I decided to skip forward into the New Testament in order to keep up with the class discussions, and I am really excited to see what it has in store. Similar to the Old Testament, I am influenced continuously by the stories in the N.T., and I am even tricked into thinking I know them. However, as I begin, I once again realize how little I know about what is written. I am struck by the beauty of the verses, but I am most concerned with the idea of reading this book as literature. Literature, by some abstract definition that I conceived in my head yesterday while reading one of the most important foundations of my Western mindset—no, not Facebook updates, but the Bible— is a reaction.
By reading the Bible as literature, then, we begin to view the stories as reactions to trends, cultures, people, environments; it becomes a living record of our past. Reading the bible in the traditional sense of the word necessarily ignores this interesting facet, as the bible is no longer a book of the people, but a book of the Lord. However, for my purposes I will forgo recognizing the authorship of the divine in favor of the words of the people.
Religion as literature. Theology as an evolutionary process, a slow series of small changes showing the progression of a people. The idea of Bible as ‘reaction literature’ is not unique to Judeo/Christian traditions. As divine as a god may be, he is subject to the irrationalities, preferences and political moods of his/her worshippers. This is apparent in the Indian traditions in a pattern very parallel to Judeo/Christian evolutions.
Let us consider, that, in the beginning, there was a creation, and then law. Rites and rituals, otherwise known as superstitions to those outside the faith, dominate early Judaism as well as Hinduism. Many early Hindu devotees worshipped nagas, or snakes, as well as various earthly gods that represented virility and natural phenomena. Early precursors to the Israel traditions were also concerned with ritual sacrifices, and much of that habit had passed on into the Torah.
“You shall take some of the first fruit of the ground, which you harvest from the land that the Lord your God is giving you…” Deut. 26.2
“On the third day: eleven bulls, two rams fourteen male lamps a year…..also one male goat for a sin offering…” Num 29.20
As we can see, a large amount of Bible books are given to the precise description of what to sacrifice, how to do it, when it must be done, and to whom the sacrifice was offered, and why.
Next came renunciation in the Hindu tradition, spawning the popularity of renouncer traditions and widespread Buddhism in Southeast Asia. The writings that went along with this movement were found mostly in the Jnana-Purana, Jnana meaning ‘knowledge.’ The idea came as a reaction to the lifestyles the worshippers had fallen into, of luxury and comfort, of satiety and ease. People no longer believed in god nor understood heaven; they simply followed habits imposed on them for generations. The renouncers wanted to reawaken the quest for salvation, through meditation and knowledge rather than by habitual practices.
The parallel in the Bible can be found in the emphasis placed on fasting and righteous suffering described in the books following the Torah. One prime example is the Book of Job. Oh, did he suffer. Yet, through Job’s suffering, and yes, even because of his incessant complaining, Job received “twice as much as he had before” (Job 42.10). The path to his salvation and intimate reconnection with god came not through obedience and mindless ritual, but through physical hardships and questioning. He now respected and cherished his Lord even more than he had before his hardships, and certainly more than his ‘frenemies’ ever had.
Still, one last reaction was to take place in the written accounts. Harsh renunciation and crude questioning of divine grace has its place, but someone in the history of both Judaism and Hinduism seemed to believe that a life lived in pain in order to appreciate salvation forsook the joy and possibility of the material world. The next step became one of pure, unadulterated love and devotion for the Lord.
This process can be exemplified in the Hindu tradition by the worship of Krsna, possible avatar of Vsnu. In his two incarnations, Krsna appears first as a respected general on the battlefield, showing the face of respectful devotion, and later in his most beloved form as a young lover in an idyllic world. In both, he presents himself as a god worthy of admiration and intense devotion. He inspires in his followers not laws nor rituals, but a way of life, a passion towards a being unrivaled by any mortal love.
The Christian equivalent, is, of course, Jesus. Though his immediate reception was slightly less enthusiastic, he soon became a cult figure towards whom intense devotion was freely given. He preached not salvation through ritual, but liberation by action.
“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” Matthew 9.12
Jesus demanded a better way of living, a life filled with love towards him and the Lord, towards all of God’s creatures. He did not demand sacrifices, other than the sacrifice to live a life pure and with devotion. Similar to Hindu traditions, emphasis was placed on devotion before anything, including family.
“’Who is my brother and who are my brothers?’ And pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers.’” Matthew 12.48
It was through this singular devotion towards a god that one could find peace, comfort and liberation. The writers of these parables and stories, or even the historical actions of Jesus speak to the mind of the people. They were uneasy with the strict measures of fasting and rites, they saw the futility in offering to a god for salvation when they were living in poverty and corruption. A revolution of religious thinking came to their minds, and was embodied by Jesus Christ in the Christian world, or Krsna in the Hindu realm. Through devotion towards a single, beautiful, God, the people could find serenity and begin to practice what they preached.
The idea of religion as reaction is striking. It shows the human side of things, the story of the people, the story of emotions and drama, of lacuna and necessity. Corrupt, perhaps. Moody, most certainly. Yet, it remains a constant, and therefore, something entirely more relatable and ultimately more inspiring than a far off supreme being.
So that’s it for now. I think I will continue on this idea and hopefully turn it into a narrow enough final paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment