The Bible has got much much in common with the Mahabharata. It can mean that in the misty past, Indian civilizational thought prevaded the entire populated world.
BIBLE, GOSPEL OF JOHN
John 11 : 50 “You do
not understand that it is better for you to have one man DIE for the
people than to have the whole nation
destroyed.” – From the Bible, proclaimed by Caiaphas, the Jewish
High Priest
(of the Snahedrin)
MAHABHARATA
Compare the above with what Krishna says in the Mahabharata.
In fact John 11:50 is exactly similar to
the idea espoused in the Mahabharata. But by the time of the Bible the individual is given capital
punishment, whereas in the time of the MBh anterior to it, imprisonment or
binding the individual in some manner was advocated. The Mahabharata advises to abandon the individual
for the sake of the nation , by binding such a person or confining him in jail,
whereas in The Bible, such an individual has to die, ie put to death.
“One man should be sacrificed
for the benefit of a race; a race should be sacrificed for the good of a
town; a town should be sacrificed for
the good of the community; and for the sake of the soul should even the earth
be sacrificed.” – Sloka 49, Udyoga Parva, Chapter 128, (Bhagavat-Yana-Parva)
Continued, Speech of Sri-Krishna, MBh, Page 342, Vol.3, Parimal Publications.
(Here the Sanskrit word used for sacrifice is ‘thye-jeth” , meaning
abandon/give-up)
OR Vidura telling Dhritarashtra
“A man should be sacrificed for the sake of a family; a family should be
sacrificed for the sake of a village; a village
for a kingdom; and the whole world for the soul.” – Sloka 17,
Udyogaparva, Chapter 37, (Prajagara Parva) Continued, The principles of
morality explained by Vidura, Vol 3 MBh, p.115, Parimal Pub,2008
(Here the Sanskrit word used for sacrifice is ‘thye-jeth” , meaning
abandon/give-up)
Vidura again will remind Dhritharashtra “I told you, as soon as he was born, O king, abandon this one son,
Duryodhana. By his abandonment (you will see) the proper development of your
hundred sons; and by not abandoning him, there will be the destruction of your
hundred sons.” – Sloka 5,Udyoga Parva, Chapter 39, (Prajagara Parva) Continued,
The Speech of Vidura, p.124, Vol.3
(Here the Sanskrit word used for abandon is ‘thye-jeth’, meaning give-up)
That gain should not be highly thought of, which ultimately
brings destruction; and that loss should not be considered as loss, which
finally results in prosperity.- Sloka 6
That, O great king, is not loss which brings on gain; but
that should be regarded as loss which being gained causes much loss.- Sloka 7,
Udyoga Parva, Chapter 39, (Prajagara Parva) Continued, The Speech of Vidura,
p.124, Vol.3
BIBLE, GOSPEL OF MATTHEW - Comaprison with the Human Body
The sum of the parts is the whole, and if a part (one part)
becomes bad or condemned, the whole is bound to suffer the same fate. Therefore
that part which has become bad, must be removed to save the rest. If one
individual in a community becomes a rotten apple, the entire lot,ie. the whole
community will be considered as rotten, and likely to subject to bad
consequences. To save the whole lot , the one rotten apple is discarded. In
medicine cancerous cells are destroyed or removed by surgical operation to save
the remaining healthy cells. The Gospel of Mathew drives home this point with a
simile.
Mathew 5: 29 “If
your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is
better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown
into hell.”
And Mathew 5:30 “And if your right hand causes you to sin,
cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your
members than that your whole body go into hell.
The above two are exactly similar in idea to the following
two, again found further ahead in the Gospel of Mathew.
Mathew 18:8 “And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble (sin), cut it off and throw it away.
It is better for you to enter life maimed (crippled) or lame than with two hands
or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.”
Mathew 18:9 “And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear (gouge)
it out and throw it away. It is better
for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the
fire of hell.(hell of fire)
St.Paul & 1 Corinthians 12:26 - Again similar idea, connected to the human body
New International Version: “If one part suffers, every part
suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.”
English Standard Version: “If one member suffers, all suffer
together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”
Elsewhere in Gospel of John, John 18: 14 “Caiaphas was the
one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person DIE
for the people.” The infliction of harsh
measures became much common by the time of The Bible. Or did the Evangelists
deliberately wished to make this ancient custom , by replacing the word
‘abandon’ with ‘death’, sound cruel,
with the further intention of projecting Caiaphas as a cruel person !!???
