On The Nature of Prayer

[Sitaram]

Some has written to me asking:

Question: Do you pray? I've wondered about prayer, in school we had
to memorize prayers, we learned prayers for every occasion, and we
just rattled them off at the proper time, usually not even thinking
about the words. My Mom says the same bible verse every day (if that
what works for her, thats fine with me). I find that type of prayer to be
lacking but I'm not sure what else to do.

Answer: I grew up with no prayer or religion. I entered a Greek
Orthodox Monastery at age 23 for one year, and remained Orthodox
for 20 years, participating in the prescribed prayer practices.

I next spent several years with Zen Buddhists, meditating and
observing their practices.

Next, I spent several years with Hindus, worshiping in their fashion.

Now, for me, my writing, my thoughts, are my meditation and prayer
and worship.

I thought I would gather together (below) some of the things I have
written during the past seven years regarding prayer in different
religious traditions.

=======================================

Some years ago, I was watching an interview on television with some
politician and his family, who were devout Christians. They mentioned
that they had been praying about some particular issue. They
described the words of their prayer. It was sort of like... "Lord, We
would like THIS to come to PASS, if a certain sequence of events
transpires, IF IT IS YOUR WILL, or, if THAT turn of events is not pleasing
to You, THEN we pray that SOME OTHER (desired thing) SHOULD come
to pass, IF THAT IS Your Will, or IF NONE OF THIS SHOULD work out
according to our wishes, THEN give us the equanitmity of
ACCEPTANCE, IF THAT is Your will,.... but in any and all events... THY
WILL BE DONE... AMEN!"

Well, what can I say! They certainly covered all the bases! Basically,
they were working out all the possible permutations and
combinations of outcomes. Funny, how Jesus said, "Your Heavenly
Father ALREADY knows your needs, BEFORE you ask".


Western religions are very QUID PRO QUO (something done in
anticipation of or exchange for something else). IF you do this THEN
YOU will be rewarded WITH THAT. But if you FAIL TO DO THESE OTHER
THING,.... then you will be PUNISHED with these consequences.
Eastern Religions, Hinduism and Buddhism and others, seem not to
be quite so QUID QUO PRO oriented. One notices that, while Christians
are always asking for one anothers prayers on various issues, Hindus
and Buddhists DO NOT request the prayers of others.


For a Hare Krishna devotee, prayer is the Mahamantra "Hare Krishna
Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare". The devotee vows during their initiation
ceremony to say this prayer/mantra, 108 times for each rosary
(prayer rope, mala), and 16 rosaries per day, for a total of 1728
mantras, taking between 2 hours and 3 hours per day. for the rest of their lives (this is a lifetime commitment). For them,
mantra repetition IS A FORM OF INCARNATION of Lord Krishna (God).


The mantra on the tongue is likened to young Lord Krishna dancing on
the heads of the poisonous serpent, Kaliya. With each step of Lord
Krishnas feet, the heads of the serpent were injured, and the serpent
began spewing venom in all directions. Lord Krishna asked Kaliya
"Why are you doing this?". Kaliya replied,"My Lord, you have created
me as a poisonous serpent. All I have is venom to offer You as an
offering. Where would I get Nectar to offer you. So I surrender to you,
and I accept my nature, and offer You the only thing which I have."

This notion of a snake offering venom in place of nectar suggests that if, with faith and devotion, we take whatever is troubling us or tempting us, and offer it up, that it shall be accepted and sanctified and we shall find shelter and relief.

It is considered that the "incarnation" of the Avatar in the sound and
vibrations of the Mantra is like unto the manifestation of the Avatar in
the cloth of the Sari of Draupadi. The enemies of the Pandavas were
trying to humiliate Draupadi by stripping her naked, but as they pulled
off her Sari, the Lord manifested as an INFINITE length of material, so
no matter how much they pealed off from Draupadi, she remained
fully clothed. This is sort of the reverse of the situation when Mother
Yashoda attempted to tie up young Lord Krishna to a pillar, to punish
him for his naughty pranks. No matter how much rope she fetched, it
was always one inch to short to encompass Lord Krishna, since this
was an attempt to BIND THE INFINITE. Finally, Lord Krishna took
mercy and allowed himself to be bound to the pillar, for which he
received the name Damodar (which means He who is bound at the
belly"). So the Lord, though it is His nature to be ABSOLUTE MASTER
OF ALL, yet simultaneously allows Himself to be BOUND IN SERVITUDE
to the Devotee.


It is only AT THIS MOMENT , as I write, that the resemblence between
the Crucifixion of Christ and the binding of Lord Krishna to the pillar
occurs to me. Interesting!


So in Hinduism, prayer is not necessarily FOR ANYTHING, in the quid
pro quo western sense. Rather, through Mantra, humanity CO-OPERATES with Divinity in ON-GOING avataric incarnation/manifestation.

[Sitaram]

I am attempting to avoid length limitations by breaking this into several posts.

=============================

Do prayers always get answered?

In Western (Abrahamic) religions, prayers are always prayers (or
requests) FOR SOMETHING. Such western religions are extremely
QUID-PRO-QUO (i.e. something done in exchange for something of
value expected).

It is interesting to note the english etymological origin of the word
BEAD (as in a mala of beads which one might use for prayer, or a
bead necklace which someone might wear as an adornment).
In the ancient Church of England, a Bede was a member of the Clergy.

The english word "BEDE" OR "BEAD" derives from the same root as
BID or BIDDEN, i.e. I BID you to do this or that favor for me, or I
REQUEST thus-and-such.

The original function of such bead malas in many cultures (not just
english or western), was to COUNT prayers or mantras. We call such
beads a ROSARY. Even modern Greek men may be observed to carry
"worry beads" which they fiddle with when they are nervous or idle or
passing time in coffee shops or taverns. Strings of beads became
trinkets or jewelry adornments for those people who lost the interest
or energy or perserverance to continue in the actual activity of prayer
itself.

Now, we may observe that such QUID-PRO-QUO prayer consists of
requests or bids or petitions to the Divinity either to acquire pleasant
things (food, shelter, spouse, children, etc), or to be spared from or
delivered from unpleasant things (such as illness, death, captivity,
etc).

If we examine one message of the Gita, Lord Krishna explains
(paraphrasing) "it is INEVITABLE that dukkha and sukkha, pleasure
and pain, good and evil come to all embodied souls or jivas; BUT THAT
PERSON WHO HAS YOGIC EQUANIMITY in the face of such pleasures
and pains, has truly advanced in their spiritual development"....

So we see in eastern religions something which is different from the
quid pro quo western mentality.

But if we are to develop equanimity and surrender in the face of
pleasures and sufferings, what then becomes the purpose and
function of prayer?

Lord Krisha explains elsewhere in the Bhagavad-gita
"I am the sacred syllable AUM.... of sacrifices I am JAPA (ceaseless
prayer of mantra)...".

This type of prayer is not prayer FOR anything at all. Such mantra or
"prayer of the heart" as Greek orthodox Christians would call it, is a
form of AVATARIC manifestion. God literally APPEARS AND
MANIFESTS within the sounds or vibrations or vritti of the mantra or
prayer or divine name.

I see two enormous problems regarding religion:

1.) If there is a purpose to sickness and suffering, why do people
constantly seek healing miracles? But if there is NO PURPOSE to
sickness and suffering, then WHY anticipate mercy and favors from
the CREATOR of such a world, which contains pointless sufferings and
disappointments?

2.) If we assume that God is BOTH eternally perfect (complete) AND
ALSO perfectly WISE, then here is a problem: Since God is COMPLETE,
there was no need for creation therefore, God performed a
meaningless, senseless act in creating the universe; yet that
contradicts the assumptiom of God's WISDOM. But, if there WAS A
PURPOSE for creation, then GOD lacked something PRIOR to creation,
WHICH contradicts the assumption of God's completeness.

[Sitaram]

In the Mahabharat there is a story about a King and Queen who are
driven into exile from their kingdom and are forced to live in a simple
hut in sight of the majestic Himalayan Mountains. The King is a very
religious person and always performs his prayers and offerings, in
good times and in bad. One day, the Queen emerges from their
impoverished hut and sees the King ardently engaged in prayer and
worship. She asks him, "Why do you continue to worship God so
ardently, seeing that we have been deprived of all our riches, and live
in such poverty?" The King points to the majestic Himalayan
Mountains in the distance and says, "See how grand, majestic and
beautiful the Himalayas are! Do those mountains bear some guilt for
our misfortunes? Should I cease to gaze upon them and admire them
and praise them, and spite my eyes and my senses to behold them no
more, simply because of my misfortune?"

Only a very few actual writings and prayers have come down to us
from Lord Chaitanya , the sixteenth century Vaishnav saint. One of
those prayers basically says, "O Lord, I do not ask for money, or
pleasures, or even liberation from the cycle of birth and death, but
only to serve at Your Lotus Feet life after life, even if your foot should
crush me." We see in the Ramayan that when Lord Ram (an avataric
incarnation of God) shot the wicked Balin, who had usurped his
brothers throne, Lord Ram had compassion upon him and offered to
heal his wound. But Balin replied, "How many lifetimes might come
and go without receiving the honor to die at the hand of the Lords'
Avatar." So Balin was seeking Union and Moksha, rather that further
life and enjoyments.

Christianity has a curious habit of asking other people for their
prayers. "Pray for me because I am sick. Pray for my parents. Pray for
my son and daughter. Pray for that nation torn by war, plague and
famine." Epictetus made an interesting observation in his Discourses.
He wrote, "Why do you pray to Jupiter for the safety of your son before
he embarks upon a long journey. Why not ask Jupiter for the
Equanimity of an Even-Keeled Spirit, to endure whatever good or bad
fortune might result." In the Bhagavad-gita, Lord Krishna, similarly,
says to Arjuna, "It is necessary that Joys and Sorrows should enter
each persons life, but he who endures them with Equanimity and a
balanced spirit is the True Yogin and master of the Self." The Western,
quid pro quo notion of prayer is to ask for something. The Hindu
notion is that each good and ill that we suffer is our very own doing; a
karmic consequence of some thought or action from this current life
or from a previous life. And furthermore, each good and ill that we
suffer is for our benefit. King Solomon basically said (if I may
paraphrase his writings) : "Every son whom the Lord loves he chastens
every one whom He receives, and places their souls in the fire of
adversity, until they reach a seven-fold purity like gold in the furnace."
There is a sort of impertinence in the notion of asking God to alter our
circumstances, if they are for our own benefit and instruction. Such
supplicatory prayer is almost a lack of faith in Divine Wisdom, Mercy
and Providence and a sort of insult to God. And the insult is
compounded when we do not even offer such prayers ourselves but
ask others to do it for us. If we had an important favor to ask of a
King, and we sent a relative, to ask on our behalf, what would that
King think? It is for a busy King to dispatch a messenger to us, and we
are honored by such a visit but it is our place to petition in person, if
we are to even petition at all.

The early Greek Christian theologians told a parable about the three
types of devotion of believers; the Slave, the Hired Hand, and the
true-born Son. The Slave acts out of fear of punishment. The Hired
Hand acts from hope of reward. The true-born Son acts neither from
fear of punishment nor from hope of reward but from selfless love of
the Father. I am somehow reminded at this moment, as I write these
words, of Chaitanya's words concerning "the Lord's CAUSELESS
MERCY", and that verse in the Gita where Lord Krishna says
(paraphrasing), "What my Devotee has achieved, I preserve from birth
to birth, and what my Devotee lacks, I supplement and provide
through Grace." In the oddest sort of way, we see that God does not
create the physical Universe, or sentient beings as His goal. What God
CREATES or RE-CREATES, IS GOD. Even a Greek Bishop, Athanasius, of the fourth century, said, "God became man so that Man might become God."


Atheists and Agnostics might speak about man creating God.
Theologians might speak about God creating the Universe and
mankind. But there is in Hinduism, I suspect, some talk of God
CREATING GOD through the perfection of all beings in His Divine Lila
or Pass-Times.

[Sitaram]

Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox all use a form of rosary or prayer beads.

One reader writes:

I have very recently begun to practice Zen. I have also started to
attend a Zendo and while there I noticed that my teacher was wearing
the mala beads. It got me to thinking, "What are mala beads for?" I
looked them up and all I could find was that they are "counted during
prayer" types of information but nothing about where they came from
or how to use them. So my question to anyone who will answer is,

"What are they and what are they for?"

A second reader replies:

I do not know the history of these beads, but I use them. Having been
raised a Catholic, I used a rosary. Mala beads are similar in their
function. In Tibetan Buddhism a mala is used to have a tactile
awareness of prayer. Also many of the mantras are said in blocks of
108, which is the number of beads on a traditional mala. I find them
useful when I have to stand in line or am in some way 'waiting'. So at
those times I recite mantra or pray. But this is an activity which can
easily occur without a mala or a rosary. It is just easier sometimes to
stay focused when passing beads between one's fingers.

Sitaram replies:

The English word "bead" is related to the root of the word "bid" (as in
"I bid thee adieu", or "making a bid on a house"), as well as to the
ancient English clerical position of Bede. The primitive meaning is to
ask or request or call or summon.

The original function of beads was not cosmetic for decoration but
was indeed to count prayers.

The Russian prayer rope, or rosary or mala, is called the "chotke",
which is related to the Slavonic word for counting "chetatch". It is a
rope with elaborately woven knots.

The Greek prayer rope is called "kombvoskeene" (which means,
knotted rope).

The eastern orthodox Christian notion was that solid beads would
make a noise during use, and thus distract from prayer and
concentration.

The modern Greek "worry beads", which are not used for prayer, but
are "played" with while people are sitting idle, to relieve tension, or
pass the time.

As centuries passed, beads and malas came more to be a form of
decoration, or a toy, than a tool for prayer.

In the Epistles, St. Paul said "I would rather say FIVE WORDS, with
understanding....". Early Cristians came to believe that those "five
words" referred to the "Jesus Prayer", which in Greek is "Iesous
Xristos Uyay Theou Elayeson" (Jesus Christ God's Son, Mercy! or Lord
Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me, if one does not feel the
need to be a stickler about FIVE words). In Greek, the first letter of
each of the five words happen to spell "ICHTHYS" or fish, which is one
reason why the simply drawing of a fish was an early Christian
symbol.

When David went to meet and slay the giant, Goliath, Saul offered
David his own armour, but David refused it saying "I have not tried this
armor, so I will not use it in battle." Instead, David took a SLING and
FIVE stones. Early Christians saw these FIVE stones as mystically
representing the five words of the Jesus prayer, and Paul's "five words
with understanding". Of course, a sling resembles a prayer rope, and
when long prayer rope is held in the hand, hanging to the floor, it
resembles a SWORD. When David met Goliath on the "field of battle",
he said to Goliath, "You come against me with a sword and a shield,
but I DEFEAT YOU WITH THE NAME OF GOD."

A Greek monastic prayer rope has 300 knots (symbolic of the Trinity),
and a typical prayer rule is to say 33 such prayer ropes (for the 33
years of Christ's life), which typically takes a monk about two to three
hours to complete.

Hare Krishna devotees use a mala of 108 tulsi wood beads (tulsi is
sacred to Lord Vishnu). A good devotee will say 16 "rounds" of the
Hare Krishna mantra per day. Saying these prayers also takes about 2
to three hours per day.

The origins of the Jesus Prayer can be seen in the Gospels in several
places where afflicted people cry out to Jesus, as He is passing by,
saying "Son of David have mercy".

One of the functions of the Jesus prayer is to attract God's mercy,
grace or forgiveness. The eastern notion of mantric repetition is quite
different. The Hare Krishna devotee believes that the "sound of the
Divine Names" (Sabdha Brahman) is actually an Avataric
manifestation or Incarnation of God's presence. There is a story about
young Lord Krishna dancing on the many heads of the poisonous
serpent, Kaliya. This serpent began spewing venom everywhere, and
Lord Krishna asked him why he was doing it. Kaliya answered, "Lord, I
am only a serpent! Where shall I find sweet nectar or honey to offer
You. All I have is venom, so this is my offering." But in the Gita, we
read that God accepts ALL worship and offerings, even from those
ignorant of His nature. The devotee imagines his tongue as the
serpent Kaliya, and the sounds of the mantra as Lord Krishna
manifesting and dancing upon the tongue.

There is a verse in the Gita (I think in Chapter 7), where Lord Krishna
says "The ENTIRE UNIVERSE is strung upon me like pearls on a
thread". (Of course, in Sanskrit, the word for thread is SUTRA). So we
may see here also the imagery of God and Prayer and Beads and
Thread and Sutra "intertwined" (if you will pardon the pun).
Sutras became commentaries or "threads" on other scriptures. How
ironic that today, in the internet, message boards like this ALSO have
"threads", strings of related messages.

It is most interesting to note that even in Islam, there is the notion
that the "sacred Qur'an" when properly recited or chanted, is ITSELF,
non-different from Allah (similar to the notion of Sabdha Brahman, or
Brahman God as SOUND).

Also, in the Gita, Lord Krishna in one long passages, cites the many
things that He (God) is. One is of course the sacred syllable "AUM".

Another is "japa", or mantra chanting with a mala. Another is "Ram"
the archer/warrior. Lord Krishna also says of the offering at the
sacrificial fire, "I am the offerer, and the ghee butter which is offered,
and also the fire into which it is poured." Of course, we get our
modern word "ignition" from the ancient Sanskrit word "Agni" for God
as fire. The Greek word for "holy" is "Agios" or "Hagios". I have often
wondered whether that word is related to the Sanskrit "Agni", God as
fire, (from which we get our word "ignition").

How similar, the passage in the Epistle of James (I think), "Every good
gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from Thee,
the Father of Lights", which is said at every Liturgy, together with the
words "Thine own, of Thine own, we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all,
and for all". There is some resemblance in these words to the notion
of Krishna as the offerer, and the offering poured into the fire, and the
fire. Ancient theolgians asked the question "Why the seeming
redundancy of every GOOD gift and every PERFECT gift". Their answer
to this puzzle, is that every GOOD gift is our daily necessities of air,
food, and water, but that the PERFECT gifts are the Sacraments or
Mysteries of Eucharist, Baptism, etc.

[Sitaram]

There is a Jewish anecdote about two rabbis who went upon a long journey but are now returning to their home. As they reach the outskirts of their town, they look in the distance, in the direction of their neighborhood, and see a huge plume of black smoke which can only mean that someone's house is on fire. One of the rabbis prays "O, Master of the Universe, let it not be my house that is on fire."

The second rabbi looked at him in surprise and said, "Your prayer is not an ethical one."

Of course, if one analyzed the prayer, what it is really saying is "Let SOMEONE ELSE'S house be on fire."

[subterranean]

Wow Sitaram...five consecutive posts :D

When I was in sunday school, the teacher taught us that praying is one of the best way to communicate with the Lord. He listens to us. There's a pic hanging on my house wall. A girl is praying and there's Jesus behind her smilling. Tis to say that God is not actually far away up in heaven when you pray, but He's right there beside you though you can't see Him. Tis a sweet picture :)

[Adelheid]

Praying is not only talking to God, and telling Him all our needs, our requests, and things like that, but also listening to Him. It cannot be one sided. There has to be a balance- listening and talking. You are right when you said that

"Jesus said, "Your Heavenly Father ALREADY knows your needs, BEFORE you ask". "

But then, even if He does know, shouldn't you ask it? This verse come in the context about not worrying. Jesus was saying what good will worrying do? But I getting off track here. :-)

So, yeah, there has to be a balance.

[Sitaram]

A reporter once asked Gandhi, "Do you have any message which you would like to give for future generations?"

Gandhi, looking somewhat surprised, answered "My life is my message."

If we look at the Old Testament of the Bible, at the beginning of the First Book of Samuel, we shall see that it is a woman, Hannah, the mother of the Prophet Samuel, who enjoys a unique honor.

She is the very first, in the Bible, to utter the phrase "Lord of Hosts."

We see that phrase nowhere prior to the Books of Samuel, but it occurs frequently in the books which follow.

Hannah was childless and desparate. She was passing by the Temple in Jerusalem, praying for a child. The high priest, Eli, was standing nearby and saw her lips moving from a distance. He was young and his vision was the kean vision of youth, so he could discern such a minute detail as the movement of lips from a great distance. But he did not have the spiritual discernment which sometimes comes with age. He assumed that her lips were moving because she was drunk and he scolded her. Eli did not recognize prayer.

Hannah's prayer was answered. She had one son, the prophet Samuel.

Now, God had raised Samuel up as a prophet for a specific purpose, namely, to rebuke the sons of Eli and their priesthood for the error of their ways.

When Samuel was still a youth he joined the high priest Eli in the Temple to stand guard overnight. As Samuel was preparing to sleep, he hear a voice call his name "Samuel." Since Eli was the only other person in the room, Samuel said to Eli, "Did you call my name?" Eli answered "No, my son."

But a second time, Samuel heard the same voice calling his name. Again Samuel questioned Eli, who had spoken not a word.

Now three is the charm, is it not?

Eli began to realize that Samuel was hearing the divine voice of the Lord. Eli counselled Samuel, "If you hear that voice again, say 'Here I am Lord.'

Samuel did hear the voice again, and did as Eli instructed, and the Lord spoke to Samuel.

Scripture mentions that Eli was now old, with failing vision. The vision of his youth discerned the movement of lips but not the nature of prayer. But the discernement of old age allowed him to recognize the divine voice.

And even though the priesthood was corrupt, after the fashion that human institutions often become corrupt, yet the repository of oral tradition which Eli embodied was required even by a prophet, to be instructed in the proper manner to recognize and answer the divine voice.

Such is the nature of prayer.

[Adelheid]

Ummm, Sitaram, sorry for the correction, but I'm quite sure that God later blessed Hannah with more children after Samuel. In fact if you read 1 Samuel 2:21, it says that she conceived 3 sons and 2 daughters.

But this is off the topic of prayer. Just to let you know.

[Sitaram]

Sorry for my ERROR, but I was writing bleary eyed at 3 am, as quickly as I could type, from memory, and feeling with certainty, as I typed, that something would be in error. Its been about 10 years since I looked at these matters. As I look at what I wrote, my error was in the "one" (and isnt that always the way with Abrahamic religions?) Had I written "a son" I would have gotten off scott-free. But I did capture the gist of things, I think.

I suspect, if I read between your lines, that you were more anxious to let me know that I had made an error, and that you had found it, than to let me know of Hannah's maternal joy.

http://www.webedelic.com/church/hannahf.htm

My real error was not taking the time to google, for Lord Google has the power to make everyone look smart.

And here I thought someone might rush to tell me that I had written something moving, or profound, or meaningful, or insightful or original.
Such is our human nature, these earthen vessels of ours.


The business about Eli's good vision in youth, and poor vision but insight in old age, as well as the business about the importance of "oral tradition", which is placed in human repository such as Eli (those "treasures of gold in earthen vessels of which St. Paul speaks); I have never encountered those interpretations in my readings. They are something I saw a few years ago. I would be curious to learn if anyone else has ever made such observations.

I am hoping that one or two observations/insights during my life are original and make some small contributation to posterity.

[papayahed]

So prayer needs to be praticed to be good at it? or to understand what you getting out of it?

[Sitaram]

At this moment, I am reminded of a passage in the Gospels where Jesus tries to pray and heal someone (or cast out a demon) and FAILS the first time. He comments that certain tasks may only be accomplished through much prayer and fasting. Later, after work, I shall try to find the exact passage. There is also a passage where Jesus prays in the garden of Gesthemene, and literally "sweats blood" from the effort.

I mention these things to demonstrate that, from a Christian perspective, even Jesus indicates that prayer is difficult and challenging.

In the Hadith, Ayesha, the youngest and favorite of Muhammed's wives, describes the prophets appearance during the reception of a Surah, as one sweating with a fever.

I shall try to write more later.

[Violet]

Quoting Sitaram: "I suspect, if I read between your lines, that you were more anxious to let me know that I had made an error, and that you had found it, than to let me know of Hannah's maternal joy."

Nothing of that sort. You mistake me entirely. Seriously, I knew that several people thought Samuel was Hannah's only son. Even I used to think that until just recently, so my correction was just to set you right. Please don't be offended. :nod:

[Adelheid]

Ooopsies! Wrong user! :D But you know what I mean, Sitaram.

[Adelheid]

It's not Jesus, it was the DISCIPLES! This is a mistake indeed! But we all make mistakes don't we? :nod:

Here is the passage:

"Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. " Matthew 17:15-21

[Sitaram]

I am certain I remember a passage in the Gospels where Jesus himself had to try twice, demonstrating the human aspect of the "Theantrhopos" (god-man).

I am closer to 60 than most of you, and have memory problems due to the natural processess of aging, and I write all these things as fast as I can type, which is 80wpm, from memory (unless I have the leisure to do a google search), and I have to keep the details of many religions and scriptures in my memory.

But I would rather risk some error, and try to get a point across, or at least put an interesting issue on the table, rather than be paralyzed with the fear that I shall misquote something, or make a spelling error.

Years ago, a student remarked to me in college, "its easy to never make a mistake if you never do or say anything." I make my mistakes, like everyone else, but I think I have said a few worthwhile things which are new and interesting and of some use to someone. I shall search in google to see if I can find the passage where Jesus has to try twice. (and remember in the wilderness of Zinn, where Moses does not precisely follow Gods instructions to gain water from the rock, and for that error is required to give up his life on Mt. Moriah and never see the Holy Land.)


I am certain that I was once struck by something which showed that even Jesus had to make a second attempt. The whole point I am trying to make is not that I am an infallible memorizer of all religious texts (and Christianity is not my religion), but rather that prayer or spirituality is described as something difficult and challenging, and not a piece of cake, rolling off a log.

Someone messaged me this morning to mention that they are confused about whether prayer is easy or difficult. They were confused because I had earlier suggested to them that they have too much anxiety about what they should or should not do in life, being still very young (under 30) and yet they see me saying that prayer can be described as difficult. Here is my reply to them this morning:

I will paraphrase from memory (so I dont have to take the time to look it up) something which Jesus says to his disciples: "Some men are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and some make eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. This is a VERY DIFFICULT saying, BUT to those TO WHOM IT IS GIVEN, let them take up this way."

So, here is a very difficult spiritual path which is meant ONLY FOR A CERTAIN minority of people to undertake, who have been given by God the gift, the charisma, to have such strength and resolve. My point is, prayer can be most difficult, but it is not meant for everyone. Consider the man who said to Jesus "GOOD teacher/rabbi, what MUST I do to inherit eternal life?" Notice carefuly how Jesus answers. FIRST, Jesus says "WHY do you call ME good since we know there is only one who is good, and that is GOD? Now, here is an important point. Jesus COULD have said, "DO NOT call ME good, for there is none good except God." But the nature of Jesus statement is to ask the man in a very subtle fashion, "DO YOU personally recognize that I am God?"
Next Jesus answers, very simply, "Keep the commandments." When the man protests, "But I have kept them from my youth onwards" THEN it says, "Jesus then LOOKED UPON HIM WITH LOVE" (this is the moment when God grants the grace to do what is beyond average ability) and Jesus said, "IF you would perfect yourself, then give all that you have to the poor, take up your cross, and follow me."
Now THAT is the very difficult path, meant only for those few who are called, chosen, given the grace.

BINGO! I searched in google on "Jesus tried twice" and here it is:

http://members.aol.com/chasmcmull/pracha04.html

(2e)... Some people begged Jesus to touch a blind man, whom they had brought to him, Mar 8:22.
Note that Jesus tried twice before successfully healing the man.

Mark 8:22-26 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
22And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
23And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
24And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
25After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
26And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.

As I write, I am suddenly thinking about the time when Jesus asked several of his disciples to watch with him while he prayed. The disciples fell asleep as Jesus prayed SEVERAL TIMES (several attempts, if my aging brain has not once again failed me). So we perhaps see two things illustrated here. Number one, Jesus REQUESTS human cooperation/fellowship to accomplish some goal, rather than wave the magic wand of omnipotence in one fell swoop. SECONDLY, we see that several attempts are necessary (i.e. perserverance).

Also, the parable of the widow, who comes at night to the judges house with some request, and he tells her to go away, but she is PERSISTENT, and it is her perseverance which leads to success (a "squeaky wheel gets the oil" sort of thing.)

None of us have it within our power to be infallible and never make an error. But all of us have it within our power to choose never to gloat over the errors of another.

I am suddenly remembering an old archbishop in the Russian Orthodox church, who was becoming slightly senile. He was in the Cathedral giving a sermon, when suddenly he spoke of God's generosity in giving Moses and his people in the wilderness numerous QUAILS (birds) to eat. The seminarians chuckled under their breath because the quail in the wilderness were sent as a curse because the people were lusting after the savory fleshpots of Egypt which they had enjoyed in their slavery. The verse mention that the are cursed EVEN AS THEY SINK THEIR TEETH into the flesh (before they actually chew and swallow and consummate the act of eating).

Basically, life may be reduced to two things: a sequence of OH-ohs punctuated with an occasional Ah-HA!

The Oh-ohs are our mistakes. The Ah-has are our insights. On the internet, I notice far too much preoccupation with the Oh-ohs of others, and a poverty of Ah-has.

Last night, here, I posted one of the biggest Ah-has that has come to me in a long time, but no one even blinked an eye:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3863&page=1&pp=15



I wonder if, in Paradise, Allah shall grant anyone freedom from the thrall of boundless desire for pleasure and self-gratification. I wonder if anyone shall ask for such a boon. I wonder if anyone shall ask that all those suffering in the torment of hell be admitted into Paradise. And, if someone DID ask Allah, would their petition be granted? And if it would not be granted, then one cannot say that Allah would grant them anything they request.

[Sitaram]

My own personal advice to anyone who feels some restless need, and I am far from being any sort of infallible spiritual guide, is NOT to do something that you are uncomfortable with with regard to religion.

There are those people who feel some sort of need or duty or obligation tugging at them. My suggestion is to spend a certain amount of time, each day, or each week, reading something spiritual, from different traditions. The internet is a good source to find things. One might even use my website or egroup, though perhaps a constant diet of my writings would be slanted in some one particular direction.

I spent many years exploring several different organized religions, and I came to the conclusion that for myself, it made more sense to just be by myself and do my own thing, which mostly involves reading and writing.

I don't think there is any one "right way." Part of the world's problem is that there are people who think they have the "right way" and then try to cram it down everyone elses throats.

As Jiddu Krishnamurthi once said, "Truth is a pathless land."

[subterranean]

Last night, here, I posted one of the biggest Ah-has that has come to me in a long time, but no one even blinked an eye:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3863&page=1&pp=15

Sitaram, I read most of your post, but unfortunetly Im too stupid to respond :).

Keep posting please. I really appriciate your valuable information

[byquist]

Sit., extensive posts, deep searching; you've had a lot of various experiences to draw from. I once saw The Mahabarata by Peter Brooks which was a 9-hour performance in NYC, quite interesting and had a very sacred feel to it.

I basically like the idea of persons of all persuasions, or non-persuasions, or part-persuasions, getting along, ala the Old Testament: "Let there be no strife between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we be brethern," or Ps. "How good and how beautiful it is for bretheren to dwell together in unity."

"Prayer" is an interesting word. Shakespeare uses it for instance when Othello is defending his elopement with Desdemona, saying that she had a "prayer of earnest hope" that he (Othello) would tell her his whole life-story and not just a little episode here and there. Jimmy Stewart has a nice ditty in a film: "Lord, I'm not a praying man but ...." I even read somewhere, regarding an academic magazine out of Paris, that John Paul Sarte, on his deathbed, changed and thought there was a supreme being after all.

[amuse]

i like Harold Klemp's (Eckankar) explanation: "true prayer is listening to God."

[Miss Darcy]

Sometimes, I almost wish I did believe in God simply to be able to give in and pray for something. But according to Nietzsche, faith and praying is not good for you because it drowns your hardship and stops you from standing up to it instead.

I'm very interested in meditation, though, and have strong beliefs in its power. I'm not exceedingly good at it -- :blush: -- but that's just because I...haven't practised it much, or at least lately. And practice makes perfect, as they say.


As Jiddu Krishnamurthi once said, "Truth is a pathless land."

I could never disagree with that (such a beautiful quote), my mother was the book seller of the Queensland branch of Krishnamurti Australia for many years, as well as an active member of the orginisation.


I am suddenly remembering an old archbishop in the Russian Orthodox church, who was becoming slightly senile. He was in the Cathedral giving a sermon, when suddenly he spoke of God's generosity in giving Moses and his people in the wilderness numerous QAIL birds to eat. The seminarians chuckled under their breath because the quail in the wilderness were sent as a curse because the people were lusting after the savory fleshpots of Egypt which they had enjoyed in their slavery. The verse mention that the are cursed EVEN AS THEY SINK THEIR TEETH into the flesh (before they actually chew and swallow and consummate the act of eating).

Er - firstly, I'm vegetarian, secondly, I don't believe in curses, King Tut or not, and thirdly, that's gruesome! ;)

Miss Darcy