1.
My name is Muhammad Ali. I and my brother, Khalifa, are farmers. We grow sugar cane and live near the town of Nag Hammadi. Our field is located on the floodplain of the Nile. As everyone who went to school knows, this land has been under cultivation for thousands of years. The soil is very good, but it isn't perfect. It lacks important nutrients. We can't afford to buy fancy fertilizer; we are poor. So we go to the Jeb al-Tarif cliff. This is where poor people of our area dig for sabakh, a naturally occurring fertilizer that we use on our farms. One day we set out in a large group, which consisted of several members of our clan, along with many camels. While I was digging I unearthed the top of a large earthenware jar. I dug it out carefully. Should I open it? Many said no, afraid that a harmful jinn would be released. I thought there might be gold inside, so I opened it. Nothing but papyrus! Thirteen bound sets of papyrus that looked very old. I brought the jar home and emptied everything onto straw upon the floor next to the oven, then went back to work. When I returned, I discovered that Umm-Ahmad, our mother, had used one of the bound volumes as fuel to cook our dinner! I made sure that this would not happen again. I thought people in Cairo might give us some much needed money for these sheets of papyrus...
2.
The manuscripts, consisting of about 45 separate texts, did eventually get into the hands of scholars; they are, minus the thirteenth codex most of which went up in smoke in Umm-Ahmad's kitchen, in the Nag Hammadi Coptic Library today. Ali made his discovery in December of 1945. These gnostic texts are of tremendous importance for New Testament scholarship, the most important discovery in centuries. They were stored lovingly and carefully buried, probably by a Coptic monk, somewhere around the 4th century. The Church, which had been persecuted, was now established and lost no time in persecuting those whom they deemed heretics. At the time that the manuscripts were buried, anyone in possession of them faced the very real possibility of being executed as a heretic. The Church canon had been established; the established Christian leadership had absolutely no tolerance for anything that challenged their interpretation of Christianity.
If one considers this attitude from a Foucaultian power-politics perspective, one can understand why. The early Christians, such as Irenaeus, one of the Church's founding fathers, realized, at least subconsciously, that "objective" dogma was needed in order to help the Church secure political hegemony, thus (eventually) paving the way to the Vatican as a seat of political control. If you lived in the Western Word in the 4th century and you didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary; the Savior who died for our sins and was resurrected by God, you were, or very soon would be, in real trouble.
The gnostic (Greek "gnosis" meaning knowledge) tradition was different. It was basically a wisdom tradition, a conduit fed by ancient sources. The tradition that produced the manuscripts added its own flavor, however, which wasn't always sweet. This worldview emphasized spirit over body; for those who view mind and body as a unity this is definitely a defect. The tradition could be otherworldly and ascetic to a fault. But it also had many virtues. The mindset was inner and anti-hierarchical; it was peaceful. A gnostic would never have tried to impose his beliefs on others any more than a Buddhist would--Buddhism being another non-dogmatic wisdom school. If gnosticism ever had managed to gain political power, it is hard to imagine that there would have been crusades or any other form of religious war.
This essay is not a forum for me to descant about the Nag Hammadi manuscripts; I am not a scholar and scholars have written on them extensively. My purpose is to make more widely known two sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas--the most important Gnostic Gospel by far. Scholars of the Jesus Seminar, who voted on each example of direct discourse in all five Gospels as to whether Jesus actually said the quote attributed to him, gave these two sayings a pink designation, meaning that it is very likely that Jesus actually said something very similar to the words in question. The two parables have no counterpart in the four canonical Gospels. I find it astounding that, nearly two thousand years after his crucifixion, two hitherto unknown sayings that Jesus most likely said have come to light. Before we proceed to an analysis of the two new parables, we will present a brief introduction to the Gospel of Thomas.
3.
The Gospel of Thomas is by far the most important of the gnostic texts found by Muhammad Ali. Gnosticism asserts that the material world was created by a lesser divinity, the so-called demiurge. Christ in the Christian version of gnosticism, popular in the 2nd century and reflected in some of the other gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi, was an emissary from a more distant and more advanced deity. This view is not central to the Gospel of Thomas, which antedates the other texts. The Thomas document contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. They contain almost no dogma; there is no mention of miracles, no definite assertion that Jesus was the Son of God, no mention of either the crucifixion or the Resurrection. The Gospel has an inwardly directed content, celebrating the inner path to wisdom. The initial "Jesus said,..." of many of the sayings could easily be replaced by "Hillel said," or Dionysius the Areopagite said, etc, since the sayings lack historical context.
