Don Rua: The Most Faithful son of Don Bosco

It was the beginning of February, 1888. Don Bosco the founder of the society of St. Francis de Sales had just died few days earlier. But, the future of the Salesian society was uncertain because it was always Don Bosco who did this, Don Bosco who did that in the Congregation. No one else in the society seemed to have done anything. His loss placed the future of the society in jeopardy.

                “Who will lead the society with these chaos: to start from the scratch, it was the time when most of the religious congregations were dying out especially in Piedmont; there was an aversion to them? Though the society was formally approved, the novelties that Don Bosco introduced such as lay members who would live outside the community, religious in Shirt-sleeves brought the animosity among the prominent people of the Church. The Salesian society was flourishing in its mission but who will pay its debts? Yes, the founder had left them the legacy of debt of 600,000 lire borrowed for building the Sacred Heart Church in Rome.” These were the thoughts of many Cardinals in Rome. However, there was also a hope according to the words of Gamaliel: “If it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it” (Acts 5:39).

                On the contrary there was perfect harmony and consensus inside the Congregation in electing the first successor of Don Bosco. The Salesians had no other name but that of ‘Don Rua’. The whole Congregation unanimously accepted Don Rua as the head of the society. The appointment of Don Micheal Rua as Vicar from the Holy See on November 27, 1884 also assured his succession.

                It was strange that Don Rua had serious misgiving about his worthiness to take up the office of the Rector Major and created in him grave doubts as to his right to be the heir of Don Bosco. In addition, the decree of approving his authority as Vicar was found missing from the archives. When this news spread, Cardinal Alimonda, a friend of Don Bosco and Cardinal Protector asked Don Rua to have recourse to Rome. He did so through a letter on February 8, 1888. When Bishop Cagliero came to know this he immediately wrote to the Cardinal Protector expressing the unanimity in electing Don Rua.

                Meanwhile some eminent people of the Church were trying to merge it with another congregation of similar charism. The intervention of Bishop Emilian Manacordia, a friend of Salesians defended Don Rua’s competence and assured its safe future. At last in a fresh decree on February, 1888 the Holy Father nominated Don Rua as the Rector Major of the Dociety. Don Rua held the office for 22 years. During these years he made Salesians feel that Don Bosco was living among them. It was his great fidelity to Don Bosco to do so. His fidelity was more evident in his first circular letter as Rector Major in which he addressed the entire congregation: “My dear sons, this will be the programme I shall follow during my years of office:

¯  To maintain and develop the work began by Don Bosco

¯  To follow diligently the methods taught and practised by Don Bosco

¯  To study and imitate in speech and in action the model offered by Don Bosco

He wanted to lead the Congregation as Don Bosco would wish. Even in small matters he thought how it would be in the mind of Don Bosco. For Don Rua, Don Bosco was the perfect mentor on earth. He imbibed Don Bosco’s Spirit by his keen observation. Once he said, “Watching Don Bosco even in his tiniest actions made a greater impression on me than reading and meditating any holy book.” Such was his fidelity to the founder.

                His fidelity to Don Bosco was not an achievement made in a short period of time. It had its beginning in 1845. After he had met Don Bosco in the oratory just once he defended his beloved priest when his parish priest doubted Don Bosco insane. For many years even after his priestly ordination Don Bosco was his father and oratory was the home. His literal obedience astounded Don Bosco many times. The latter was afraid to give any punishment to Rua just for fun. Once Don Bosco exclaimed, “I cannot play jokes with Rua. His obedience is non plus ultra (extreme). When Don Bosco called on Don Rua to be the rector of new house at Mirabello he did not show any gesture of opposition when he was just 26 whereas none of the confreres were younger than 27. After receiving the obedience he just took his Breviary and was ready for the journey. Many glowing reports came from Mirabello after some time saying, “Don Rua at Mirabello acts just kike Don Bosco at Valdocco.” He was ready to walk in the shadow of the founder always accepting to do even odious things to save Don Bosco’s image as a father. Even a mere wish of Don Bosco was a command to him. Thus was his filial and complete obedience.

                The peculiar character of Don Rua is his respect for the rules, which earned him the name ‘The Living Rule’. In performing his duty he neither worried about the comments of others nor the popularity he had as a consequence. It was also said once that getting ‘Yes’ from Don Rua was more difficult than ‘No’ from Don Bosco. However, when he became the Rector Major he manifested Don Bosco’s kindness and cheerfulness except for the abrupt silence after the bell.

                Don Rua trusted Don Bosco’s protection even after his death. During his first year as the Rector Major Cardinal Alimonda questioned him abut the debt of 600,000 lire. He replied, “Your eminence we have to confess that Don Boso even in Heaven doesn’t remain idle.” It is true that when Don Rua died the debt of the congregation was nil.

