WHAT WOULD JESUS (yoUth) DECONSTRUCT THIS CHRISTMAS

I was just thinking to myself the day I gave my name to give this Sermonette or rather my reflection for this Christmas. Browsing through the bookshelf in the Library, I came across a book called What would Jesus Deconstruct and found it very interesting and fascinating. And perhaps my thoughts will surface from this particular book – authored by John Caputo. What would you and I deconstruct this Christmas? This Christmas novena? Or rather what would you and I deconstruct as being a religious, a Salesian. But wait!!! (pause) Actually speaking you and I cannot deconstruct what would it be like…simply because GOD IS…Well, may be what would you and I deconstruct if given a thought to this perhaps we could make an attempt to deconstruct our lives by living a new self with Jesus and in Jesus beginning this Christmas.

I may sound like the empty vessel or the air filled in the balloon or a web that is created in the corner of the wall which may create an irritating sound from the vessel or words that disappear like the air or a cob-web to be cleared form the wall. But all the same give a thinking thought to this thought reality. The Church doesn’t need someone in order to be deconstructed, because it got Jesus! The deconstruction of the Church happens from the inside. Deconstruction is a work of love, and it happens because it is animated by a vision for something different. Just as the law is deconstructed with a view to the advent of justice, so the church is deconstructed with a view to the advent of the kingdom.

It should be no surprise that the domesticated Jesus is directed most specifically against the distinctly domestication of Jesus associated today with the Religious. The title thus really asking, What Would Caputo Deconstruct? Or What Would You and I Deconstruct? But that’s not the question I am asking. nothing less than to confront ourselves with a Jesus who resist all our domestications. And so I invite you and me to ask: What would Jesus deconstruct if he was sitting here or rather giving us this sermon? Or what would he deconstruct if He was moving about or walking on the corridors and sitting in our in study places or in the offices? Or what would he deconstruct if He came with us for our walks? Or what would he deconstruct if He would have been sleeping where we normally sleep, be it in our dormitory or rooms? Or what would He deconstruct if He showed up during our moments of Prayer? or for U wherever you are..... It is a sign of vitality that I leave you with such questions at the beginning of what haunted me when I was thinking about this revealing question or rather an existential or postmodern question. But it is best to serve and love Jesus’ by never ceasing to ask these questions in our lives, lest they’ll leave you haunted.

What would Jesus Deconstruct? Winsomely articulates why so many people are nervous about orthodoxy – radical or not, and suggests that Catholics or rather we religious need to think more seriously about being postmodern. Here we have a lens and a lexicon to see the phenomena in a new light. Deconstruction happens it is not something that you and I do. But it is an event that sets off unforeseeable and disruptive consequences. In a scene of deconstruction, our lives, our beliefs, and our practices are not destroyed but forced to reform and reconfigure-which is risky!!!

Over the ages the spiritual masters have described spiritual life as a journey. Indeed, we might even venture the thought that to be “religious” in its deepest sense is to be a searcher, living in search of something. When Bobby Kennedy used to say, “There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why…I dream of things that never were and ask why not?” he was speaking with a religious heart. Religious people are the people of the “why not?” the people of the promise, of the hope against hope. We restlessly search for something, for a certain sort of “transcendence”, which means to be on the go, making a crossing, attempting to get somewhere else. That is what I mean by giving the spiritual journey some postmodern teeth. I agree this is a little unnerving, to what I just called “hyper-realism.”

On the 3rd of December we commemorated with solemnity the feast of St Francis Zavier, the day also of celebration for the Mumbai Province. As I was walking pass by the Rectors Office, my eyes happened to read the notice board which read, In His Steps, on this quotation I began to ponder and wonder, following “in his steps”, that would mean following someone different, following a very different way, but all with the same heartfelt conviction and deep faith of the “here”.

The reason we are on a journey is precisely the contingency and givenness of the world in which we find ourselves and the desire we have for a guide - companion. The spiritual journey on which we are embarked is, we say, a journey of faith. So we ought to undertake the project posed by (1 Peter 2:21) - the task of following ‘in his steps’. Jesus is not the way unless you are lost, even as Jesus is not the answer unless you have a question. In the postmodern situation, the very idea of a spiritual journey seems to presumes that we are all a bit lost. It is thus not surprising that when we frame such a question as to “What would Jesus do?” therefore a journey we never complete, where that incompleteness is not an imperfection but testimony. To give a very concrete example of what I mean, when we profess, you and I say, “I do” but whatever we become, is unknown and unforeseen. That is a risk, what Levinas called a beautiful risk. But the risk is constitutive of the vow or the commitment. It is the faith, the willingness to go forward, even though the way is not certain, that leads us to describe it as beautiful. If it were a sure thing, it would be about as beautiful as a conversation with our loved ones.

Think about faith, hope, and charity singled out by St Paul when is faith really faith? Not when it is looking more and more like we are right, but when the situation is beginning to look impossible, in the darkest night of the soul. The faith that is said to move mountains. So, too, hope is hope not when we have every reason to except a favorable outcome, which is nothing. It is beginning to look hopeless, when we are called on to hope against hope. This is above all true of love, where loving those who are lovable or those who love you make perfect sense. But when is love really love? When we love those who are not lovable or who do not love us. In other words, we are really on the way of faith and hope and love when the way is blocked; when the way seems impossible, where this impossible makes the way possible. It is precisely not this that makes the path kick into high gear. But a paradox of Love and by a common appreciation of the path, not a well-paved, well-marked superhighway but as an obstructed path, a step. The real challenge is to walk with courage, in his steps. Real journeys are full of unexpected turns and twists, requiring a faith that can move mountains and a hope against hope, where one does not see what one was attempting to do until the journey is completed, which postmodernists call the absolute future. It is not a matter of becoming who you already are but of becoming something new, a new creation, which eye has not seen nor ear heard nor the heart felt neither the mind imagined, an openness to the coming of the other, which we don’t already possess. We must instead allow it to happen (arrive) to us. Jesus’ own path of thought or ‘journey’ His whole life was a journey, an adventure. Deconstruction is adventure, a risky business, as is life. Each step I take on that is full of apprehension, excitement, and discovery.

Thinking about the Christmas gift, the gift is created out of love, and love, as Meister Eckhart said, is without why. Love is its own why; love is for its own sake. It does not demand a further or external reason. When I do something for love of my parents or guardian or siblings or friends or neighbour or when a lover is with his/her loved one, a mother breastfeeding her child this is an expenditure made without expectation of return, even tough we understand that in fact the circle of return is always there. The fore of deconstruction in this context is to preserve the madness of the gift giving. There is, there ought to be, something that we do in life that is not for a return but just because what we are doing is life itself, something a little mad. That is the gift. Deconstruction is the affirmation, the affirmation of the impossible, of the coming of the event, the hyper-real, which participates in the structure of the step. Love means to surrender to the impossible, to render oneself over to, and give oneself back to the impossible.

St Paul called this the weakness of God which is perhaps the ultimate madness of the kingdom of God. In Jesus there is the divinity that lies in the emptying of divinity. There is an ancient Christian tradition of being fools for God. Let us be fools for Christ. My thinking is that when time to time we meet people in whom the figure of Jesus is imaged like the religious, we might find ourselves ridiculing them as weak or mad or foolish, as indeed they are I mean YES we are – in a very precise sense.

All this in order to get down to about what Jesus would deconstruct. We have just proposed what is distinctive about Jesus in this question, analyzed the deconstruct and pointed out the hermeneutic force of the would. Now it is time to ask just what Jesus would deconstruct, to say more exactly what is what. That is why we require hermeneutics. It is our responsibility to breathe with the spirit of Jesus, to implement, to invent, to convert it into the praxis, which means to make the order resonate with the radicality of the vision. When Jesus said do you think I have come to bring peace, no I bring the sword (Mt, 10:34), when he said that he comes to bring fire and division (Lk, 12: 49-53), he did not mean a physical sword and arson. He did mean that we must be prepared to endure the harshest difficulties in the pursuit of peace and justice, even to hating our father and mother, which was his idea of family values in the kingdom. He meant that we should be prepared to die for what is... His word is hard and who can bear it? His most characteristic sayings are a scandal to the world of Roman power (here I mean is the present world politics in the secular as well as the religious world), deeply paradoxical contradictions of the ways – like offering a set of beatitudes that make a virtue out of meekness, mercy, humility, and poverty, everything the Roman world mocked and despised. The replica that Jesus set is impossible. It requires loving and forgiving what it is impossible.

Here I would like to highlight the point of giving witness as Jesus, you and I, living in this charism of Don Bosco – Daha Mihi Animas Cetera Tolle. What is you and I doing for this Institution of Christ, the Church and Don Bosco, the youngsters?

Strategically, diplomatically, socially, politically, morally, economically, diplomatically, evangically, spiritually, religiously and in every possible way, that can be thought of, Jesus was a witness - yesterday, Jesus is a witness – today and Jesus will be a witnesses – forever. As religious, we too are witness let you and me live to this here and there, to this gift, to this love, to this deconstruction from this Christmas.

Hey yoUth what are you upto this CHRISTMAS???

Hermeneutics for Mary

“All human beings desire to know,” This opening sentence of Aristotle’s metaphysics brings out the peoples’ innate longing for truth. The task of hermeneutics is the service to the text and going beyond the text. On the other hand, returning to the text is an indispensible step for meaningful hermeneutics. Hermeneutics clears the way towards a more holistic approach to the ‘being’ and ‘understanding’ of humans and their world. Hermeneutics is an awareness of the truth that cannot be encapsulated in proportions but a truth that constantly and critically draws our attention. I have chosen to speak of the doctrine rather than the dogma, and this calls for hermeneutical comment. All I want to do is to try out some new ideas, new ways of looking at the dogma of the immaculate conception, in the hope that this may contribute to a clear understanding of the universal dialogue. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception invites us to take a deeper look, to turn towards the divine mystery that will shape our life. Mary is presented as a model. Mary is a door to the mystery. The Biblical picture of Mary invites us to take again this concept into account in our Marian Hermeneutics, piety and doctrine.