The Gospel of Thomas is the oldest document in the Nag Hammadi library. It is a Coptic translation of an original Greek version, fragments of which had been discovered earlier. Scholars aren't quite sure of its provenance and dating. The third century copy is of a text which probably received its final form around the beginning of the second century. Scholars have noticed evidence that some of the sayings of Jesus in Thomas reflect more accurately what Jesus actually said than is the case of the respective versions in the canonical Gospels. They thus reflect an earlier oral tradition, and several are quite possibly more accurate versions of parables and quotes that were later redacted by the four evangelists. Many sayings have a distinct gnostic flavor and are thus attributions to Jesus by those with a particular worldview. Experts have not had much difficulty in distinguishing these accretions from those that likely originated with Jesus of Nazareth. (Some scholars assert that some of the sayings were part of an oral tradition dating back to A.D. 50.)
The Gospel of Thomas is especially attractive to modern readers since the emphasis is on wisdom and not on the dogma of an organized religion. I find some of the sayings to be very beautiful, whether Jesus said them or not. For instance, the more familiar, "The Kingdom of God is within you" becomes in Thomas, chapter 3, an expression of the unity of the inside and outside, typical of wisdom traditions: "...Rather, the Father's imperial rule is within you and it is outside you." (Italics added.) An even bolder statement is found in Thomas, Chapter 77: "Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
Such an assertion would be quite foreign to the belief system of the historical Jesus. Although he never said it, it is a profound statement nevertheless, echoing the core of Hinduism, namely, "Thou art That," (Tat tvam asi.)
The gnostic tradition, however, is not the subject of this essay. It is now time to discuss two saying's from the Thomas Gospel, found nowhere else, that the majority of scholars of the Jesus Seminar believe originated with the historical Jesus.
4. Gospel of Thomas Chapter 98
The Father's imperial rule is like a person who wanted to kill someone powerful. While still at home he drew his sword and thrust it into the wall to find out whether his hand would go in. Then he killed the powerful one.
The scholars of the Jesus seminar voted pink or red regarding this parable; they thus considered it very likely that Jesus actually said something like this. They pointed out its scandalous, violent nature; the early Christians, promoting a gentle Jesus, the good shepherd, would hardly have invented this. Neither does it have a gnostic flavor. Although this parable is unique to Thomas, it is similar to some quotes attributed to Jesus in the canonical gospels which also have violent imagery, e.g. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," Matthew !0:34.
What did Jesus really mean by this imagery? Reza Azlan in his book, "Zealot: Life and Times of Jesus Christ," holds that Jesus tried to suborn a violent overthrow of Roman rule. But as the Seminar scholars assert, "Beware of a Jesus that is too congenial to you." The evidence for a warrior Jesus is thin--this doesn't make it necessarily false. It seems to me that the case for a more irenic, peace-loving Jesus is stronger. In addition, it is well known that both the Aramaic language and Jesus who spoke it had a fondness for exaggeration. Surely Jesus didn't literally mean that it is as possible for rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. It seems more likely that Jesus, whose affinity for the poor is undoubted, meant that riches are not only unfair to the poor, but are a great hindrance and make spiritual progress difficult.
I think it more likely that Jesus was referring in this Thomas passage to spiritual war, waged in a non-violent fashion until contemporary circumstances changed for the better
The message of this parable is clear: the forces of evil are very strong; if progress is to be made one has to be even stronger. To put it bluntly: the Kingdom of Heaven (The Father's imperial rule) will not be brought about by wimps. One has to be sly as the foxes if one wishes to help assert the rights of innocent lambs.
I will give two examples of the wisdom and practicality of this parable. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which banned slavery forever, was passed on January 31, 1865. It had been passed by the Senate and rejected by the House prior to this; Lincoln knew he had a tough job ahead of him in order to get enough House votes to pass it on the second round. Lincoln was an expert politician, who knew human nature. He used everything in this power to get it passed--offering an ambassadorship to a less qualified man here, bribing others with pet projects for their home states, there, in exchange for a vote for the bill. Lincoln made sure that his sword, as it were, was sharp enough to defeat those who strongly opposed him. It worked.
Gandhi is another example. He advocated satyagraha, non-violent opposition. in order to achieve moral goals. This is what he said about non-violence:
It takes a fairly strenuous course of training to attain a mental state of non-violence..Non-violence is the weapon of the strong..In daily life, it has to be a course of discipline, though one may not like it, for instance, the life of a soldier.
-- from The Law of Love
I believe Jesus in the parable from Thomas was using military imagery in the same way.
This is an interesting quote, but I don't think it adds much to our knowledge of Jesus. There are several such quotes to be found in the canonical Gospels--as well as quotes that contradict it. Jesus certainly contained multitudes.
Chapter 97 is, however, different.
5. Chapter 97
Jesus said, The (Father's) imperial rule is like a woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking along a distant road, the handle of the jar broke and the meal spilled behind her along the road. She didn't know it; she hadn't noticed a problem. When she reached her house, she put the jar down and discovered that it was empty.
This parable is a gem. It shows great insight into the human condition and into things spiritual. Jesus had a poetic mind; here, as in his best parables, as in some of the best poems, the meaning is subtle and subject to interpretation. A good poem suggests more than any prose interpretation can provide; such is the case of this parable. Yet the sayings of Jesus are also guidelines for living a better life which, despite ambiguity, need to be elucidated. When I first read this parable, I was struck by its beauty and insight. Just as observation turns a quantum ambiguity into a reality, I will now interpret the text in ways which might not exhaust all possibilities but which indicate the target (or targets) at which the arrow of the words aim.
In the 1970s one of my friends was a major poet. He told me of times when he realized that something about a poem he had recently written was still imperfect. He would then walk for hours in Central Park going over and over in his head the line in question. If all went well, he would, after much deliberation, have a eureka moment--the perfect musicality, the perfect image had been found. The transcendent state he was in during these hours, completely oblivious to self, corresponds to the "Father's Imperial Rule." One day, we met for a cup of tea--he was furious. He had submitted a poem to a magazine the editor of which was also a major poet. The latter rejected it. My friend was furious; I would only be exaggerating slightly if I wrote that he behaved like a child. There was obviously a fierce rivalry between the two poets. He was especially incensed that the editor-poet used stationery from the publishing house that put out books of both poets. He planned--in a moment of rage--to sue him! Petty egotism was now ruling my friend's behavior. To put this in context of the parable: in Central Park the jar of meal was full; during our encounter for tea, the jar was completely empty.
I will provide a second illustration of this parable, which also deals with the arts. Many years ago, while spending an extended period abroad with my wife in Chennai, India, we attended a play presented at the British consulate, performed by a top-notch British troupe. It was an unforgettable experience, (To each his own: my wife's cousin attended a performance a few days before. He thought it was just about the worst thing he saw in his life--just three people talking and talking!) The play was Brian Friel's The Faith Healer, a modern classic. It tells the story of an old-time-religious healer who on one occasion, feeling empowered by the Spirit, was able to exact cures that bordered on the miraculous. This power was inexplicable, even to him. He was unable to repeat his success. Eventually he was murdered by an irate group that demanded a cure for an unfortunate relative. The play can be viewed as a metaphor for the mystery and unpredictability of artistic inspiration. You can't depend on a full sack of meal, but you can be ready for it.
Another favorite theme of Jesus is demonstrated both by play and parable: The Kingdom of God might come when you least expect it. It's crucial to remain in a receptive state; this might not bring about an epiphany, but it will enable one to recognize it and put it to use when one arrives.
The parable's implicit ideal of a selfless state readily lends itself to a Buddhist interpretation. In Buddhism, egotistic desire (tanha) is the source of all mental suffering. The "I" is an illusion, albeit a practical one. One's true portrait is not a selfie, but an image of the entire universe. A selfless identification with the cosmos is what Nirvana really means. In Buddhism, one begins to transcend the ego by observing thoughts without attachment--that is, through meditation. This is beautifully expressed by the shortest chapter of the Gospel of Thomas: Be passersby. This is perhaps too Buddhist for a Jewish sage of the first century; the historical Jesus, of course, never said any such thing.
Another synonym for "The Father's imperial rule" is cosmic consciousness. Most of us have experienced such a state when we get so involved with something worthwhile that we forget that there is a "we" at all--and, cosmically speaking, there isn't. The problem is that we don't remain in that state for long. It has been said that the only difference between most people and the great Hindu sage, Ramana Maharshi, is that the former come in and out of the transcendent state, while Maharshi, permanently transformed at the tender age of sixteen, never left it.
Maharshi's is a rare example, however; the lives of many who consider themselves to be sages or are considered as such by others, provide excellent illustrations of Jesus's parable. Take the case of
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the West. He was an inspired teacher and attracted a large following of those who viewed him as a bodhisatva, an enlightened being. Here is a typical quote from his teachings "It is impossible for the bodhisatva to destroy or harm other people, because he embodies transcendental generosity." It is said, that as enlightened being, Trungpa never felt shame. Yet he was also a drunk. On several occasions, while drunk, he attempted to force others--he had bodyguards--to take off their clothes and dance about naked before onlookers, in order to be certain that they were, well, shameless. He was clearly enlightened at times and quite sadistic on other occasions.
Jesus's parable teaches us to be humble and always on guard against manifestations of a serpent of pettiness and selfishness that is present in us all. You never know when you will stumble across it; if you're not careful, it will strike you like a snake.
The first parable discussed is more practical than deep; this one is both deep and practical. I count it among the best parables of Jesus.
6. Conclusion
I find it amazing that a document containing two hitherto unknown sayings of Jesus--along with many other important variations of parables contained in the synoptic Gospels--became known to the English-speaking world only in 1977. The Gospel of Thomas has gained primary importance among scholars, but not among the rest of us, including Christians. The latter seem to be more interested in a somewhat fossilized world of tradition that they overlook living fossils that walk among them. Another reason might be that these two parables do not reinforce dogma; they might have been spoken by any wise person--The two chapters from Thomas have more to do with the worldview of Jesus rather than in dogma about him. In any case, understanding them and internalizing them will help one lead a better and more profound life, regardless of whether one is Christian or not. They deserve to be much more widely known.
My name is Muhammad Ali. I and my brother, Khalifa, are farmers. We grow sugar cane and live near the town of Nag Hammadi. Our field is located on the floodplain of the Nile. As everyone who went to school knows, this land has been under cultivation for thousands of years. The soil is very good, but it isn't perfect. It lacks important nutrients. We can't afford to buy fancy fertilizer; we are poor. So we go to the Jeb al-Tarif cliff. This is where poor people of our area dig for sabakh, a naturally occurring fertilizer that we use on our farms. One day we set out in a large group, which consisted of several members of our clan, along with many camels. While I was digging I unearthed the top of a large earthenware jar. I dug it out carefully. Should I open it? Many said no, afraid that a harmful jinn would be released. I thought there might be gold inside, so I opened it. Nothing but papyrus! Thirteen bound sets of papyrus that looked very old. I brought the jar home and emptied everything onto straw upon the floor next to the oven, then went back to work. When I returned, I discovered that Umm-Ahmad, our mother, had used one of the bound volumes as fuel to cook our dinner! I made sure that this would not happen again. I thought people in Cairo might give us some much needed money for these sheets of papyrus...
2.
The manuscripts, consisting of about 45 separate texts, did eventually get into the hands of scholars; they are, minus the thirteenth codex most of which went up in smoke in Umm-Ahmad's kitchen, in the Nag Hammadi Coptic Library today. Ali made his discovery in December of 1945. These gnostic texts are of tremendous importance for New Testament scholarship, the most important discovery in centuries. They were stored lovingly and carefully buried, probably by a Coptic monk, somewhere around the 4th century. The Church, which had been persecuted, was now established and lost no time in persecuting those whom they deemed heretics. At the time that the manuscripts were buried, anyone in possession of them faced the very real possibility of being executed as a heretic. The Church canon had been established; the established Christian leadership had absolutely no tolerance for anything that challenged their interpretation of Christianity.
If one considers this attitude from a Foucaultian power-politics perspective, one can understand why. The early Christians, such as Irenaeus, one of the Church's founding fathers, realized, at least subconsciously, that "objective" dogma was needed in order to help the Church secure political hegemony, thus (eventually) paving the way to the Vatican as a seat of political control. If you lived in the Western Word in the 4th century and you didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary; the Savior who died for our sins and was resurrected by God, you were, or very soon would be, in real trouble.
The gnostic (Greek "gnosis" meaning knowledge) tradition was different. It was basically a wisdom tradition, a conduit fed by ancient sources. The tradition that produced the manuscripts added its own flavor, however, which wasn't always sweet. This worldview emphasized spirit over body; for those who view mind and body as a unity this is definitely a defect. The tradition could be otherworldly and ascetic to a fault. But it also had many virtues. The mindset was inner and anti-hierarchical; it was peaceful. A gnostic would never have tried to impose his beliefs on others any more than a Buddhist would--Buddhism being another non-dogmatic wisdom school. If gnosticism ever had managed to gain political power, it is hard to imagine that there would have been crusades or any other form of religious war.
This essay is not a forum for me to descant about the Nag Hammadi manuscripts; I am not a scholar and scholars have written on them extensively. My purpose is to make more widely known two sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas--the most important Gnostic Gospel by far. Scholars of the Jesus Seminar, who voted on each example of direct discourse in all five Gospels as to whether Jesus actually said the quote attributed to him, gave these two sayings a pink designation, meaning that it is very likely that Jesus actually said something very similar to the words in question. The two parables have no counterpart in the four canonical Gospels. I find it astounding that, nearly two thousand years after his crucifixion, two hitherto unknown sayings that Jesus most likely said have come to light. Before we proceed to an analysis of the two new parables, we will present a brief introduction to the Gospel of Thomas.
3.
The Gospel of Thomas is by far the most important of the gnostic texts found by Muhammad Ali. Gnosticism asserts that the material world was created by a lesser divinity, the so-called demiurge. Christ in the Christian version of gnosticism, popular in the 2nd century and reflected in some of the other gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi, was an emissary from a more distant and more advanced deity. This view is not central to the Gospel of Thomas, which antedates the other texts. The Thomas document contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. They contain almost no dogma; there is no mention of miracles, no definite assertion that Jesus was the Son of God, no mention of either the crucifixion or the Resurrection. The Gospel has an inwardly directed content, celebrating the inner path to wisdom. The initial "Jesus said,..." of many of the sayings could easily be replaced by "Hillel said," or Dionysius the Areopagite said, etc, since the sayings lack historical context.
The Gospel of Thomas is the oldest document in the Nag Hammadi library. It is a Coptic translation of an original Greek version, fragments of which had been discovered earlier. Scholars aren't quite sure of its provenance and dating. The third century copy is of a text which probably received its final form around the beginning of the second century. Scholars have noticed evidence that some of the sayings of Jesus in Thomas reflect more accurately what Jesus actually said than is the case of the respective versions in the canonical Gospels. They thus reflect an earlier oral tradition, and several are quite possibly more accurate versions of parables and quotes that were later redacted by the four evangelists. Many sayings have a distinct gnostic flavor and are thus attributions to Jesus by those with a particular worldview. Experts have not had much difficulty in distinguishing these accretions from those that likely originated with Jesus of Nazareth. (Some scholars assert that some of the sayings were part of an oral tradition dating back to A.D. 50.)
The Gospel of Thomas is especially attractive to modern readers since the emphasis is on wisdom and not on the dogma of an organized religion. I find some of the sayings to be very beautiful, whether Jesus said them or not. For instance, the more familiar, "The Kingdom of God is within you" becomes in Thomas, chapter 3, an expression of the unity of the inside and outside, typical of wisdom traditions: "...Rather, the Father's imperial rule is within you and it is outside you." (Italics added.) An even bolder statement is found in Thomas, Chapter 77: "Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
Such an assertion would be quite foreign to the belief system of the historical Jesus. Although he never said it, it is a profound statement nevertheless, echoing the core of Hinduism, namely, "Thou art That," (Tat tvam asi.)
The gnostic tradition, however, is not the subject of this essay. It is now time to discuss two saying's from the Thomas Gospel, found nowhere else, that the majority of scholars of the Jesus Seminar believe originated with the historical Jesus.
4. Gospel of Thomas Chapter 98
The Father's imperial rule is like a person who wanted to kill someone powerful. While still at home he drew his sword and thrust it into the wall to find out whether his hand would go in. Then he killed the powerful one.
The scholars of the Jesus seminar voted pink or red regarding this parable; they thus considered it very likely that Jesus actually said something like this. They pointed out its scandalous, violent nature; the early Christians, promoting a gentle Jesus, the good shepherd, would hardly have invented this. Neither does it have a gnostic flavor. Although this parable is unique to Thomas, it is similar to some quotes attributed to Jesus in the canonical gospels which also have violent imagery, e.g. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," Matthew !0:34.
What did Jesus really mean by this imagery? Reza Azlan in his book, "Zealot: Life and Times of Jesus Christ," holds that Jesus tried to suborn a violent overthrow of Roman rule. But as the Seminar scholars assert, "Beware of a Jesus that is too congenial to you." The evidence for a warrior Jesus is thin--this doesn't make it necessarily false. It seems to me that the case for a more irenic, peace-loving Jesus is stronger. In addition, it is well known that both the Aramaic language and Jesus who spoke it had a fondness for exaggeration. Surely Jesus didn't literally mean that it is as possible for rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. It seems more likely that Jesus, whose affinity for the poor is undoubted, meant that riches are not only unfair to the poor, but are a great hindrance and make spiritual progress difficult.
I think it more likely that Jesus was referring in this Thomas passage to spiritual war, waged in a non-violent fashion until contemporary circumstances changed for the better
The message of this parable is clear: the forces of evil are very strong; if progress is to be made one has to be even stronger. To put it bluntly: the Kingdom of Heaven (The Father's imperial rule) will not be brought about by wimps. One has to be sly as the foxes if one wishes to help assert the rights of innocent lambs.
I will give two examples of the wisdom and practicality of this parable. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which banned slavery forever, was passed on January 31, 1865. It had been passed by the Senate and rejected by the House prior to this; Lincoln knew he had a tough job ahead of him in order to get enough House votes to pass it on the second round. Lincoln was an expert politician, who knew human nature. He used everything in this power to get it passed--offering an ambassadorship to a less qualified man here, bribing others with pet projects for their home states, there, in exchange for a vote for the bill. Lincoln made sure that his sword, as it were, was sharp enough to defeat those who strongly opposed him. It worked.
Gandhi is another example. He advocated satyagraha, non-violent opposition. in order to achieve moral goals. This is what he said about non-violence:
It takes a fairly strenuous course of training to attain a mental state of non-violence..Non-violence is the weapon of the strong..In daily life, it has to be a course of discipline, though one may not like it, for instance, the life of a soldier.
-- from The Law of Love
I believe Jesus in the parable from Thomas was using military imagery in the same way.
This is an interesting quote, but I don't think it adds much to our knowledge of Jesus. There are several such quotes to be found in the canonical Gospels--as well as quotes that contradict it. Jesus certainly contained multitudes.
Chapter 97 is, however, different.
5. Chapter 97
Jesus said, The (Father's) imperial rule is like a woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking along a distant road, the handle of the jar broke and the meal spilled behind her along the road. She didn't know it; she hadn't noticed a problem. When she reached her house, she put the jar down and discovered that it was empty.
This parable is a gem. It shows great insight into the human condition and into things spiritual. Jesus had a poetic mind; here, as in his best parables, as in some of the best poems, the meaning is subtle and subject to interpretation. A good poem suggests more than any prose interpretation can provide; such is the case of this parable. Yet the sayings of Jesus are also guidelines for living a better life which, despite ambiguity, need to be elucidated. When I first read this parable, I was struck by its beauty and insight. Just as observation turns a quantum ambiguity into a reality, I will now interpret the text in ways which might not exhaust all possibilities but which indicate the target (or targets) at which the arrow of the words aim.
In the 1970s one of my friends was a major poet. He told me of times when he realized that something about a poem he had recently written was still imperfect. He would then walk for hours in Central Park going over and over in his head the line in question. If all went well, he would, after much deliberation, have a eureka moment--the perfect musicality, the perfect image had been found. The transcendent state he was in during these hours, completely oblivious to self, corresponds to the "Father's Imperial Rule." One day, we met for a cup of tea--he was furious. He had submitted a poem to a magazine the editor of which was also a major poet. The latter rejected it. My friend was furious; I would only be exaggerating slightly if I wrote that he behaved like a child. There was obviously a fierce rivalry between the two poets. He was especially incensed that the editor-poet used stationery from the publishing house that put out books of both poets. He planned--in a moment of rage--to sue him! Petty egotism was now ruling my friend's behavior. To put this in context of the parable: in Central Park the jar of meal was full; during our encounter for tea, the jar was completely empty.
I will provide a second illustration of this parable, which also deals with the arts. Many years ago, while spending an extended period abroad with my wife in Chennai, India, we attended a play presented at the British consulate, performed by a top-notch British troupe. It was an unforgettable experience, (To each his own: my wife's cousin attended a performance a few days before. He thought it was just about the worst thing he saw in his life--just three people talking and talking!) The play was Brian Friel's The Faith Healer, a modern classic. It tells the story of an old-time-religious healer who on one occasion, feeling empowered by the Spirit, was able to exact cures that bordered on the miraculous. This power was inexplicable, even to him. He was unable to repeat his success. Eventually he was murdered by an irate group that demanded a cure for an unfortunate relative. The play can be viewed as a metaphor for the mystery and unpredictability of artistic inspiration. You can't depend on a full sack of meal, but you can be ready for it.
Another favorite theme of Jesus is demonstrated both by play and parable: The Kingdom of God might come when you least expect it. It's crucial to remain in a receptive state; this might not bring about an epiphany, but it will enable one to recognize it and put it to use when one arrives.
The parable's implicit ideal of a selfless state readily lends itself to a Buddhist interpretation. In Buddhism, egotistic desire (tanha) is the source of all mental suffering. The "I" is an illusion, albeit a practical one. One's true portrait is not a selfie, but an image of the entire universe. A selfless identification with the cosmos is what Nirvana really means. In Buddhism, one begins to transcend the ego by observing thoughts without attachment--that is, through meditation. This is beautifully expressed by the shortest chapter of the Gospel of Thomas: Be passersby. This is perhaps too Buddhist for a Jewish sage of the first century; the historical Jesus, of course, never said any such thing.
Another synonym for "The Father's imperial rule" is cosmic consciousness. Most of us have experienced such a state when we get so involved with something worthwhile that we forget that there is a "we" at all--and, cosmically speaking, there isn't. The problem is that we don't remain in that state for long. It has been said that the only difference between most people and the great Hindu sage, Ramana Maharshi, is that the former come in and out of the transcendent state, while Maharshi, permanently transformed at the tender age of sixteen, never left it.
Maharshi's is a rare example, however; the lives of many who consider themselves to be sages or are considered as such by others, provide excellent illustrations of Jesus's parable. Take the case of
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the West. He was an inspired teacher and attracted a large following of those who viewed him as a bodhisatva, an enlightened being. Here is a typical quote from his teachings "It is impossible for the bodhisatva to destroy or harm other people, because he embodies transcendental generosity." It is said, that as enlightened being, Trungpa never felt shame. Yet he was also a drunk. On several occasions, while drunk, he attempted to force others--he had bodyguards--to take off their clothes and dance about naked before onlookers, in order to be certain that they were, well, shameless. He was clearly enlightened at times and quite sadistic on other occasions.
Jesus's parable teaches us to be humble and always on guard against manifestations of a serpent of pettiness and selfishness that is present in us all. You never know when you will stumble across it; if you're not careful, it will strike you like a snake.
The first parable discussed is more practical than deep; this one is both deep and practical. I count it among the best parables of Jesus.
6. Conclusion
I find it amazing that a document containing two hitherto unknown sayings of Jesus--along with many other important variations of parables contained in the synoptic Gospels--became known to the English-speaking world only in 1977. The Gospel of Thomas has gained primary importance among scholars, but not among the rest of us, including Christians. The latter seem to be more interested in a somewhat fossilized world of tradition that they overlook living fossils that walk among them. Another reason might be that these two parables do not reinforce dogma; they might have been spoken by any wise person--The two chapters from Thomas have more to do with the worldview of Jesus rather than in dogma about him. In any case, understanding them and internalizing them will help one lead a better and more profound life, regardless of whether one is Christian or not. They deserve to be much more widely known.
No comments:
Post a Comment