesn't necessarily mean the 'you' and the 'I' are totally indistinguishable. Yes, they are deeply integrated, and, to me, Jesus is a perfect example of this integration (of 'being fully human and fully divine at the same time'). I also feel that the main purpose of Christianity is to be more like Jesus Christ (to enable us to develop our human nature and our divine nature at the same time and to integrate them)! 

This also brings to mind an interesting fact about the famous 'Sabarimala Temple' in my home state Kerala - that the deity and the devotees (pilgrims) are called by the same name ('Ayyappa'). One needs to observe 41 days of 'vratham'(severe austerity measures) before undertaking the pilgrimage. Also, the traditional route to the temple was through a dense forest where one had good chance of being attacked by wild animals. So, when the devotee reaches the temple after observing the 'vratham' and after the dangerous and difficult journey through the forest (keeping one's mind focused on the deity all the while), the devotee 'becomes one with the deity'. This is also amplified by the words 'tat tvam asi' ('thou art that'), written on the temple indicating that the devote has become (one with) what the devotee was seeking!

Yes, I do feel that 'oneness' is the cornerstone of religious experience!

Any comments?

Of rituals, culture and spirituality

This post was triggered by a discussion based on an article that spoke about the decreasing importance given by the young generation to rituals and how that could impact our culture and spirituality.

My immediate response was that rituals becomes more meaningful when we know the meaning behind the rituals. We tend to be not so enthusiastic about those rituals that we feel are 'empty'(of meaning).

Sense-making is a function of place and time, and, it happens within the prevailing worldview, culture and the intellectual atmosphere. In the case of some rituals, original meaning/intent just has to be explained to make the rituals meaningful to a new group of people (e.g. the young generation). In the case of some other rituals, a significant reinterpretation is required. In a modern society, with more choice and awareness at the individual level (as compared to earlier times), expecting everyone to follow the rituals without evaluating them is a bit unrealistic.

 Yes, in the case of many of the rituals, the meaning is not in the rituals itself, but it is in the state of mind and the connect (to oneself, others and to the divine) that the ritual (if performed 'properly') helps to attain!

 Let me try to illustrate this with two examples, the first from Christianity and the next from Hinduism:  

During the holy communion,  when the bread and wine are blessed, they 'become' (in the subjective reality of the communicant) the body and blood of Christ. Now, this transformation in the subjective reality can't take place without tuning fully into the ritual by means of prayers, singing etc. 

Let me also add a personal perspective here. When it comes to the meaning of holy communion, some sort of 'U-Curve-like' phenomenon happened in my case. At first, I didn't think too much about the meaning and implications of holy communion, beyond taking it a way to remember Jesus. Later, I did a lot of thinking about the meaning of holy communion and and I became a bit uncomfortable, as I interpreted it to be some sort of 'ritualistic cannibalism' - till I realized that in many ancient societies, the main motive behind ritualistic cannibalism was not shortage of meat - it was to get the powers of the person who passed away. 

In the case of holy communion, this is explicitly affirmed in the prayers that prepares one for holy communion. For example, "so that you can be in us and we can be in you" in the prayer of humble access. To me, the main objective of Christianity is to become more like Jesus Christ - fully human and fully divine  at the same time (please see 'Miracle' for more details) and to become one with Him. From that perspective, the ritual of holy communion, if done properly with understanding, can be a great enabler! We can also say that the ritual of holy communion becomes meaningful, only in the context of the religious/spiritual experience that allows one to feel the oneness with Christ.   

Now, let's come to the second example. I grew up in Kerala. In many of the temples in Kerala, there is the ritual of 'pradakshinam', that involves circumambulating the (sanctum sanctorum of the) temple. These days, you will see many people running around the temple at 'breakneck speed' which takes away meaning of the ritual. The original idea was that you should do the 'pradakshinam' with your mind focused on the deity- and your speed of walking should be only as much as that of a nine-months pregnant woman who is walking with a jar of full of oil balanced on her head (without spilling it, of course). So, if it is done properly, this ritual definitely becomes a great mindfulness exercise and a great way to focus on the divine. Yes, if one just runs around the temple at 'breakneck speed', just to observe the form of the ritual (without bothering about the spirit behind it), the ritual becomes meaningless indeed! 

Where does this leave us? Rituals are useful when they are done properly and with adequate understanding of  (and resonance with) their intent (underlying meaning/purpose) Yes, we should not 'de-ritualize' our society. Rituals can bring in a 'sense of the sacred' and that of profoundness to our lives. They can also help in facilitating psychological transitions (see 'accelerated learning and rites of passage') and in attaining altered states of awareness/higher levels of consciousness. Rituals can also encode, amplify and reinforce cultural elements. Yes, 'de-ritualization is a move towards 'de-spiritualization' and hence towards alienation'!

Any comments?

സ്ഥലജലവിഭ്രമം (sthala-jala-vibhramam) : Confusing between land and water

In my home state Kerala, there are many stories about a very interesting person called Naranathu Bhranthan. Naranathu Bhranthan was considered to be a 'siddha' (an 'enlightened' or 'realized' being) though some of his behaviors appeared to be rather 'strange'. That was indeed why he was called 'bhranthan' ('bhranthan' means a 'mad man' in Malayalam language). 

One of his famous habits was to follow a 'Sisyphus -like' procedure. He would push many big stones to the top of a hill in the morning. Then, he would push them down, one by one, and, laugh loudly as they roll down the slope. Unlike Sisyphus, Naranathu Bhranthan was doing this out of choice and that too not on a full-time basis. 

These days, I often feel like Naranathu Bhranthan. For 48 years I rolled 'stones of certainty' up the hill of life. Now, I am pushing them down one by one. I haven't yet learned to laugh like Naranathu Bhranthan though!

I did find a metaphor that strongly resonates with my current situation in life - 'my current problem comes from confusing between land and water' - what is known as  'സ്ഥലജലവിഭ്രമം' (sthala-jala-vibhramam) in Malayalam. 

Till now, I was walking on land ('terra firma' or 'solid ground') and I had developed a lot of survival skills suitable for such a terrain and also elaborate maps to navigate the terrain. Now, I find myself in water where there is nothing to hold on to. Also, there is no shore to swim to!

So, all I can do is to keep swimming! Maybe, that is all I need to do, and, over a period of time, I will become more of an aquatic animal that can breathe underwater and even the swimming will become optional! 

Maybe, fearing the water too much is irrational- in a way, all human beings start as aquatic animals - floating in the amniotic fluid in the womb (albeit with the umbilical chord). It is interesting to note that both science and many of the religious traditions hold that life originated in water. Yes, "if you trust the sea, you don't have to fear the waves"! 

Any comments?

Of wisdom and grace

 How does one acquire wisdom? It has been said that "you can be knowledgeable with another person's knowledge, but you can't be wise with another person's wisdom". So, where does this elusive wisdom come from?

To me, wisdom comes mainly from the 'little epiphanies' or 'Aha! moments' when life makes a deep impression on us. Since, it is not just a matter of will, I think it involves some degree of divine grace. Yes, one definitely needs to make the effort to be open to grace or at least not to resist it! 

In a way, the process of acquiring wisdom is not unlike the process by which pearls get formed in an oyster - when it gets hurt or when something irritates its skin. 

Any comments?

     

What is Christianity to me?

Of late, I have been doing quite a bit of thinking on the way I am looking at (or defining) the concept of 'religion'.  This evolving understanding of the concept of 'religion' also led to the question "What is Christianity to me?".

Now, a religion can be looked at at multiple levels (that might not necessarily be mutually exclusive). For example, religion can be looked at as 

1. a set of rituals (e.g. baptism, holy communion etc. in the case of Christianity)
2. a set of beliefs (e.g. as captured in the Nicene creed in the case of Christianity)
3. a community that worships together (e.g. the congregation in a church in the case of Christianity) 
4. a set of core values (e.g. 'love' in the case of Christianity; remember, Jesus said 'God is love' and not just that 'God is loving')
5. a personal experience (i.e. the religious experience like that coming from a personal relationship/ongoing interaction with and 'trust' in the living Jesus in the case of Christianity)      

What I have found is that, over the years, my understanding of Christianity has shifted from being focused more on 1, 2 and 3 in the above list to being focused more on 4 and 5 in the above list. 