Mariology, far from being peripheral in the totality of revelation, is rather the meeting-place for a great many Christian doctrines. Anthropology, Christian theology, Ecclesiology and the mystery of salvation are among the doctrines associated with Mariology. Mariological doctrines, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, throw new light on the truths of faith from which they have been derived and strengthened the coherence and unity of the many elements, which together constitute the Christian faith. The second Vatican council, in choosing to portray Mary as the model of the Church, opened the way to new interpretations. With Mary, we begin to understand the depth, fullness and mystery of humankind. The Marian dogmas are seen as specifically symbolizing the created freedom and the final transformation of the world for which humans hope. Here I analyze the dogma on the basis of an anthropology that is human-centered and unifying. Marian dogmas, which exalt Mary, immaculately conceived, reflect our own human destination. The task is to recognize the potential of this dogma in order to give meaning to our life and to human destiny for our times.

Let me begin my interpretation……there is one privilege, in particular, that we consider fitting to treat here is her Immaculate Conception. The Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without any stain of sin was solemnly defined in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in these words. We declare and define that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and in view of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

 The most Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved immune from all sin. This means that her whole being is included in God’s grace. She becomes the symbol of the redeemed world.

 From the first moment of her conception. In this, she differs from John the Bapist who was sanctified in his mother’s womb at the greeting of Mary.

 By the singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, she is sanctified by God before making a personal decision. In this, we find an analogy in infant baptism.
 In view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, it is Christ Jesus who redeems her by preserving her from original sin.

It is commonly accepted today that the term ‘original sin’ is to be understood not only as the sin committed by Adam, but also as the sinful state in which the world exists now. Every person that comes into the world becomes part of this world of sin and his life is going to be subjected to that movment of deviation away from God. By the sacrament of Baptism, the Christian is inserted into the new world of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord. He acquires a new relationship with God in Christ and a new relationship in Christ to the human community. It is important to note here that there is a relationship, which is ontologically realized, that is, by the action of God. Applying the above concept of original sin and its removal to Mary, we will be able to trace a more appropriate picture of the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Mary was born into the world of sin. If this was not the case she would have no part with Jesus Christ in saving the world, and consequently she would not form part of the history of salvation. As such, we may say that she is also the daughter of Adam. This is clearly shown in the genealogies of the gospels.

o Immaculte Conception is entirely an action of God on Mary, to which Mary had to give her personal response all through her life. But as far as God was concerned, it was a reality that was done once and for all at the first moment of her human existence. But as far as Mary was concerned, it was to be realized through a daily struggle of fidelity.

o Immaculate Conception did not free her from all the consequences of belonging to a sinful world. She had to experience the weight of sin, not because she committed them, but bacause she had to struggle against them. It is in this Mary becomes the model of the Church.

o Mary’s Immaculate Conception is a privilege, which carries with it also a service. It is also a service through suffering and struggle. Mary’s Immaculate Conception initiates her into a constant battle against evil through suffering and sorrow, thus becoming the New Eve, collaborating with the New Adam in the building up of the new human community.

o Mary’s Immaculate Conception, by initiating her into the world of Christ, already from the beginning of her life, makes her life become a life of apostolic witness.

o The Immaculate Conception breaks down the stuctures that stand on the way of the coming of the Kingdom. When God’s love is fully translated into human love, we have the kingdom of God.

The only obstacles to it are the kingdom that we have built, in continuation of the effort of the first man to beomce like God through longing for power. “You will be like God” (Gen 3:5). The sinful structures of today are the outcome of the wrong interpretation of the kingdom by the evil one. Mary, instead, understands the kingdom of God in the correct way and collaboration with God in building it up by her constant effort to build up a community of love.

Dear friends, Mary is not a static or plastic model to be merely admired or imitated. She is a dynamic person who is present to us today through her glorification. If she is with God, she is also with us, in our pilgrimage towards the kingdom of God. The word “spiritual” here should be understood as the action of the Holy Spirit operating in the whole person. The Immaculate Conception is a reality that affected the whole person of Mary. Mary is an active model of liberation. Let us become like her a full collaborator in the liberating mission of Christ.

This is a Sermonette given by Cl. Robert Iniyasi thought it sort of captured my mind and so here it is.

THE PRAYER LIFE

For Teresa, mental prayer was the beginning of the path to new ways of understanding, to the tasting of the deep mysteries of faith, which included the indwelling presence of the Trinity and of Jesus Christ in his humanity and divinity, as well as insights into sin and grace, the Church and the sacraments. Her visions were both spiritual and physical, and she eventually experienced the grace of perfect union with Christ so that she became inseparable from Him ‘as when a little stream enters the sea.’

We need courage for the prayer of agony precisely because we need even more courage for the prayer of ecstasy. How can this be? Because the prayer of ecstasy is often more incredible, more exhausting, and more unbearable in its wonder. Her metaphors for the ecstasy of prayer are once again colorful, dramatic, and flamboyant. This prayer is like being raised up by a mighty eagle and carried aloft on its wings, drowning in an infinite sea of supreme truth or quickly reaching the end of a long journey and finding everything all at once.

Prayer is like being in a garden where the fragrance of the flowers permeates the entire atmosphere or being inebriated with a kind of divine wine. In a uniquely Hispanic image, she says prayer is like watching a bullfight. If we pray, we are like the people in the stands, safe from the bull. If we don’t pray, we are defenselessly down in the arena, confronted by a raging, snorting bull.

Ecstatic prayer is a shining sun and a tremendous Yes! In earthly matters is both ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ but in this prayer there is only ‘yes.’ ‘No’ only comes afterward, when our delight ends and we cannot recover it. In this prayer, we may feel like a tiny bird, tired of flying, in great need of rest. God suddenly comes and picks us up in His own hands, laying us gently in the nest. Using more scriptural expressions, the prayer of ecstasy is like being the thirsty deer who finally gets to the water, the dove who finally finds the olive branch, or the bride who finally receives the bridegroom’s kiss.

All these descriptions are graphic, physical, and earthy. How could we except anything but an earthy approach from a woman who loved perfume and wore bright orange? Teresa knew that prayer is earthy because God, too, is earthy. Everything on earth, then, becomes the stuff of our prayer. Real prayer erupts everywhere and any time. We must not become prayer-conscious but God-conscious, and bring all of life into our prayer. We must be earthy mystics not only mystical – too misty. This creates a more dynamic and balanced spirituality.

Teresian prayer includes all five senses. When Teresa prayed, she sometimes felt a powerful fragrance spreading through all her senses, as though a sweet ointment were poured into the marrow of her bones. Sometimes it felt as if a flaming brazier in her inner-most depths was exuding a sweet-smelling perfume. Our prayer will not be the same as Teresa’s. But to grow in a healthy life of prayer under Teresa’s earthy influence, we must come to our senses! We must live sensuously: see as much as we can see, touch as much as we can touch, and taste as much as we can taste.

The sense of sight may be the most important in prayer, as it is in the whole of life. Teresa explains how prayer is looking at Him who is looking at us. When we heighten our awareness, we understand that God never takes His loving eyes off us. What is wrong with us that we do not keep our eyes on Him?

How often I have read lives of saints and mystics and wanted to ask: ‘but exactly what did you do in your prayer?’ Teresa tells us. Her answer is similar to St Francis, who said: ‘I look at Him, and He looks at me.’ The important is not to think much but to love much. Though thinking and reasoning play a crucial role at certain stages, when we move into the more contemplative aspects of prayer, excessive rationality spoils and even precludes prayer. Teresa’s entire teaching on mystical prayer can be summed up in one simple phrase: ‘Just look at Him.’ Look at Him made palpably present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Look at Him continuing His presence in the tabernacle. Christ is as tangibly present to us today, in the Blessed Sacrament, as He was when He walked on earth. We are tempted to say, ‘Oh, if only I could have looked on Him then, it would be easy for me.’ But if we do not sense His sacramental presence now, what makes us think we would have responded to His physical presence then?

Teresa usually writes clearly and lucidly. But when she describes prayer as holy madness, she becomes endearingly ‘cuckoo’ as she exclaims, ‘I don’t know any other terms for describing it besides madness, foolishness, and this delightful disquiet. The soul doesn’t know what to do. Wanting all of us to enjoy this blessed madness,’ she continues, ‘May we all be sick with this kind of sickness. May we all be mad for love of Him who for love of us was called mad!’ We may well say, ‘This is madness,’ thinking that wild Teresian prayer is fine for some, but not for us. After all, we are sensible – we have jobs, families, important ministries, global, economical, financial, religious concerns. But we must be more honest with ourselves. To what extent do we use our noble responsibilities to evade our primary responsibility to be men and women of God, of prayer? Teresa is a great model precisely because she was so busy. She is not only one of the greatest contemplatives in the western spiritual tradition, but also one of its greatest activists. Tremendously involved with people and projects, constantly on the go, She still found time to make prayer a priority.

Prayer is a spontaneous human act as natural as breathing – a necessity. It is not a matter of taste, choice, socio-economic class, education, or religious tradition. Prayer is to the human heart what breath is to the body. As Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said, ‘If we don’t breathe, we die. If we don’t pray, we die spiritually.’ Christian prayer is a vast realm of experience that ranges from the verbal recitation of ready-made prayers to the affective dimensions of spousal prayer and the highest stages of contemplation without words, thoughts, or props of any kind.

Teresa describes it as an ‘intimate sharing between friends.’ If prayer is friendship with God, then the same lessons which apply to friendship between human persons also apply here. Good friendship means taking the time, making the time to be alone with the one we love who also loves us. Prayer is not an exercise but an encounter, not a practice but a presence, not a technique, but meeting the Beloved. We need to ask the ‘how to’ questions. But they cannot be answered with mechanics. Prayer is more readily caught than taught. We cannot control it, but we can create the climate for it.

The key to authentic prayer is openness. We must let go of any expectation and cultivate a spirit of expectancy. We must remain empty, like the Virgin Mary’s womb, and wait to be impregnated however God sees fit. ‘Fiat, be it done unto me,’ we pray with the lady. As we learn from Teresa, prayer is not always tranquil but sometimes tumultuous. Serenity is an important aspect of some prayer, but not all. Sometimes prayer is full of worry, sorrow, and existential anxiety; sometimes full of laughter and joy. We may be still or restlessly pace the floor, arguing with God like Job or struggling with him like Jacob, as a result of our love-wounds and painful concern for the world.

VOCATION

The word ‘vocation’ indicates that there is a proper course for every person’s development to follow, a specific way in which he commits his whole life to the service of certain values. That a particular person has a particular vocation always, then, means that his or her love is fixed on some particular goal. Both virginity and marriage understood in an uncompromising personalistic way are vocations. Vocations are meaningful only within the framework of a personalistic vision of human existence, in which conscious choice determines the direction which a person’s life and actions will take.

‘What is my vocation’ means ‘in what direction should my personality develop, considering what I have in me, what I have to offer, and what others – other people and God – expect of me? The challenge of vocation today is to understand betrothal, first the betrothal of marriage and then betrothal to God. In doing so we will have covered the first and greatest element in all the vocations. The decisive character of betrothed love is the giving of one’s own person. No form of love can take the person as far in his or her quest for the good of the other as does betrothed love. Marriage is the result of betrothed love. The problem of betrothed love in marriage does contain a very real paradox. The principle of individual substance does not admit a person to be transferred or ceded to another. Yet the most uncompromising form of love consists in self giving. It is possible to step outside of one’s own ‘I’ in a way that we continue to possess ourselves and far from being impaired the ‘I’ is enriched in a moral sense. Thus married people can approach Original Unity.

Within man’s relationship with God, understood as a relationship of love, man’s posture must be one of surrender to God. This is perfectly comprehensible, especially as the religious man knows that God gives Himself to man, in a divine and supernatural fashion (a mystery of faith revealed to mankind by Christ). We see then the possibility of betrothed and requited love between God and man; the human soul, which is betrothed of God, gives itself to him alone. This total and exclusive gift of self to God is the result of a spiritual process which occurs within a person under the influence of Grace. This is the essence of spiritual virginity – conjugal love pledged to God Himself.

Spiritual virginity is closely connected with physical virginity and is the basis of the religious vocation, whether the vocation is as a lay person or in religious orders or priesthood. Of course all the forms of love identified in the metaphysical analysis apply to spiritual virgins in them giving and receiving love from other persons. The value of virginity, and indeed its superiority to marriage, is to be found in the exceptionally important part which virginity plays in realizing the kingdom of God on earth. The kingdom of God on earth is realized in that particular people gradually prepare and perfect themselves for eternal union with God. In this union the objective development of the human person reaches its highest point.

Spiritual virginity, the self-giving of a human person wedded to God himself, expressly anticipates this eternal union with God and points the way towards it. Speaking of “those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” Jesus says “whoever can accept this (i.e. those to whom it has been granted) ought to accept it”. (Matthew 19, 12)

PRAYERLESSNESS

Introduction

Backsliding. When I asked myself what are the reasons for Backsliding, I felt the Holy Spirit guiding me to speak on Prayerlessness. This is a topic that I have been contemplating in prayer for these days and felt that perhaps…. the 3 reasons I shthat leads me and may be even you to Backslide is….

• Lack of Prayer
• Spiritual pride
• Personal Weakness.

If we look closely to the first point it is very much related to the topic of Prayerlessness.
What is Prayerlessness?

It means that we have little desire for our fellowship with God. It shows our trust rests on our own efforts than on the power of God. For example I have heard people say “Prayer & all is OK but we must work. I must help myself, or else God cannot help me. But sometimes we struggle in some situations only because we are doing it ourselves. Do you know what is the basis of this line “I”. Even in the word ‘Sin’ I is the center. We are too proud to ask His help. It is just the opposite of Prayerfulness. People of genuine faith use prayer, not as a means of impressing others but as an honest means of giving thanks, confessing sins, and asking for direction and help. They know that prayerfulness is not optional for anyone who wants to develop a personal relationship with God. When followers of Christ do not show their dependence in prayer, they can end up acting like anyone else (James 4:1-6). Jesus warned His disciples about this likelihood on the night of His arrest. Pausing from His own struggle in prayer, He urged, "Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak"(Mathew26:41). They didn't understand. They slept instead of praying, and within a few hours all had abandoned Him.

I have read prayerlessness defined in general terms as:

Prayerlessness is saying I'm too busy for God

Prayerlessness is walking in the dark blindfolded

Prayerlessness is the fool saying in his heart there is no God

Prayerlessness is wasting time you think you are saving

Prayerlessness is seeing only with natural eyes

Prayerlessness is absence of God's power

Prayerlessness is disobedience

Prayerlessness is a car with no gas

Prayerlessness is trusting in your own strength

Prayerlessness is preferring my way to God's way

Prayerlessness is living for the praises of men

Prayerlessness is laziness

Prayerlessness is giving in to flesh

Prayerlessness is faithlessness

The Reasons we do not pray

The reasons we do not pray is because we do not have a right relationship that the Bible talks about. Our relationship with God is so substandard that we do not consider it important. We have every excuse in the book or situations to blame, because we do not pray. I have heard people say that I can do all kinds of work but I cannot sit to pray. Like the popular saying in the World goes as: WORK IS PRAYER. WORK IS WORSHIP. I beg to differ here because work cannot be Prayer, Christian life is a relationship with a person you love most Jesus. If you love your work more than you love Jesus, then your work is your love not Jesus. I too at one time believed that work was prayer because at that time, my work was the god of my life.

There are several other excuses we make for ourselves like no time because of my kids or because my daily routine etc. Or simply because we are weak in the flesh. Every human being has a carnal nature in him & so when we do not pray we give into that nature.

The Result of Prayerlessness

Whenever we do anything in our lives positive or negative there is always a result or an outcome of our efforts. So also when we do not pray, there are a few results that will eventually be there.

• When we do not wake up early for prayers, we will sell ourselves to our own desires or to devil for nothing.
(for example Jesus woke early in the morning for prayer. Mark 1:35, Luke 11:1-4). So how much more do we need to pray?
• We go back to Egypt, back to our own little selfish world.
(Remember today’s first reading at mass ( Exodus 16:1-5,9-15)
• We will always find our selves oppressed. (Always Me, Me….)
• We will find it difficult to rise out of our personal bondages. If we continue to tear down, backbite, criticize other people, our church and its leaders, no matter what they have done to us. It is positive proof that we are still in bondage, our relationship with God is not right.

How to overcome Prayerlessness?

The steps towards overcoming prayerlessness is to admit, repent & then confess that one has made this mistake. ( Reflect when was the last time you went to the sacrament of reconciliation). Like I am reminded when I first met the Lord I found it difficult to be faithful to my time of prayer. When I went for confession I told my confessor about my struggle & distractions during prayer time. My confessor told me make distraction the topic of your prayer, but persevere, do not give up. I thank God for my confessor & the advice he gave me. It really helped to struggle in my prayer life & not give up.

We in our prayer group read testimonies every Wednesday , but today I would like to read the testimony of St Theresa of Avila who struggled in her prayer life. She too faced many challenges in her prayer life but yet she persevered. Many of us present here will identify ourselves with her struggles. We too face these struggles. I have taken her testimony from the Catholic life of Saints.

St. Teresa of Avila

Doctor of the Church

Less than twenty years before Teresa was born in 1515, Columbus opened up the Western Hemisphere to European colonization. Two years after she was born, Luther started the Protestant Reformation. Out of all of this change came Teresa pointing the way from outer turmoil to inner peace.

Teresa's father was rigidly honest and pious, but he may have carried his strictness to extremes. Teresa's mother loved romance novels but because her husband objected to these fanciful books, she hid the books from him. This put Teresa in the middle -- especially since she liked the romances too. Her father told her never to lie but her mother told her not to tell her father. Later she said she was always afraid that no matter what she did she was going to do everything wrong.

When she was five years old she convinced her older brother that they should, as she says in her Life, "go off to the land of the Moors and beg them, out of love of God, to cut off our heads there." They got as far as the road from the city before an uncle found them and brought them back. Some people have used this story as an early example of sanctity, but this author think it's better used as an early example of her ability to stir up trouble.

After this incident she led a fairly ordinary life, though she was convinced that she was a horrible sinner. As a teenager, she cared only about boys and clothes and flirting and rebelling -- like other teenagers throughout the ages. When she was 16, her father decided she was out of control and sent her to a convent. At first she hated it but eventually she began to enjoy it -- partly because of her growing love for God, and partly because the convent was a lot less strict than her father.

Still, when the time came for her to choose between marriage and religious life, she had a tough time making the decision. She'd watched a difficult marriage ruin her mother. On the other hand being a nun didn't seem like much fun. When she finally chose religious life, she did so because she though that it was the only safe place for someone as prone to sin as she was.

Once installed at the Carmelite convent permanently, she started to learn and practice mental prayer, in which she "tried as hard as I could to keep Jesus Christ present within me....My imagination is so dull that I had no talent for imagining or coming up with great theological thoughts." Teresa prayed this way off and on for eighteen years without feeling that she was getting results. Part of the reason for her trouble was that the convent was not the safe place she assumed it would be.

Many women who had no place else to go wound up at the convent, whether they had vocations or not. They were encouraged to stay away from the convents for long period of time to cut down on expenses. Nuns would arrange their veils attractively and wear jewelry. Prestige depended not on piety but on money. There was a steady stream of visitors in the parlor and parties that included young men. What spiritual life there was involved hysteria, weeping, exaggerated penance, nosebleeds, and self- induced visions.

Teresa suffered the same problem that Francis of Assisi did -- she was too charming. Everyone liked her and she liked to be liked. She found it too easy to slip into a worldly life and ignore God. The convent encouraged her to have visitors to whom she would teach mental prayer because their gifts helped the community economy. But Teresa got more involved in flattery, vanity and gossip than spiritual guidance. These weren't great sins perhaps but they kept her from God.

Then Teresa fell ill with malaria. When she had a seizure, people were so sure she was dead that after she woke up four days later she learned they had dug a grave for her. Afterwards she was paralyzed for three years and was never completely well. Yet instead of helping her spiritually, her sickness became an excuse to stop her prayer completely: she couldn't be alone enough, she wasn't healthy enough, and so forth. Later she would say, "Prayer is an act of love, words are not needed. Even if sickness distracts from thoughts, all that is needed is the will to love."