Caiphas is projected as a villain in the Bible, for telling
the ‘principle’ -one may be sacrificed for the sake of the whole- and practically
applying it in trying Jesus. The same principle were expounded by another
evangelist Mathew. (but in different context). (As per Mt.5.29, 5.30, 18.8
& 18.9).
Who is Caiphas !???
For this one has to know the political situation existing at
the time of Jesus, from his Birth to his death. “The life of Jesus began
possibly in 6/5 BC, in the closing years of the reign of Herod the Great (37BC
-4BC), and ended during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (AD 26-36), probably
in AD 30. His early childhood coincided with quarrels about the succession of Herod. Constant
political turmoil was caused by a series of uprisings. The emperor Augustsus
divided the realm into three parts among the surviving sons of Herod. Archelaus was put in charge of Judea, Idumaea and
Samaria (4 BC –AD6), Antipas of Galilee (4 BC-AD 39) and Philip of territories
to the north and east of Galilee (4 BC- AD 33/34). None of them inherited the royal title.
Archelaus was dismissed by Augustus in AD 6. Judaea was then
turned into a Roman province and the government of the country was transferred to a PREFECT, (any of several high military or civil officials in ancient Rome)
appointed by the emperor. The reorganization was effected by Quirinius, governor of Syria, who was also behind a new tax
resgistration which led to an
unsuccessful uprising fomented by Judas the Galilean, the founder of the Jewish
revolutionary party of the Zealots. The
extensive powers of Roman governors included the choice and dismissal of Jewish
high priests. Unlike during the previous centuries, during the lifetime of
Jesus most of these high priests
installed by the Romans remained in office for only a short period, with the
exception of Annas (AD 6-15) and Caiaphas (AD 18-36/37), to both of whom
leading parts are assigned in the trial of Jesus. Under Roman surveillance, the
Jewish high priest and his senate, the Sanhedrin, which acted as both council
and tribunal, continued to play a significant
role in the day-to-day government of Judaea and Jerusalem, whereas
Galilee, the country of Jesus, enjoyed near complete independence under Herod
Antipas as long as the taxes were duly delivered to Rome.”-p.182, Geza Vermes, “Jesus-Nativity,
Passion, Resurrection”.
Further ahead in page 286 of the same book, Geza Vermes
throws
more light on Caiaphas, and Caiaphas real concerns highlighted by Vermes
are reflected in John 11: 45-48, which gives rise to the saving solution of
sacrificing one man for the entire nation of Jews. Quote “ Caiaphas, the high
priest, and the chief priests are the
villains of the Passion story. Does this portrait reflect historical reality or
is it also the product of the
theological and apologetic speculation
of the evangelists ? Their thorough-going antagonism to Jews seems to suggest
that they(Christian evangelists) had given up hope of any further successful
mission among the Jews. Also, by the time of the redaction of the Passion
narratives- (Redaction is a form
of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted)
and altered slightly to make a single document. Often this is a method of
collecting a series of writings on a similar theme and creating a definitive
and coherent work.) the synagogue and the
Church had already split. Late
first-century AD (Gentile) Christians perceived the Jews as THE enemies. The
‘THEY AGAINST US” situation prevailing by then could easily be retrojected to
the time of the Passion itself and lead to the de-Judaization of Jesus and his
followers. Since Jesus was seen as persecuted by THE JEWS, he ceased to be
apprehended as belonging to the Jewish people and was simply turned into a
Christian.
To judge his real role in the Passion, Caiaphas’ likely
motivation needs to be investigated. It may argued that if he saw, in his
capacity of high priest, any potential political danger in Jesus, he would
react out of fear of Roman criticism for failing to maintain order in Jerusalem combined with a sentiment
of duty to protect the
Jewish community against forseeable Roman excesses. His
ultimate purpose, summed up in the principle that the whole nation is more
important than a single individual, was no doubt based on a misjudgement of
Jesus, but it CANNOT be qualified as
wholly dishonourable. Arguably he did what
a man in his position had to do, and this could occasionally entail the
unpalatable duty of sacrificing an
individual for the common good. Besides, the fact that he managed to keep his
job for eighteen years when most of his predecessors and successors were sacked
in their first or second year in office proves that Joseph Caiaphas was
a shrewd operator. He was not a satanic figure, however, just an efficient
quisling, responsible for handing over Jesus to the Romans in full awareness of
the likely outcome.
Neverthless, the ultimate LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY for the
crucifixion lies with Pilate and the
Roman empire. In all probability it was a major miscarriage of justice as Jesus
does not seem to have been motivated by political ambitions.” (pages 286,286
Geza Vermes)
MAHABHARATA - Sacrificing one individual for the sake of the
nation mentioned in other parts.