                He was not satisfied with his own fidelity towards his father but worked hard to foster it wherever he went, especially in the Salesian houses. His life as the Superior General was studied with journeys. There was not a year passed without journey as the Rector Major. He too he obeyed the words of Don Bosco, “A good superior is a man who always has his travelling case in hand.”

                Finally, his fidelity to Don Bosco was not static but dynamic. He was really aware of the changing times and of the needs of the young and fearlessly opened up Salesian works to the new fields of pastoral ministry. It is because of his insistence that the SDBs and FMAs began a variety of social works including in different parts of the world. When the worked began on Simplon tunnel between Switzerland and Italy a cam was opened for the Italian workers on the Swiss side. Don Rua sent Salesian men and women to serve these workers. He followed solely the principle of Don Bosco that whatever can be risked in order to do good to souls.

                The mission he accomplished all along in his life was the vision of Don Bosco. It was he who stared the process to fulfil Don Bosco’s prophetic dream in the night of 9 April 1886 which was about the future missionary expedition. There he foresaw Salesians’ presence from Valparaiso (Chile) to Beijing (China). We, Indians, too are privileged that the first Salesians who set foot in our soil were sent by Don Rua. This was one of the plans of Don Bosco and he visualized in the dream.

                Blessed Michael Rua never stopped fostering the spirit of Don Bosco among the Salesians. On his beatification Pope Paul VI rightly said, “He made the example of the saint (Don Bosco) a school …, his life a history, his rule a spirit, his holiness a type, a model; he made the spring a stream, a river.”

                The difficult moments that are mentioned in the beginning were not at all threats both for Don Rua and the Congregation. The whole congregation relied on Rua and he was firm in his fidelity to Don Bosco since his fidelity to Don Bosco was the fidelity to Christ. With the same trust he was able to face more difficulties later in his life. even on his death bed he encouraged the Salesians to have filial love and faithful trust in Don Bosco by repeating words of their father, “ We shall meet in Heaven.” 

                The precious message he had left to the Salesians is ‘to be worthy sons of Don Bosco’. This is my prayer to Don Bosco everyday, “Father, make me a worthy son of yours.” The Salesian life gets its complete meaning with these two: perfect emulation and great fidelity to Don Bosco as Blessed Michael Rua did. Because “he was the most faithful, therefore the most humble and at the same time valiant of the sons of Don Bosco” (Pope Paul VI, 29^th October 1972).  

Practical Vedanta of Swami Vievekananda

PRACTICAL VEDĀNTA OF VIVEKANANDA

1. INTRODUCTION

“Awake, Arise, until the goal is achieved” with this topic of the symposium I would like to begin my paper on the Pratical Vedānta of Vivekananda who never gave up until his goal being achieved. He wakes up the whole humanity with his idea of Vedānta. Let us begin with the roots of his philosophy. 

1.1. Vedas

The sacred books of Hindus in India is divined into two namely Śṛuti (what is heard) and Śmṛti (what is remembered). Śṛuti includes Vedas, Brāhmanas, Aranyakas and Upaniṣads. The Vedas, part of Śṛuti, is basically Mantras or sacred hymns addressed to some god or goddess. The Vedas contains two major divisions namely Karmakanda (of ceremonials and practices) and Jñakanda (treatises).[1] Furthermore, the writings of Vedas are divided into four: Ṛg Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda and Yajur Veda. The Vedas are eternal, infinite and apauraśeya (no claim for human authourship). The Hindus believe that the Vedas is not acquired but revealed to Ṛṣis who had supra normal consciousness.[2] 

1.2 Vedānta

The word Vedānta is a compound of two Sanskrit terms ‘Veda’ and ‘Anta’ (the end). Thus Vedānta is the end part of Vedas, usually it denotes Upaniṣads that constitute the final aim of Veda viz., and restoration of Upaniṣadic Brahmanism is the work of Vedānta system.[3] Vedānta is not a homogenus, monolithic and fossilized matrix of teachings. The same Veda is understood by various philosophers in different context. Some prominent Vedāntins are: the Advaita Vedānta of Śaṇkara, Viśiṣtādvaita Vedānta of Rāmānuja, Dvaita Vedānta of Mādhava, Dvaitādvaita Vedānta of Nimbārka and Suddhādvaita Vedānta of Vallabha.[4]