For years she hardly prayed at all "under the guise of humility." She thought as a wicked sinner she didn't deserve to get favors from God. But turning away from prayer was like "a baby turning from its mother's breasts, what can be expected but death?"

When she was 41, a priest convinced her to go back to her prayer, but she still found it difficult. "I was more anxious for the hour of prayer to be over than I was to remain there. I don't know what heavy penance I would not have gladly undertaken rather than practice prayer." She was distracted often: "This intellect is so wild that it doesn't seem to be anything else than a frantic madman no one can tie down." Teresa sympathizes with those who have a difficult time in prayer: "All the trials we endure cannot be compared to these interior battles."

Yet her experience gives us wonderful descriptions of mental prayer: "For mental prayer in my opinion is nothing else than an intimate sharing between friends; it means taking time frequently to be alone with him who we know loves us. The important thing is not to think much but to love much and so do that which best stirs you to love. Love is not great delight but desire to please God in everything."

As she started to pray again, God gave her spiritual delights: the prayer of quiet where God's presence overwhelmed her senses, raptures where God overcame her with glorious foolishness, prayer of union where she felt the sun of God melt her soul away. Sometimes her whole body was raised from the ground. If she felt God was going to levitate her body, she stretched out on the floor and called the nuns to sit on her and hold her down. Far from being excited about these events, she "begged God very much not to give me any more favors in public."

In her books, she analyzed and dissects mystical experiences the way a scientist would. She never saw these gifts as rewards from God but the way he "chastised" her. The more love she felt the harder it was to offend God. She says, "The memory of the favor God has granted does more to bring such a person back to God than all the infernal punishments imaginable."

Her biggest fault was her friendships. Though she wasn't sinning, she was very attached to her friends until God told her "No longer do I want you to converse with human beings but with angels." In an instant he gave her the freedom that she had been unable to achieve through years of effort. After that God always came first in her life.

Some friends, however, did not like what was happening to her and got together to discuss some "remedy" for her. Concluding that she had been deluded by the devil, they sent a Jesuit to analyze her. The Jesuit reassured her that her experiences were from God but soon everyone knew about her and was making fun of her.

One confessor was so sure that the visions were from the devil that her told her to make an obscene gesture called the fig every time she had a vision of Jesus. She cringed but did as she was ordered, all the time apologizing to Jesus. Fortunately, Jesus didn't seem upset but told her that she was right to obey her confessor. In her autobiography she would say, "I am more afraid of those who are terrified of the devil than I am of the devil himself." The devil was not to be feared but fought by talking more about God.

Teresa felt that the best evidence that her delights came from God was that the experiences gave her peace, inspiration, and encouragement. "If these effects are not present I would greatly doubt that the raptures come from God; on the contrary I would fear lest they be caused by rabies."

Sometimes, however, she couldn't avoid complaining to her closest Friend about the hostility and gossip that surrounded her. When Jesus told her, "Teresa, that's how I treat my friends" Teresa responded, "No wonder you have so few friends." But since Christ has so few friends, she felt they should be good ones. And that's why she decided to reform her Carmelite order.

At the age of 43, she became determined to find a new convent that went back to the basics of a contemplative order: a simple life of poverty devoted to prayer. This doesn't sound like a big deal, right? Wrong.

When plans leaked out about her first convent, St. Joseph's, she was denounced from the pulpit, told by her sisters she should raise money for the convent she was already in, and threatened with the Inquisition. The town started legal proceedings against her. All because she wanted to try a simple life of prayer. In the face of this open war, she went ahead calmly, as if nothing was wrong, trusting in God.

"May God protect me from gloomy saints," Teresa said, and that's how she ran her convent. To her, spiritual life was an attitude of love, not a rule. Although she proclaimed poverty, she believed in work, not in begging. She believed in obedience to God more than penance. If you do something wrong, don't punish yourself -- change. When someone felt depressed, her advice was that she go some place where she could see the sky and take a walk. When someone was shocked that she was going to eat well, she answered, "There's a time for partridge and a time for penance." To her brother's wish to meditate on hell, she answered, "Don't."

Once she had her own convent, she could lead a life of peace, right? Wrong again. Teresa believed that the most powerful and acceptable prayer was that prayer that leads to action. Good effects were better than pious sensations that only make the person praying feel good.

At St. Joseph's, she spent much of her time writing her Life. She wrote this book not for fun but because she was ordered to. Many people questioned her experiences and this book would clear her or condemn her. Because of this, she used a lot of camouflage in the book, following a profound thought with the statement, "But what do I know. I'm just a wretched woman." The Inquisition liked what they read and cleared her.

At 51, she felt it was time to spread her reform movement. She braved burning sun, ice and snow, thieves, and rat-infested inns to found more convents. But those obstacles were easy compared to what she face from her brothers and sisters in religious life. She was called "a restless disobedient gadabout who has gone about teaching as though she were a professor" by the papal nuncio. When her former convent voted her in as prioress, the leader of the Carmelite order excommunicated the nuns. A vicar general stationed an officer of the law outside the door to keep her out. The other religious orders opposed her wherever she went. She often had to enter a town secretly in the middle of the night to avoid causing a riot.

And the help they received was sometimes worse than the hostility. A princess ordered Teresa to find a convent and then showed up at the door with luggage and maids. When Teresa refused to order her nuns to wait on the princess on their knees, the princess denounced Teresa to the Inquisition.

In another town, they arrived at their new house in the middle of the night, only to wake up the next morning to find that one wall of the building was missing.

Why was everyone so upset? Teresa said, "Truly it seems that now there are no more of those considered mad for being true lovers of Christ." No one in religious orders or in the world wanted Teresa reminding them of the way God said they should live.

Teresa looked on these difficulties as good publicity. Soon she had postulants clamoring to get into her reform convents. Many people thought about what she said and wanted to learn about prayer from her. Soon her ideas about prayer swept not only through Spain but all of Europe.

In 1582, she was invited to found a convent by an Archbishop but when she arrived in the middle of the pouring rain, he ordered her to leave. "And the weather so delightful too" was Teresa's comment. Though very ill, she was commanded to attend a noblewoman giving birth. By the time they got there, the baby had already arrived so, as Teresa said, "The saint won't be needed after all." Too ill to leave, she died on October 4 at the age of 67.

She is the founder of the Discalced Carmelites. In 1970 she was declared a Doctor of the Church for her writing and teaching on prayer, one of two women to be honored in this way.

St. Teresa is the patron saint of Headache sufferers. Her symbol is a heart, an arrow, and a book. She was canonized in 1622.

Conclusion

We too face many challenges when we pray, but we must remember that one must never get discouraged in our struggle to pray. The more difficulties we face the deeper we should dig our heels into God’s word as Romans 12:12 says,

REJOICE IN HOPE, BE PATIENT IN SUFFERING, PERSEVERE IN PRAYER.

We must develop our relationship with God to the degree the bible says is possible. Our desires, our will, our mind, our cares, our struggles, our families, our entire lives must be given over entirely to the control of the Holy Spirit. So do not give up but Persevere in your struggle to pray and God will bless you.
Amen

You shall be holy, for I am holy

How do you react to this call? Do you say, "That's impossible!"? And in one sense, that's the right reaction, for no one can be holy in the way that God is.

But that is NOT what Peter is saying. God is not saying "be holy in the same way that I am holy" No, God says, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." Because I am holy, therefore you are to be holy. This sort of holiness is what God calls us to. And if God has called us to be holy, then let us believe his promises, and in faith, obey his commands. So what does it mean to "be holy, for I am holy"?

We read Leviticus 11. We could have read some easier parts of Leviticus, but I wanted to start here precisely because it is the one that is hardest for us. God gives Israel a LONG list of unclean animals. These are animals that are NOT to be eaten. And what reason is given? "For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy." And if Israel didn't understand that, he repeats it: "You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the LORD your God who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy."

These animals seem to be selected because they are mixed up. Parted-hoof animals are supposed to chew the cud. Therefore any animal that is only one way is not clean; it is mixed up. Water creatures are supposed to have scales and fins. Any water creature that does not have fins and scales is unclean. It is inappropriate. Winged insects are supposed to fly-therefore don't eat those that don't fly. God will also tell Israel not to sow their fields with two different crops. They are not to sew garments with two different kinds of material. They are not to unequally yoke an ox with a donkey.

All of these prohibitions are surrounded with this idea of holiness. What does this mean? Each thing that God has made has its proper use. God is teaching his son about these proper uses. Of course, in Christ, the son comes to maturity, and learns that what he had been taught as a child was over simplified. The distinction between clean and unclean animals had been given to Israel to emphasize their holiness--their distinctness--their unmixed character. But in Christ, God is mixing Jew and Gentile. He has declared that no food is inherently unclean.

Remember that it was Peter who received this revelation from Christ in Acts 10. It was Peter who first understood that this covenantal holiness in the Old Testament could be applied to the Gentiles. And so when he cites Leviticus "be holy for I am holy", it is likely that he remembered the vision he had received, where holiness took on new meaning. No other book of the Bible uses this phrase, so it is certain that Peter wants us to think about its usage in Leviticus.