In the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata,Chapter 115, (Sambhava
Parva) –Continued, Birth of Gandhari’s sons is described.
The news of Duryodhana’s birth was carried to Bhishma and
the wise Vidura. On the day when haughty
Duryodhana was born, on that very day was born mighty armed and greatly
powerful Bhima. O king, as soon as that son of Dhritharashtra (Duryodhana) was
born, he roared and brayed like an ass.
Hearing that sound, the arsons, vultures, jackals and crows spontaneously
cried. – Sloka 26, 27, 28
Strong wind began to blow
and fires raged in every direction. Thereupon, the frightened king
Dhritharashtra summoning many
Brahmanas,
Bhishma, Vidura, and other friends, relatives and Kurus, said- Sloka 29,30
“The eldest of the princes, Yudhisthira is the perpetuator
of your race. He has acquired the kingdom
by virtue of his birth. We have nothing to say to this” – Sloka 31
“But will my son be able to become king after him ? Tell me
what is right and lawful” – Sloka 32
O descendent of the
Bharatha race, jackals and other carnivorous animals began to howl ominously
from all sides. – Sloka 33
O king, seeing these frightful ominous signs, the assembled
Brahmans and the high minded Vidura said, “O king, O best of men, when these
fearful ominous signs are seen at the birth of your eldest son, it is evident
he will be exterminator of your race. The prosperity of the race depends upon his
abandonment. There must be great calamity in keeping him. – Slokas 34, 35,36
O king, if you abandon him, there still remain ninety nine
sons of yours. O descendant of the Bharata race, if you desire the good of your
dynasty, abandon him.- Sloka 37
Do good to the world and to your own race by abandoning him.
It is said that an individual should be abandoned for the sake of the family; a family
should be abandoned for the sake of a village; a village should be abandoned
for the sake of a country and the world should be abandoned for the sake of the
soul. Having been thus addressed
by Vidura and the Brahmanas, the king, out of affection (for the son)
did not act accordingly.- Slokas 38, 39, 40, MBh, Aadi Parva, Chapter 115,
(Sambhava Parva)-Continued, Birth of Gandhari’s sons., Vol 1, page 338, Parimal
Publications, 2008)
Here the Sanskrit word used for abandoning is “thye-jeth”
KRISHNA DESCRIBES TWO EVENTS WHEN ONE MAN WAS SACRIFICIED
FOR THE SAKE OF THE PEOPLE.
Seeing Duryodhana rise up in that council and go away
accompanied by his brothers, Bhishma the son of Shantanu said – Sloka 29
(Bhishma said, Slokas 30-32 )
He who inclines towards wrath abandoning virtue
and worldly profit, is soon
rejoiced over by wicked men in
his troubles. –Sloka 30
This wicked prince, the son of Dhritarahtra, who does not
know the proper means of suitable ends and is vain of the kingdom, is come
under the influence of wrath and
avarice. – Sloka 31
I think that the time
for the end of all Kshatriyas is come, O
Janardana, for all the rulers of the earth along with the ministers have
followed him out of folly.”- Sloka 32
That heroic scion of the Dasharha race, with eyes like the
petals of the lotus, hearing the words of Bhishma, said to all of them headed by Bhishma & Drona.- Sloka 33
(Krishna Said)
“This is the great defeat of all the elders among the Kurus
that they do not with force obstruct this wicked king in the enjoyment of
prosperity – Sloka 34
I therefore
consider that the time has come for you to act; O sinless men,
listen to that by doing which you will obtain benefit- Sloka 35
What I shall tell you is clearly for your benefit, if in
consequence of its being favourable to you it is approved by you, O Bharatas-
Sloka 36
(EVENT No. 1)
During the life time of the old king of Bhoja(Ugrasena), his
son (Kansa), of wicked behavior and a
slave to his passions, having usurped the throne of his father subjected
himself to death. – Sloka 37
Kansa, the son of Ugrasena, being forsaken by his own
friends, was killed by ME in a great battle from a desire to do good to my
kinsmen.- Sloka 38
Ugrasena, the son of Ahuka, being duly honoured by ourselves
with our kinsmen, was anointed king and he extended the territories of the
kingdom of Bhoja. – Sloka 39
Abandoning the one, namely
Kansa, for the sake of the whole race, did all the Yadavas, Andhakas and
Vrishnis attain to happiness, O Bharatha. – Sloka 40
(EVENT No.2)
Parameshti, the lord of all creatures said, O king, when the
gods and the Asuras were prepared for
battle and were under arms – Sloka 41
When the world was divided into two parties and was about to
be ruined, O Bharata- that god endued with divine prosperity, the creator and
protector of the world said-Sloka 42
In a fight with the Daityas, the Danavas, and the Asuras will
be defeated, and the Adityas, the Vasus, the Rudras and the denizens of heaven
will be victorious. – Sloka 43
The gods, the Asuras, the human beings, the Gandharvas and
the Rakshasas will, in this battle (in their race), kill one another. – Sloka
44
Thus thinking
Parameshti, the lord of all creatures said to Dharma –“Binding these
Daityas and Danavas make them over to Varuna” –Sloka 45
Dharma being thus spoken to, by the command of Prameshti
binding the Daityas and the Danavas, made them all over to Varuna – Sloka 46
Having bound them with the aids of Dharma as also by his own
power, the lord of waters, Varuna keeps the Danavas ever in sea – Sloka 47
(Citing the above two incidents, Krishna asks the Kuru
elders to base their actions in the case
of Duryodhana.)