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the first 3 levels. It is indeed possible to find a lot of comfort at those levels. However, it must be noted that exclusive focus on levels 1, 2 and 3 might (often inadvertently) pull people apart on the basis of religion. 

At the level of values, there is hardly any conflict between religions, and, indeed often they are complementary (e.g. 'love' and 'oneness' in the case of Christianity and Advaita Vendanta school of Hinduism respectively). Similarly, if we all look at religion as a highly personal and hence unique experience, we won't be tempted to argue on the relative validity of these experiences! 

To put it more broadly, if we look at the 'lower' levels in the above list in the context of the 'higher' levels, there is a very high possibility of integration, harmony and appreciation (see 'Celebrating Onam in the Church' for a specific example of this integration). It would also help in avoiding unfortunate situations like trying to communicate (or sell) the message of the religion without being (living) the message (or trying to communicate the gospel/'good news' without being good news to the others, in the case of Christianity).  

Any comments/thoughts? 

Of Covid and Religion

To me, this recent Covid related crisis has had a highly beneficial 'purifying' effect on organized religions and even on  many of the approaches to 'spirituality'. What has become abundantly clear is that no person (or organization) has any supernatural powers that enable them to 'get things done for you' based on their special connect with God. It also discredited the thinking that if one gives to these organizations, God will repay you multiple times. 

While this can be unsettling in some ways ('there is no way to force God to give you what you wanted), it also enables us to connect with God and do good things for the right reason. One should do good things (giving to the poor, helping others etc.) because that is the right thing to do and the reward is in the action itself (what it does to your spirit when you are able to extend yourself for others). Similarly, when you try to connect with God, it is to feel His presence and to be transformed by it (and not as some sort of 'fishing for God's favors' kind of action). 

This no way implies that worshiping in a group, rituals, visiting an religious place or being in the presence of a 'guru' is meaningless.  If these actions puts one in a better frame of mind (or in a better state of the soul), that helps one to tune into God's presence, these are highly beneficial. But, the essential interaction is between one and God. In the context of one's interaction with God, 'miracles' can happen. But, they are more of a case of  beneficial 'side effects' of the 'divine spark in one' getting rekindled because of re-connecting with God! Hence,  they are signs of grace, which by definition  is 'not earned' and hence can't be forced!

A mystery that should not be demystified!

'Demystification' is a very popular endeavor these days. It is indeed very useful in those areas where the 'mystery' is more of a 'pathological' lack of clarity.  However, there are mysteries that can't be demystified without losing the essence. 

To me, God is one of those mysteries (may be even 'the' mystery) that should not be demystified. Mystical experience of the divine lies at the core of spirituality. It is because God can only be experienced and not understood! Actually, an imperfect understanding would take away from the experience and all 'understanding' of an infinite being would necessarily be imperfect. Even when it comes to human beings, 'knowing about someone' can become an impediment for 'knowing someone'!

One of the most 'funny' things that you notice with many organized religions is that the religious leaders would say that God (or some concept about God like the Trinity in Christianity) is a mystery and then proceed to tell precisely what God (or the concept about God) is! 

Taking mystery (and mystical experience) out of religion because it is 'unmanageable' (from the organization sense), is one of the key reasons why religion is fast becoming irrelevant to a large section of the population. 

To me, the religion that has relevance is a highly personal one - based on personal experience of the divine and on the personal relationship with the divine. This personal experience is highly subjective and mystical. Yes, one can try to share one's personal experience of the divine with others. But, it should not be done in order to invalidate the experience of others! Instead, it should be done to share the sheer joy of such an experience and to highlight the 'possibility' of such experiences! 

"My Lord and my God!"