Besides chapter 11, it is found four times in Lev 19-21. Lev 19:2: : [read 1-4] The whole chapter continues with the refrain "I am Yahweh your God." So the whole chapter echoes with this call to be holy. But here holiness is reflected in faithful obedience to God's commands--especially reverence toward mother and father, Sabbath-keeping, and avoiding idolatry. These things are to set you apart from the nations. Lev 20:7: [read 6-9 in the context of the prohibition against Molech] Again holiness is described in terms of faithful obedience to God, especially in the context of idolatry and honoring parents. Lev 20:26 [read 22-27]: Here we have the most straightforward statement of God's call to holiness. Israel's inheritance in the land was dependent upon their holiness, because God had separated them out from the peoples in order that they might be holy. Because God separates Israel out from the nations, therefore Israel must separate between clean and unclean. Lev 21:6-8: (regarding the priests) If Israel as a whole was to be holy-separate from the nations, the priests were to be separated out from Israel. They had their own call to holiness. The priests were to be the holy mediators in the midst of a holy people. And indeed, so long as the priests maintained their holiness, the people could continue to maintain their holiness through the prescribed sacrifices and offerings.
So the phrase "you shall be holy, for I am holy" is intimately bound up with what we often call the ceremonial law of Israel. It is all about ritual cleanliness, ceremonial holiness, as well as moral purity. So what is Peter doing with this phrase? Is he just tearing it out of context?
To understand what Peter is saying, we need to understand what he is doing here. 1:1-12 sets forth the present reality and future hope of the elect exiles. To use a grammatical term, it sets forth the indicative. In grammar, the indicative mood sets forth a statement of fact. This is the way things are. This is who you are in Christ. The indicative is usually followed by an imperative: a command. Since this is who you are in Christ, act like it. The Ten Commandments have this structure. The indicative leads the way: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." The indicative sets forth what God has done in redemption. The imperative calls forth our response to God's gracious acts in history. Peter has set forth who we are in Christ. We have been born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. We are elect exiles who will come through suffering to glory--even as our Savior. This is the statement of the indicative. Now Peter is going to set forth the basic imperatives of the Christian life. In 1:13-25 Peter will use four imperatives: 1:13 "Set your hope," 1:15 "Be holy," 1:17 "conduct yourselves with fear," 1:21 "Love one another." Each of these imperatives is grounded in the indicative. Each of these commands is rooted in who you are in Christ.

Let's start with verse 13: 1:13 Peter calls us to be prepared for action. Literally, this says, "girding up the loins of your minds." If you were a man in the first century, you would be wearing a long tunic that would have reached down to your ankles. Imagine trying to do heavy labor in a dress (you ladies can imagine this better!) When a man (or a woman) had to engage in active labor, he (or she) would tuck the skirt of his tunic into his belt. This was called "girding up your loins" and indicated that you were about to get active. Girding up the loins of your mind, therefore, means to prepare for action. And being sober minded, means to be realistic, clear, not giddy or fanciful.

But what action are we preparing for? The action is the first command that Peter gives us: "Set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ." Hope is the central category of Peter's thought. We have been born again to a living hope (1:3). This hope is our cause for rejoicing as we saw in 1:6 (in this living hope you rejoice). This hope is the defining characteristic of the Christian life.

You will not understand anything in Peter's epistle unless you understand this. Our hope is eschatological. That's a fancy way of saying that our hope is not centered here. Our hope is centered on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Our hope is eschatological. "Eschatos" simply means "last." Eschatology is the study of "last things." When we say that our hope is eschatological we mean that our hope is rooted in what God does at the end of history. What does God do at the end of history? Peter says that we are to "set our hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

It's easy to see this as something entirely future. God has promised to take us all to heaven (pie in the sky by and by, right?). But that would ignore everything that Peter has told us. "According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." What happened when Jesus Christ rose from the dead? What happened when he ascended to the right hand of the Father? Peter explains this in Acts 2. Peter says that the prophet Joel had said that God would pour out his Spirit in the last days. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost means that the last days have come. (2:33) If God has raised Jesus from the dead, and poured out his Spirit upon all flesh, then the last days have come. Israel expected that in the last days God would vindicate his people, judge his enemies, and establish the new creation. And in Jesus Christ, that is exactly what he did. All that the Jews thought would happen to Israel at the end of history, has happened to Jesus in the middle of history. And because it has happened to Jesus, it now defines all who are in Christ.
So to say that our hope is eschatological does NOT mean to say that our hope is entirely future. Our hope is eschatological because it is entirely rooted in what God does in the last days. And that certainly includes what God has done in raising Jesus Christ from the dead. (v3-5) If God has raised Jesus from the dead, then the ends of the ages have come upon us. Because it has happened to Jesus, it will certainly happen to all who are in him. (v13) So everything else that Peter is going to tell you to do will be grounded in this eschatological hope.

Now we are ready to understand Peter when he quotes Leviticus. "As obedient children" I don't think that there is an adequate English translation for this. "Children of obedience" (Semitic idiom "children of" means those who are shaped by and oriented toward. Children of wrath perhaps the most famous; likewise "mother of" means the shaper--"necessity is the mother of invention").
So to be "children of obedience" means that obedience to our heavenly Father is simply the natural obvious pattern of our lives. You are children of obedience by virtue of your union with Christ, who himself is the obedient Son. This IS who you are. You ARE obedient children. Peter is not commanding you to become obedient children, He is saying that this is who you are. You are children of obedience.

And so, as children of obedience, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance. Do not return to the old pattern of life. You are to be cultural nonconformists. The world lives in the passions of ignorance. You cannot live that way anymore. Your minds have been girded for action. You understand who you really are in Christ. Therefore the whole way you think and live must change.
As he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct. Holiness means to be conformed to the new reality. We have heard the eschatological indicative: Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead. YOU have been born again to a living hope through HIS resurrection. HE suffered and was glorified. YOU are suffering and will be glorified, though even now you rejoice with a joy that is filled with glory, because you believe the promises of God, and you are obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Because of all this, as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct. Because you are no longer lost in the passions of your former ignorance, be holy for I am holy. All your conduct--all your life as it is visible to those around you--must be consistent with who you are in Christ.

We saw that in Leviticus, all the usages of "be holy for I am holy" referred to Israel's status as a separate people. Israel as a whole was to be the priestly people, a kingdom of priests to use the language of Exodus. The ceremonial cleanness and moral purity of Israel came to an even greater level in the priests. Peter is saying that the church is the new priesthood. (He will say it bluntly in the next chapter.) You are a holy priesthood. God, the high and exalted one, the one who himself is most Holy, has set you apart to be his own peculiar treasure. HE has called you. You did nothing to deserve this. You did nothing to merit his favor. HE called you. HE caused you to be born again to this living hope. Being holy in all your conduct is not a means to impress God.

Rather, being holy in all your conduct is simply the result of being called by the Holy One.
Peter goes on to explain how this ties in with his theme of elect exiles: (17-21) Peter grounded our hope eschatologically. Our hope is rooted in what God is doing in the last days in the resurrection of Christ until his revelation. He now grounds the ethical call to holiness Christologically.
V17 may not sound very encouraging: "And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds..." Do you cherish the thought of God judging you impartially according to your deeds? You ought to. You ought to conduct yourself with fear during your exile, not with a fear that God's judgment will go against you, but with the fear of the Lord. Verses 18-19 explain this fear. We live our lives in fear, knowing that we have been ransomed. Christ has paid the price to set us free from the condemnation of God. Peter uses the sacrificial language of the Old Testament, Jesus is the sacrificial lamb who takes away the sin of the world. God's judgment will still come. But as we saw last time that this is not a bad thing. Those who are in Christ can take comfort in the midst of God's judgment, because we know that through suffering we will come to glory.

Because in the last days God will judge every creature. (v20) At the cross God judged Jesus, as he had intended from the beginning. God's last-days judgment was declared in advance in Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ God has declared his final judgment regarding us. And because he judged Jesus in the middle of history, we have been ransomed from our futile ways.

I love how Peter says it. This eschatological judgment was foreknown from the beginning, but made manifest in the last time. Did you wonder why I emphasized the idea of the eschatological orientation of the Christian life? Well, here it is. Peter says here--as he had said in Acts 2--that the death/resurrection/ascension of Christ happened in the last times. The work of Christ is itself eschatological. The end of history has reached its climax in the middle of history, precisely at the time God foreknew from the beginning. And God has rendered his eschatological judgment in Jesus Christ for your sake who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

The point of the resurrection of Christ, and of his glorification, is so that your faith and hope might be in God.

The eschatological orientation of your hope comes together with the christological foundation of your obedience, to result in a gospel-centered love for the brethren. (v22-25) Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love... Notice that Peter does not say that you must purify your souls by obedience to the truth. Once again he starts with the indicative. He starts by saying that this is what characterizes you. You have purified your souls by obedience to the truth. By believing in Christ you have obeyed the truth. By being baptized you have purified your souls. Because you are the people of God, because you have been born again, not of a perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and abiding Word of God, you are those who are obedient to the truth. Therefore, having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart.

This is the point of who you are in Christ. The eschatological hope that we have in Christ, is played out day by day in the love that we have for one another. Again, Peter uses the language of being born again. (1:3) We have been born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1:22) Since you have been born again, love one another. You have been given a pure heart in Jesus Christ. Let that pure heart be the source of your attitudes and actions towards each other. We've seen how the command to hope is grounded eschatologically in the revelation of Christ. We've seen how the command to be holy is grounded christologically in the death and resurrection of Christ. Finally we see how the command to love is grounded kerygmatically in the preaching of Christ.

Peter commands us to love one another from a pure heart. That pure heart comes to us through the new birth, which itself comes through the living and abiding word of God. Peter cites Isaiah 40, which was the proclamation of the gospel of restoration from exile. Isaiah spoke to the exiles, and proclaimed peace, reminding them that though Zion had suffered great tribulations, yet now God was bringing redemption. Isaiah called upon the exiles to remember that while man fails like the grass, the Word of the Lord remains forever. God will do what he has promised. His word will never fail. And then Peter says simply and this word is the good news that was preached to you.
The living and abiding word of God which brings new life, the imperishable source of that pure heart that God has given us, is nothing other than the preaching of Christ.
Paul says it another way; "how will they believe unless they hear, and how will they hear unless someone preaches to them--as it is written, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of them that bring good news." Guess the reference of Paul's Old Testament quote? Isaiah 40 The same passage Peter cites to show his hearers that the proclamation of the gospel of Christ is the power behind the love that we show one another.

This gospel, the proclamation that what Israel had expected God to do for them at the end of history, God has done in Jesus in the middle of history, thereby bringing the end of the ages upon us--this gospel is the living and abiding word that changes us!

Our love for one another is grounded in the preaching of this word, because we are not saved in isolation from each other. If you are united to Christ, then you are united to one another. And the new birth that you have received cannot help but produce that pure heart that earnestly loves one another.

What on earth am I here for???