In the same way, binding
Duryodhana, Karna and Shakuni as also Dushasana make them over to the
Pandavas – Sloka 48
(Here four people have to be bounded/put away for the sake of the whole race)
One man should be sacrificed for the benefit of a race;
a race should be sacrificed for the good of a town; a town should be sacrificed
for the good of the community; and for the sake of the soul should even the
earth be sacrificed – Sloka 49
(here sacrificing does not imply killing, but only
binding/putting in jail/taking away the powers etc, The Sanskrit word used here
by Krishna is “thyajeth”.(in english the meaning is give-up) )
O king, having bound Duryodhana make peace with the sons of
Pandu. By so doing will the Kshatriyas not exterminated, O foremost among
Kshatriyas – Sloka 50
(the Sanskrit word used
for bound is “bada-dhva”)
(From Udyog Parva,
Chapter 128, (Bhagavat-Yana Parva) Continued, Speech of Sri-Krishna, Pages 340,
341 & 342, MBh, Vol3, Parimal Pub, 2008)
CONCLUSION : KRISHNA is a Yogi, whose senses are under his
control, who has no selfish motives, or any kind of personal requirements, and
is equipoised and equanimous. Therefore his final decision with respect to the
wicked Duryodhana is untainted and without error. (Who and what kind of person takes such sensitive decisions matters !!!) There is no comparison between Duryodhana
and
Jesus. At the most historical Jesus was
a rabble rouser, engendering sectarian animosity. This was not any grave crime
(even at that period in the Roman empire), unlike Duryodhana’s track record.
Therefore the capital punishment desired by Caiphas for Jesus is unwarranted.
This is a one-sided story, and as portrayed by the Evangelists. We will never
know what Caiaphas really told on that day. !!!
Caiaphas was mainly
motivated to be in the good books of the Romans. Or was it that Caiaphas had been deliberately and
wrongly indicted by the Evangelists, since the ultimate authority for trying a
trouble-maker in a court of law and awarding capital punishment rested with the
Roman authorities, and it was they who crucified Christ to death !!?? It is
also to be doubted that the Evangelists wished to confound our feelings towards
the Jews and Romans. The Evangelists could not make much headway in getting new
converts among the Jews, and thus Jews became the ‘other’, the enemy for them.
Similar incidents happened in India almost 1800 years later. Here Missionaries
found it impossible to get new converts, because of the caste system. They
wrongly understood that Brahmins were the brain behind the caste system and
also responsible for its maintenance. Therefore Missionaries unleashed a
propaganda against the Brahmins, vilifying them.
Krishna’s role was limited to advising
the Kuru elders as to what has to
be done to Duryodhana, to avert extermination of the Kshatriyas . Similarly
Vidura also advises Dhritarashtra , Duryodhana’s father. The individuals who
were supposed to take action, based on this sound and reliable advice failed to
act. Thus it lead to annihilation of the Kshatriyas, ie total calamity and
Duryodhana along with others were killed in battle. In contrast the Romans
acted as per the law/ancient custom alluded to by Caiaphas, and thus Jesus was
put to death.
Mahabharata shows human beings failing to act on sound
advice which would have prevented utter disaster, whereas Bible illustrates wrong
application of ancient laws resulting in disproportionate punishment and
suffering of a individual. This event in the Bible was the seed of anti-Semitism, resulting in the death of
millions of Jews in the 20 th century.
The human beings as a collective whole thus charts their destiny,
adhering to the Supreme law.