As you might have observed in many of the posts in this blog, I have a strong need, or, even a compulsion to 'understand'. Part of this comes from curiosity. Part of this probably comes from the idea  that understanding would allow me to predict, and, may be even to influence. My mind has a tendency to automatically do elaborate 'scenario planning' even when it is not required. While this did help me in my work in the field of management, it also created a lot of mental chatter that cluttered my mind.

One good thing that has happened to me because of the Covid crisis and the highly unpredictable situation coming out of that is that it sort of 'broke down' my compulsive scenario planning. While it did make me very uneasy initially, now I am more comfortable in the 'cloud of unknowing'.   

Something similar has also happened regarding my relationship with God. Earlier, I had created many mental models about my relationship with God, that (mercifully!) evolved as my understanding evolved. However, the mental models remained, and, they acted as some sort of lenses with which I viewed my relationship with God. Since no lens is perfect, they introduced their own distortion even though they gave me some (false) sense of understanding.  

In the last few months, this understanding, beliefs and mental models went through a process of 'stripping away'. Now, all that remains is a cry, "My Lord and my God", the same one uttered by the apostle Thomas during his encounter with the risen Christ (John 20:28 - And Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!").  

I don't know what this cry ("my Lord and my God!")  really means to me. But, it resonates with me very strongly. 'Strangely',  I am very comfortable with this 'not knowing'!!

I had really felt like this only once before. During one of the training programs that I had attended (that was run largely like a human process lab), there was an exercise in which we were given 30 minutes of time to do whatever we wanted, under the conditions that we can't make eye contact, speak to anyone, look at our phones etc. So, I walked around rather aimlessly, and then I sat down under a big tree. After some time, I became very intensely aware of my surroundings. Then, I had this great urge to pray. But, when I tried to do that, no words would come to my mind, however hard I tried. I started getting 'psyched up', as I had never experienced anything like that before. Then, suddenly, I felt that I am hearing the voice of Jesus telling me that "No words are required. Just say my name". Then I started saying the word 'Jesus' and in a very short time, I was so overwhelmed by a very intense feeling of peace and acceptance that tears started rolling down my cheeks. 

May be, this newfound comfort in 'not knowing' is what exactly I need to experience life as it is and as it comes. May be, not having fixed beliefs about God is the way to experience God. It is indeed such a blessing, that we can experience even when we don't really understand!  

Of matter, spirit and 'sins' of the father

The incident that triggered this post happened when my son was about 7 years old. At that time. he had become fascinated by 'black holes' , especially their immensely powerful gravitational pull, that won't let let anything (even light) escape if it gets too close. He was also a very religious kid.

One day,  he came to me and said that he is very concerned that 'God might fall into a black hole'! It was a very interesting statement. While most of the adults tend to separate ' the spiritual from the material', and hence won't make such statements, no such distinction exists in the mind of a child. So the challenge was to give him an answer which he can understand (within his worldview) and is also not 'wrong'.

So, I told  him the following. "Since God has created the universe, He knows where the black holes are and hence there is no danger of God accidentally falling into a black hole". When, my son was a bit older, I gave him a better answer. "The gravitational pull of  a black hole affects only material objects. Since God is not made of matter, black holes won't have any impact on Him'!

I remember this incident for many reasons. First, when it comes to fundamental questions, our answers should evolve as our understanding and our worldview evolves. Second, it reminds me of the interactions that I used to have with my father, when I was a child. I also, used to ask my father a lot of questions. He used to take a lot of care to give me answers that I can understand and are at least 'directionally correct'.

For example, if I ask him why I should not put anything into an power socket, he would say something like "there is fire inside the socket and you will get burned if you insert anything into it". This is a great answer to a child who is too young to understand electricity and electric shock but understands the damage fire can do. While other answers like "there is a demon inside the socket and it would catch you if you poke it' would have also kept me away from the power socket, it would have unnecessarily complicated my worldview and and might even have led to me not trusting his responses when I grow up. Similarly, if he had just dismissed my question as silly or asked me just to obey without asking questions, it would have made me feel rejected and/or rebellious. 