A life devoted to things is a dead life, a stump; a God. Shaped life is a flourishing tree (Proverb 11:28)

Unless you assume a God (living or dead), the question of life’s purpose is meaningless.

Therefore, you were born by His purpose and for His purpose.

The search for the purpose of life has puzzled people for years.

You and I can ask a question to ourselves whether there is a SEARCH which is possible…..

In search there has always been a possible possibility of looking within (its good and natural) be it positively or negatively or rather even neutrality but what in making an effort to understand that you and I ever made by God and for God. This surely will make some sense it not much sense. WE (You and I), see and know philosophers who ask questions like what is the meaning of life, what is the truth, and whatever else you can think of.

Let us think of Revelation…..

The revealing of whatever you are at – of God, of persons, of things, ……We need to see as they are or as they reveal to us. It is plainly this, I suggest, we find out or rather come to know, who we are and what we are living for or rather dying for.

Here Psalm 139 comes alive to me in my thinking thought. If you lay your hands or rather get a chance on this if your eyes flashes upon the Bible then do read or pray or reflect on this. It may shed some ray of light (hope) in what you let your thinking pause for a moment.

Thinking of Hope its like the air that we breathe and the water we need to sustain or rather a loved one waiting for his/her lover to return wherever one is gone in search of the above mentioned question to be which one is at quest.

A single thread to which you and I cling to, as a purpose.

Therefore, what is your life (James 4:14)

P…..

I asked a handful or rather a pinchful of my friends whether Preparation or rather preparing for something (life) is important and the response I got was SURELY!!!, always what a FOOLISH question you are asking. After giving a 1st and a 2nd thought to it, actually speaking we need preparation for life, but strictly speaking for the future may be. Here the racing thought that caught the glimpse of the sight of John the Baptist, preparing the way for the Lord. But I would like to settle my thought on the this word preparation or preparing of the present, living without any preparation but just living - in the present and for the present.

I think you and I, would create a mess in our living but if life is ME$$Y in this sense,
then

Why you and I were born?

&

Why you and I will die?

Was there or Is there any preparation for it?

SINK

Sink thyself compassionately in the heart of humanity, and thou shalt reproduce the harmonies of Heaven; lose thyself in the unlimited love towards all, and thou shalt work enduring works and shalt become one with the eternal Ocean of Bliss.

Man evolves outward to the periphery of complexity and then involves backward to the Central Simplicity, when a man discovers that it is mathematically impossible for him to know the universe before knowing himself, he then starts upon the Way which leads to Original Simplicity. He begins to unfold form within, and as he unfolds himself, he enfolds the universe. Cease to speculate about God, and find the all-embracing Good/Bad within there.

KICK

Life is full of Kicks…It is only when you and I give a start or a thinking thought to give a Kick or get a Kick in life. You will know what this Kick is. Here, I am referring Kick in an abnormal or rather a non-sensical way though it makes a certain not willed sense.

I was screening this film or movie titled, Thillalangadi directed by Jeyam Raja.

Jeyam Ravi’s previous films with his elder brother Raja have been commendable remakes and Thillalangadi isn’t an exception. Director Raja has copied each and every shot from the original version Kick. Of course, the film has been delivered in an entertaining manner with the attempts of savoring the universal audiences. Kudos to Surendar Reddy: the maker of original version for crafting a commendable tale and gripping screenplay.

Buzz up!

To be precise, Jeyam Raja can be doubtlessly ennobled as the ‘Best Remake Director’ for exactly replicating others’ ideas. Of course, Kick itself was inspired from Hollywood’s famous thriller Catch me if you can, but it was only with the plot. Thillalangadi isn’t different from Kick. The only difference is couple of additional songs.


Krishna (Jeyam Ravi) is a happy-go-lucky youngster, who often commits himself into risks as he feels the right Kick over it. Well for Nisha (Tamanna), what starts as a hatred turns into love with Krishna. But sooner as she finds her beau so irresponsible swapping jobs often, she breaks up with him. Sooner the story shifts to Malaysia, where Nisha’s parents arrange her marriage with Krishna Kumar (Shaam), a tough and honest cop. Krishna uncovers that he has traveled all the way to Malaysia to trap a smart thief, who has been looting crores of money from leading tycoons and politicians. The intriguing part of the film is about the fact that the thief is none other than Nisha’s ex-boyfriend Krishna.

Rest of the film is all about how Krishna wins back the heart of Nisha and the reason behind his robberies having a substantial reason.

The biggest problem with Thillalangadi is about each and every actor aping the characters of Kick. Be it the lead actors Ravi and Thamannah or Santhanam imitating Telugu actor Ali, it’s really absurd and Raja should have focused letting them act their own way. Tamanna looks cute, but again her imitation of Ileana could have been avoided. Just watch out for her gestures while performing aerobics as it’s too clumsy. Ravi looks cute and chirpy and his performance during last 45 mins is perfect. Vadivelu is good with his comedy tracks while Santhanam doesn’t get enough footage. Shaam is extraordinary with his mind-boggling acting. He looks fit and perfectly suits the role of a tough cop. It’s better if Shaam continues to choose such roles in future. Prabhu excels with his minimal role and Suhasini sleepwalks through her role. Radha Ravi evokes laughter with his dialogues. But the silliest part is about Raja copying even the lines ‘Jil Jil Jiga’ from Telugu as it is often uttered by Manobala (The reason ‘Jil Jil Jiga’ appears in Kick is that because the famous song in ‘Happy Days’ starts with these fancy words).

Just as mentioned before, Raja hasn’t strained him even to the least extent. The screenplay from the beginning till the end is the same as in Kick. At least Raja could’ve avoided the minuses of the original version as second hour is too long and sluggish except the flashback sequences and climax.

Musical score by Yuvan Shankar is okay while Rajasekhar’s cinematography is mediocre. Editing looks sleek and stylish.

On the whole, Thillalangadi is a family entertainer as it carries the right mix of fun, romance, sentiments, and action. Next time Raja makes a film, we request him to come up with his own ideas rather than remaking films.

Production: Editor Mohan, Kalanidhi Maaran

Banner: Sun Pictures, Jeyam Company

Direction: Jeyam Raja

Casts: Jeyam Ravi, Tamanna, Shyam, Vadivelu, Santhanam, Mansoor Ali Khan, Prabhu, Livingstone, Thyagu, Sathyan, Mayilsamy, Deepu, Suhasini, Nalini, Lakshmi, Latha Rao, Chandra Lakshman, Lollu Sabha Manohar, John Vijay, Balaji, Jayaprakash and Raja

Music: Yuvan Shankar Raja

Lyrics: Vaali, Na.Muthukumar, Vivega

Cinematography: Rajashekar

Art: Milan

Action: Rocky Rajesh

Verdict: Watch it once and you will want to watch it again

I must say a heartbreaking-touching one, a MUST WATCH (*****). The film has a Kick in its style as the actor goes on to show that life to be lived or dead needs and ought to have a KICK. The Kick that comes from the heart and touches million of other hearts including mine hopefully yours. He (the actor) sort of invites you and me, to seek for this Kick in our own lives. Whatever you do, say, think ought to have a Kick. Now you may question as to why only KICK? And all other queries related to KICK. You want to know it then discover it for yourself as to what is this K……

FRESHNESS AND NEWNESS

Isn’t it funny placing both synonyms – yet autonyms by stressing the ness of fresh and new? Our lives living 24X7 is this f and n. Why do I say this, it’s because I think and feel it every moment of my life. Take for instance, you and me, and our daily living or rather task or even more appropriate our daily activities and duties, or whatever you want to name it or call it. I would like to be a more specific and get to the nitty-kitty of this but I take for granted that you will understand the thinking I am sort of elaborating at this juncture. Believe me folks that it is simply living what U are and you will experience it in your everyday life. Keeping in mind the other side or the dark side that you and I have to face in the given situation and background and circumstances and the life style of living but whatever you are thinking is something to be in that ness. I may be bias in my thinking here of being subjective neglecting the objective of the U. But friends, looking around and within, I know you feel the inch of pain anytime and every time you go through long and short time just the opposite of what I am saying or rather thinking here and now. I think this may be a suitable possible possibility, if you give your mind a taste of this thinking. It may seem that you may like it or reject it, because of its bitterness coated with sourness which might be called as nonsensness that may be too salty or spicy to the tongue (mind).

FASTRACK

YoUth & I today want to have everything fast because everything is on Fastrack. We seek everything from the material to the spiritual, or vice versa, if it exists. You and I want to have everything that is latest, fastest, on the click, quick as one snaps the finger, and as soon as possible making believe. But we have never thought as to where is it taking or leading you and me. We have earnestly swayed ourselves to this willing willed without giving a thinking thought to this willed will in the though thinking. There’s no time really but virtually yes to think and feel…..what??? Lets be real in thinking about the reality of U and me in this reality of f*****cking unmoved moved world.

The Epoche [{(!@#$%^&*)}]

This for me personally seems to be the reality of life. What do you think about this fact although an interpreted interpretation by the interpreter?

The Epoche simply means if you are not in line with the thinking thought of, me, its bracketing. Whether you and I, choose, decide, walk the path thought about or whatever else. It’s basically and always bracketed or bracketing or will bracket. Its not that you and I tend to bracket in life although it may be happening at a wide range with ultimate danger, we slant ourselves to bracket. It may seem as something positive or as something negative, or somewhere in between, again even here there is bracketing taking place. As I am expressing and as you are reading, there is epoching taking place, even now as you and I think and do …..

PHENOMENOLOGY OF RELIGION

Introduction
Religion is popular metaphysics that is an expression in sensu allegoric of what philosophy or metaphysics proper expresses in sensu strict et proprio for the benefit of that great majority of people who are not capable of thinking but only believing and are susceptible not to arguments but only to authority. I think that in today’s world and living in a Living Phenomenology which is very much existential and hermeneutical in its Methodology. I would explore My Phenomenology of Religion in this way approaching the hermeneutical-existential Phenomenology.

Nietzsche, It is the positive thinking that counts as genuinely religious thinking. It is man’s need that constitutes the essence of religion.