I am very grateful to my father for spending so much time with me, for patiently listening to all my (childish/child like) questions and ideas, and for giving me responses that enabled me to feel understood and affirmed, to explore more and to develop a balanced perspective. It is not only the 'sins' of the father, but also the 'good deeds of the father' that impacts the future generations!

The message and not just the messenger

As we have seen in 'Miracle', the greatest miracle of Jesus is himself (being fully man and fully God at the same time). Also, Jesus had 'skin in the game' (he suffered for us and still suffers with us ; the resurrected  Christ is the crucified Christ as he retained his wounds). To me, Jesus experiencing human experiences and emotions (suffering, joy, fear, frustration, love etc.) was (and is) essential for bringing about reconciliation between humans and God (by understanding gained through shared experiences). So, focusing just on the teachings of Jesus without focusing on Jesus himself is to miss the essential point! Similarly, practicing Christianity without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is 'hollow'.  Jesus is the message and not just the messenger (remember, he is supposed to be the 'logos' - the Word of God - and not a prophet).

Avoidable distractions

It is said that the main purpose of understanding other religions/traditions is to gain new perspectives on one’s own religion. Of course, this works much better after one has understood one’s own tradition at some level of depth. To me, this has been the main benefit of reading Rumi. For example, one of the ideas about Jesus Christ that touched me very deeply (that the greatest miracle of Jesus is himself) was triggered by reading Rumi (see Miracle).

Recently, I came across the following words from Rumi (From the story ‘Moses Learns a Lesson’ from the book ‘Rumi: Tales to live by’). "I have bestowed on everyone a way of believing and worshipping according to his understanding and temperament. Praying and worship is a kindness I have bestowed on my creatures so they may be tied to me with chords of love. The Hindu worships me in his own way, and the Jew in his. Let them pray any way they know. Do not seek rules or methods of worship, but love me however you can!"

Considering that there are so many divisions in Christianity that often fight among themselves based on differences in rules and methods of worship, and thereby creating distractions that lead away from the core of Christianity, this is indeed a highly useful perspective!

The way

One of the verses in the Bible that I have had difficulty in relating to is John 14:6, in which Jesus says “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  Does it mean that being a Christian is a necessary condition for salvation? While I have never had any serious intention of following any religion except Christianity, the ‘exclusivity that seemed to be implied by this statement made me uncomfortable as I have been brought up in an environment that respects other religions and also encourages learning from them (See Celebrating Onam in the Church). I have seen many very noble and pious people in other religions. Does this exclusivity mean that they are on the ‘wrong’ path? While I still haven’t fully resolved this (and maybe, I never will, thank God for that!), of late some ideas have started evolving in my mind.

The term ‘way’ means a path or a route. So, it becomes imperative to find out what is the way that is Jesus Christ. To me, 'the greatest miracle of Jesus is himself' (see Miracle) – the very act of being fully man and fully God. I think that God became human so that humans have a route to be one with God. So the life, love, rejection, acceptance, frustration, fellowship, loneliness, joy, sorrow, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus on earth is in a way a 'path-breaking' activity, establishing a new road, a new level of understanding and a new relationship between humans and God.I also think that ‘being in Christ’ is not necessarily the same as being a Christian (in the sense of being part of the Christian religion). 

May be, it is an invitation to be more like Jesus (fully human and fully divine at the same time) and not meant to be an instruction to follow any particular belief system about Jesus Christ. As we have seen in 'From belief to experience and faith', a 'hand me down' belief system could be a big impediment to knowing Christ. For most of us (except those who have had a ‘direct experience’), the Christ we know is essentially the ‘Christ in the Bible’ (a picture that can capture only some aspects of Christ and that is also subject to the limitations of context, language and interpretation) and not the ‘real Christ’ or even the ‘historical Christ’!

Hence the highest understanding that I am capable of at this point on this matter is that by being fully man and fully God, Jesus has created the royal road to salvation for us! Now, I am not yet sure about all the different manners in which we can walk on this path though I have an inkling  that nurturing the both the humane and divine in us won't be a bad idea! Also, as Jesus himself said that 'God is love' that is probably the meeting point between the humane and the divine!