Schopenhauer, An attempt made at knowledge of that which is beyond nature on the given phenomenal appearance of things, the thing in itself, the study of the supra-natural. Death is first, and the most essential function of any authentic religion.

Socrates, The authentic philosophy is a preparation for death. The essential is that of a guiding star of, integrity and virtue. It is a mystery, beyond comprehensive of masses and an awe before the unknown.

Tertullian, It is thoroughly credible because it is absurd, It is certain because it is impossible.

Derrida, learning to live means learning to die.

Santiago Zabala, speaks of rebirth of religion, by death of God, and the secularization of the sacred, by deconstruction of metaphysics.

Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo, speak of the weak thought and the deconstruction of ontology. It is a relationship of reciprocity that is different, a gentler relationship, with innovation. It is an existential self-creation. It is the unending formation of oneself – bildung. The secularization submits to the weak thought, man finally learns to live together with himself. The man, who withdraws his attention from the world and concentrates on this world and this time, exerts himself to realize – emptying out of itself.

John Hick, Given such first hand awareness of the divine, the appropriate philosophical apologetic is a defense of the rationality of trusting and living on the basis of compelling experience of this kind. Religion is the human person’s response to the mystery of existence and quests for meaning in the midst of confusion.
Ninian Smart, Humanity is the measure of all things and devotion to human interests is the first duty of all the main purpose of religion. Metaphysics loses sight of existential problems. Meaningfulness of life is the primary end of religion. The task of phenomenology is not only solely concerned with matters of truth but also of value, feeling and needs to take into account the evocative factors.

Various Other Definitions
Mircea Eliade, The revelation of the sacred space possesses existential value for religious man, for nothing can begin and nothing can be done acquiring a fixed point. If the world is to be lived in, it must be founded. For religious man, nature always expresses something that transcends it. His survey with the sky, claims that our experience of it is necessarily religious because when we contemplate, the sky appears to us a wholly other.

Geradus Van Der Leevuw, Man’s search for Divine Power. It is the extension of life to uttermost limit. The Levels of Phenomenology implies – Experience, Understanding, and Testimony. Phenomenology knows nothing of heaven and hell. It is at home on earth, although it is at the same time sustained by love of the beyond.

Louis Dupré, The religious Attitude is always object-oriented. The religious person does not create religions but is revealed to him in a disposition to perceive a deeper reality under the appearance of objects and events. Thus, the religious attitude is always directed beyond the self. The religion is dialectical, constantly moving in a dynamic relation between mind and reality.

Religious Experience
John Smith, Experience is basically a record of human beings encounter, feeling, suffering and discoveries in one’s transaction with the world. The root of religion can be found in experience when experiencer feels experience as encounter with an objective world in the dual sense that the encounter is something objective and that what is encountered at the same time transcends the subjectivity of the individual and of any finite collection of the individuals.

William Andrew, speaks of, a human work in which the sensuous is somehow meaningful. There is a movement of actualization and revelation. The more intuitive the symbol, the more its meaning is set in the mystery of total human experience.

William James, In his major work on religion, The Varieties of Religious Experience, James attempted to account for the value of religion. The question of how it came to be what it is, is a matter of classifying religious feelings and religious tendencies with other kinds of human experience which are found to be similar to them. The emphasis, here, is on spontaneous religious emotions rather than theological interpretations. In his view, religion considers three questions: the nature and authenticity of belief, the effect of belief and the existence and nature of the object of belief.

What constitutes Religious Experience?
An experience may be occasioned by reflection on the natural world. Here one becomes aware of the unity of all things, and may even sense a spirit of nature. There can be varieties of religious experiences. Swinburne offers the following categories:

1. Experiences which the subject describes in terms of God or the supernatural, based on perception of an ordinary non-religious object. For example, A beautiful sunset / sunrise.
2. Experiences which are ‘out of the ordinary’, and public. For example, Resurrection and appearance of Jesus to the disciples.
3. Experiences which involve sensations private to the individual. For example, A dream – “Joseph’s dream – the angel spoke”
4. Experiences in which it is impossible to describe in words, yet feel that there is something to be described if only they had the words to do the describing. For example, Mystic
5. Experiences independently of perceived sensations in which one may feel that God is directly telling one what to do.

John Macquarie, Religion is the self-manifestation of Being as this is received and appropriated in the life of faith. It is a careful analytic description or to express the same idea in another way, it letting us see that which shows itself by removing that which prevents us from seeing the phenomenon as it actually gives itself.

Mariasusai Dhavamony, The inner meaning of religious phenomenon as it is lived and experienced by a religious person.

Levinas, speaks of face to face encounter, an abstract signification which cannot be comprehended.

Rudolf Otto, It is the deepest and fundamental element in all strong and sincerely felt religious emotion. It is to be found in strong, sudden ebullitions of personal piety, in the fixed and ordered solemnities of rites and liturgies, and again in the atmosphere that clings to old religious monuments and buildings, to temples and to churches. It may be peaceful and come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship or faster moving thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul resumes its profane, non-religious mood of everyday experience even violent, erupting from the depths of the soul with spasms and convulsions and leading to the strangest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy.

In a nutshell, Otto has reached the heart of the matter. He pins down this sort of experience for dissection in terms of a Latin phrase mysterium tremendum. He presents the tremendum component of the numinous that is being experienced as comprising three elements: Awefulness (inspiring awe, a sort of profound unease), Overpoweringness (that which, among other things, inspires a feeling of humility), and Energy (creating an impression of immense vigour). On the other hand he presents the Mysterium component in its turn has two elements, which he discusses at considerable length. Firstly, the numinous is experienced as, Wholly Other. It is something truly amazing, as being totally outside our normal experience. Secondly, here is the element of Fascination, which causes the subject of the experience of the numinous to be caught up in it, to be enraptured.

Conclusion
I have made a possible attempt in understanding the, ‘Phenomenology of Religion’ a board overview, by engaging myself (thought) in reading various phenomenologist and finally coming to a synthesis of my own phenomenology.

The approach which I have given slant to is simply but naturally bringing out my phenomenology of religion – The calling of subjective authenticity(I) with an objective outlook(the other, the world, the view) and sharing a genuine relationship, to the deeper meaning of the object(God), of this subject(religion).

Reflection
 Jesus, the resurrected
 Paul, the apostle
 Laity, the faith
 Romero, the witness

The Jain Saga

Kalikal Sarvagna Acharya Hemchandrasuriswarji Maharaj, The Jain Saga 1-3 (Trisastishalakapurush Charita): Brief History of Jainism, tr. Helen M. Johnson, ed. Muni Samvegayashvijay Maharaj, Ahmedabad: Acharyadev Shrimad Vijay Ramchandra Suriswarji Jain Pathashala, 2010, ` 1000.00, PB, Part 1 – pp 532, Part 2 – pp 563, Part 3 – pp 604.

It would not be far-fetched to say that a large portion of humanity (at least majority of Indians) is quite familiar with the famous and majestic 55ft granite monolithic sky-clad statue of the Jain Saint, Gomateshwara or Bahubali of Shravanabelagola Hill situated in the Hassan District of Karnataka, India (158km from Bangalore/Bengaluru). It dates back to the years 978-993 CE built by the Ganga minister and commander Chamundaraya. Jain Scriptures attest that Bahubali was the second of the one hundred sons of the first Tirthankara (spiritual victors/omniscient leaders), Lord Rishabha and King of Podanpur. Numerous pilgrims flock to this place to participate in the mahamastakabhisheka (great anointing done once in every 12th year) with milk, curds, ghee, saffron and gold coins. This Bahubali’s story is wonderfully detailed in The Jain Saga 1 in Rsabhaswami Charitra, unit 5 of chapter one, pp 169-206.

The original Sanskrit title is Trisastisalakapurusacharitra (literally trisasti – sixty-three, salakapurush – illustrious people, charitra – lives) written by Acharya Hemchandrasuriswarji Maharaj (Vikram Era or Vikram Sambat 1145-1173; 3-583), a pioneer in Sanskrit Literature, in the 12th century of the Vikram Sambat (1089-1117 CE). King Kumarpal of Gujarat (3-546, 581) made this personal request to the Acharya (3-547, 582) to put down for posterity some of the fundamental tenets of Jainism (3-583) which he readily and willingly complied with so as to make available the ‘sermons invaluable for the comprehension of Jainism’ (1-xxvii).

The three volume-translation of The Jain Saga is a veritable treasure, a literary classic of the story of 63 illustrious persons of the Jain world (1-iv). In actuality, it comprises nine books of the Jain Scriptures and its sacred history: 24 Tirthankar, 12 Chakravarti, 9 Baldev, 9 Vasudev and 9 Prativasudev totaling to 63 in all. Perusing through the three volumes or parts, one comes across a unfathomable mine of religious truths – being the central focus, and the doctrine of karma (transmigration) blended masterfully and skillfully with other topics as well, viz., key elements of various sciences (e.g., Life, Cosmic, Karmic, Molecular, general, Social, Astronomical and Dream Sciences), life experiences (anatomy, psychology), art and architectural knowledge (elaborate descriptions of temple, cities and palaces), literature, ethics, law, stories, myths, proverbs and warfare. Furthermore, in this ‘Jain-Journey’ one discovers other topics like Logic, Metaphysics, Philosophy (e.g., Carvakas, 1-19; allusion to the Vaisesikas 2-91; Sankhya by Kapila 3-322), Philology and Theology which are dealt with in such a way as to enlighten every Jaina follower and any reader. Since the focal point of this scripture is to purify the soul to attain total freedom, the numerous myths, short stories, proverbs and parables are heavily embedded with morals.

The Jain Saga 1 (Rsabhaswami Charitra) opens with ‘The Auspicious’ page which is the opening prayer of worship and blessing made to the Tirthankars who have become arhats (emancipated). The incarnational stories, ‘complete in each form with minute and intricate knowledge and code of conduct’ (1-vi), keep the reader ever eager to continue. At the outset, the discourse (sermon) on Dharma is highly exhortative (9) followed by another one on samsara (121, 246, 423), and right knowledge-belief-conduct (122-25) which leads to the 12 vows of the layman (125). Since Jainism owes its origin as a reaction against Hinduism or Buddhism of that time, there are some apologetics (defences), viz., Exposition and refutation of the Carvaka system (19-22), statement and refutation of Ksanikavada of Buddhist doctrine (22), and the exposition and refutation of the Vedantin Maya (22-33). Some other instructive and informative stories are the following, viz., the origin of brahmans (218), the funeral ceremonies (231), the eight karmas (310), the people in the Manusyaloka (319), the inevitability of death (365), the origin of throwing bones into the Ganga after death (387), the story of disputed parentage of a boy between two women (433) which reflects the Old Testament judgment of Solomon (1Kgs 3.16), the story of hell-inhabitants (447), and the sermon on impurity of the body (466). Interestingly, Narada Muni with his craftiness finds space in all the three volumes. This volume consists of 10 chapters (1-10): chapters one and two contain 6 units respectively, while the other chapters do not.

The Jain Saga 2 (Sreyansanatha Charitra) deals with the lives of Tirthankars (11-21) and concludes with the famous and popular stories of Jaina Ramayana and Ravana. It begins with an invocation to the ‘emancipated’ Lord Sreyansa to bless all the Jaina followers. Some exhortative sermons and stories are: sermons on tenfold dharma, enlightenment and seven tattvas (61, 75, 89), story of the dove and hawk (208), sermon on the senses (229), on purity of mind (246), and the sermon on yatidharma and householders’ dharma (302). The sermon on the Kasayas (106) is enlightening in as much it details some basic human emotions as anger, forbearance, conceit, humility, deceit, sincerity, greed, contentment and the final emancipation. Further on, one comes across Ravana’s lineage (318), his birth (324), Narada Muni’s involvement (343), story of the origin of animal sacrifices (344), Rama’s lineage (373), his birth (381) and his exploits and emancipation. Noteworthy is the allocation of space given to the Ramayana story (373-500) in this volume (137 pages in all). Another detail that is usually omitted in the Ramayana stories is that ‘Sita visits Laksmana in hell’ (499) and takes him up to heaven. This Saga consists of 11 chapters (11-21): chapters 15 and 21 have 2 units each, 5 units in chapter 16, 3 units in chapter 18, 11 units in chapter 20, while the rest do not have any.

Neminatha Charitra opens the pages of The Jain Saga 3 which contains the marvelous and inspiring stories of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th Tirthankar of Jainism: Neminath, Parshvanath and Mahavirswami together with the incarnations, life, wonders and death of Krsna (114), life of Rukmini (125) and the adventures of Draupadi and Pandavas together with their cousins, Kauravas (147). It narrates also the popular story of Nala and Davadanti (72) together with the others: episode of the swan (60), garden sports (188), naga and nagini (261), two bulls (360) and story of Candana (401). Noteworthy are the 27 incarnations, life, works and emancipation of Mahavira which occupy a good portion of Part III, 272 pages in total (318-580). Among many instructions, the triratna (3 jewels) of right belief, right knowledge and right conduct is a prominent one (200). The practice of this leads one to emancipation provided one has self-control over wine, meat, butter and honey, fruits and vegetables and eating at night (200-203). The last chapter 24 narrates the illustrious story of the prominent tirthankara Mahavirswami who is ordinarily accepted (by the scholars) as the founder of Jainism. This third saga contains just 3 chapters (22-24): chapters 22 and 24 have 13 units respectively while chapter 23 just 3.

The Jain Saga 1-3 contains some salient characteristics without their enumerations here one would not do justice to this Saga. In each volume one finds a well-reflected foreword, at the outset, by a prominent personality (even two) of the Jain Society (1 – xxxi, 2 – vi, 3 – vi) who gives a brief outline of the volume thereby making it very handy for a man in the street. The editor’s ‘Preface’ (1-iv) becomes another launching pad to venture into the richness of the Saga. The publishers have done another commendable job of providing a guide to the readers and for the soft copy users in each volume (1 – xxix, 2 –iv, 3 – iv). The focal point of each story is the ‘spiritual freedom’ that transforms one to live ‘a meaningful and purposeful life’ here and to attain ‘emancipation’ hereafter (1-v). The footnotes at the end of each volume (1 – 487, 2 - 513, 3 – 584) further clarify the numerous sacred stories and instructions spread throughout the volumes. They are also very informative. There is the section of stuti or stotra (hymn of praise) after almost every ‘incarnation’ which in a way sums up the life of a tirthankara. While there is also ‘aradhana’ (worship) which however is found only in Part 3, 332. As a reader devours the pages, he/she is truly intrigued and fascinated by the ‘decorative’ usage of similes, metaphors, ‘prosperous with wisdom, loaded with emotion’ (3-ix), comparisons, hyperboles, euphemisms, antithesis, in the narrations throughout the pages of these three volumes.

Another interesting feature is the concluding note of every volume which is very eschatological: “Emancipation will surely result to the one meditating on these biographies…” (1-486), “May the [lives of]… who have been described in the preceding, give pleasure to your ears” (2-512), and all that has been described and written in the Salakapurusa ‘in a profusion of beautiful words’ (583) is for ‘instruction in dharma’, and as long as this earth with its oceans and islands, as long as the sun and the moon last, ‘may this Jain poem named Salakapurusacarita, survive on earth’ (583). And this is the belief of every devout Jain.

To give a brief biography of Acharya Hemchandrasuriswarji Maharaj: We make a retrospective journey to Gujarat of the 12th century of V.S. when the Saiva King Siddharaj Jaysingh was the powerful ruler. The Svetamber fourfold Jain Sangh became a great influence in Jaysingh’s kingdom with Acharya Vijay Devchandrasuriswarji Maharaj as its head whose humble yet brilliant disciple was the author of this Jain Saga. Acharya Hemchandrasuriswarji was born in 1145 V.S. (1089 CE) in the Vaishakh month, in Gujarat. He was named Changdev and at a very tender age was well-instructed in the ways of asceticism by his mother Pahini. So much so, at the age of nine (1154 V.S.), he became a Jain ascetic assuming the name Muni Somchandra. His spiritual-intellectual level was extraordinarily high that he mastered all the scriptures in all their different ‘combination of space, time, substance and nature’ (1-xvi) that soon he was accepted by his contemporaries as the authentic leader of Jainism. His zeal for the scriptures burned so much that he desired to ‘create new scriptures for easy understanding’ for all so that they would be liberated from the ‘universal law of Karmic bondages’ (1-vi). His zeal was rewarded none other than the goddess of knowledge Saraswati who gave him the boon to fulfil his noble desire to accomplish over ‘three and half crores stanzas’ (1-xvii). He also was bestowed with miraculous powers; thus he was given the name ‘Hemchandra’. Vimleshwar Yaksha gave him the boon to ‘maintain all promises to lighten up the religion of Jainism’. In the year 1192 V.S. (he was just 17), Hemchandra was given the charge of leading forward the Jain Sangh with the title of ‘Acharya’. Although he travelled far and wide, he preferred to settle down in Patan, N. Gujarat. Under the patronage of the Saiva King Siddharaj, he wrote a Sanskrit Grammar named Siddha-hem Sabdanushasan and reconstructed and restored Girnartirth.

Kumarpal, the king’s nephew succeeded Siddharaj to the throne and became a Jain himself at the age of 70. It is stated that the new Jain King constructed some 14,000 Jain temples, shrines and installed beautiful idol of Tirthankars (1-xix). He did not stop at this. He made his kingdom totally ‘Jain’ and thirsted more and more to deepen his Jaina knowledge. Thus he requested the Acharya to write this Saga of 34,000 stanzas in Sanskrit ‘with simple words, using all kind of grammar, composition, figures of speech, construction of sentences, the usage of appropriate words rich with illustrations of places and persons with a definite meaning to everything’ (1-xix). After completing this unique Jain Saga together with other twenty precious works (1-xx), the great Guru passed away in 1173 CE. After two months, his great patron King Kumarpal too died.

Being a ‘must read’ (1-v, 3-ix) Holy Book for a member of the Jain faith or any interested reader (‘for one and all’), many versions (and 9 translations; 1-xx) were made in the course of time some of which were not very satisfactory. The excellent translation (of course, not without some misinterpretations as pointed out by the editor of these three parts, 1: v-xv) that we deal with has been done by Late Miss Helen M. Johnson, a great lover of Indian Ancient Scriptures, between 1931-42 CE and edited masterfully by Muni Samvegayashvijay Maharaj, although as he himself attests that ‘the translated version is so precise and perfect to the point, almost never missing a single word from the original’ (1-xxi). It was through the instrumentality of Jignesh Hukmichand Shah that this Saga was made available for editing and publication (1-xxv). Moreover, Miss Helen did find the Saga rich in new linguistic material and every technicality was discussed with sadhus and Jain disciples and professors (1-xxiii) before putting them in paper.

On the other hand, being a devout Jain, a great Sanskrit scholar and a lover of English literature, the editor shows great zeal in orthodoxy (as a help to the Jain community in the first place and for anyone of good will) as he, with due respect, corrects the translator in her few misinterpretations of the Jain scriptures through numerous charts of comparison (1: vii-xv). The editor has done a highly commendable service of giving the biographies of the original author in Part 1 (xvi) and the translator’s (Miss Helen M. Johnson, xxi) as well. Above all, the ‘introduction to the story’ (1-xxvi) by the translator [Miss Helen M. Johnson] becomes an excellent and enlightening tool of comprehension as one undertakes a journey through the Saga. Something original or innovative in these guides is the use of the English word italics which in its verb form is rendered as italised (1-xxix, 2-iv, 3-iv), while the standard dictionaries usually give as italicize. I think this usage will soon be conventional in the intellectual world. The typography is very user-friendly even for the senior-citizens excepting the following: ‘discriptions’ to be ‘descriptions’ (1-iv), ‘authen ticity’[sic] to be joined as ‘authenticity’ (1-vi), ‘stared’ to be ‘started’ (1-xviii), and ‘The walked’ to be ‘He walked’ (1-xxv). Notwithstanding, through this publication, Jain literature has been enriched greatly. I too would like to join hands and re-echo that The Jain Saga is a ‘must read’ Book because it will bring about development and emancipation!


Fr Aloysius Hemrom, sdb