1.3 Advaita Vedānta

The philosophy of Vivekananda is concretely based on Advaita Vedānta. The term A-dvaita means non-dualism. This concept is found in epics and purānas but the eminent proponent of this theory is Śaṇkara. Vivekananda has a high esteem for Śaṇkara. There are three basic propositions that Advaita Vedānta of Śaṇkara contains: (i) Brahman is the sole Reality (ii) jīva (living being) in its essential nature is no other than Brahman. (iii) the world of plurality is māyā (illusion).[5]

1.4 Monism

Based on Advaita Vedānta, Vivekananda’s philosophy propagates Monism. This term has a broad understanding as it is applicable to many doctrine of the West. The monism in Indian Philosophy especially in Śaṇkara centers on the reality of God. According to Śaṇkara all the things have oneness in the reality called Brahman. To perceive any entity separate from Brahman is erroneous.[6] Vivekananda handles monism to get a solution for the two contrary thoughts. The first is of the monotheistic idea of personhood of God and the creation of the world which he deems as unscientific and the second thought of agonistics who hold that only quality exists and no substance viz., there is no infinite power beyond what is seen. He says that the former perceives only the phenomenon and the latter sees noumenon of some reality. And so the only solution is monisitc theory which says that the Reality is one and the individualizing things from the One Reality is meaningless, the apparent separateness of things are only the manifestation of One Reality.[7] This oneness of the Reality is ‘being’ than ‘becoming’. The movements like I go, I do, etc. can be seen as change and yet what remains constant is the ‘I’ which is the Reality in itself.[8]  

2. PRACTICAL VEDĀNTA

The monistic Vedānta that Swami Vivekananda propagates is not just an intellectual gymnastics but a down-to-earth concept on reality. It is very practical and applicable to the everyday walks of life. The following few concepts may help us understand his position better.

2.1 Personal God Versus Impersonal God

The core claim of monistic theory is to believe in the Impersonal God. Monotheistic religions like Jewish, Christianity and Islam have the concept of Personhood of God. For example, Christianity presents the Almighty God as three persons namely Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But, Vivekananda is unhappy with the personalization of God for he considers this theory as unscientific and it reduces the nature of God. He presents two principles of knowledge: the first one is deduction i.e., moving from particular to general and later general to universal; the other method is explaining a thing from its own nature. In knowing about God, if the first principle is applied, the personalistic understanding of God becomes an incomplete generalization as it is only the sum total of different consciousness and it is impossible to apply the second principle since the personhood of God excludes God away from creation, Here, the effect is different from the cause. And so the modern scientists do not conceptualize personal God. [9] Only impersonal God can be understood rationally taking these two principles. The attribution of infinity and eternity can only be given to impersonal God. Calling God in any form is acceptable because he is infinite. For example, fire has multifarious forms of existence yet is the same fire, it is a single reality. Although he does not acknowledge the scientific ground of personal God, he accepts this concept as it is one form of impersonal God. He says, “We believe in personal God as the Christians, but we go further; we believe that we are He! That personality is manifested in us, that God is in us, and we are in God.”[10]     

2.2 Tattvamasi

The thrust of Vivekananda’s practical Vedānta is Tattvamasi which means ‘That Thou Art’ or ‘You Are That’. This mahāvākya (great saying) is well explained by Śaṇkara. This ideology attracted young Narendranath by the answer given by Ramakrishna, “I see God just as I see you here.”[11] Tattvamasi seems to refer to our human self as ordinarily apprehended or simply identified with the Absolute like any other reciprocal identity. It implies that effect has its Ātman in the cause, but not the cause in its effect. The relation is non-reciprocal.[12] But how it is possible for an ignorant, suffering and sinful to be identified with Satya-Jñānam-Ānantam? Śaṇkara says that our conscious ego is the door (dvāra) by which we can access to the true import of this saying. This relationship is not an accessory and extrinsic but metaphysically constitutive of beings.[13]  

2.3 Concept of Man

Having Tattvamasi as the center, the anthropological implication of monism lifts the nature of man up to the status of God. Man who is the pinnacle of the external entities replicates the eternal God. Vivekananda confirms it saying, “The only God to worship is the human soul in the human body, of course, all animals are temples too, but man is the highest, the Taj Mahal of temples. If I cannot worship in that, no other temple will be of any advantage.”[14] Whereas the idea of separate God in heaven brings only fear but the watchword for humanity is freedom, because He and I are same. Within ourselves the eternal voice speaks of eternal freedom. We possess immortality and bliss. On the other hand, the self to build a real self it should give up ‘I’ self. The evil that is found in us is the misdirection of the power of good and the so called sin is only ignorance. Thus love, the basis for freedom, should prevail as love is the form of oneness.[15]

2.4 Practical Religion

The practicality of monism is vividly expressed in the concept of religion that Vivekananda proposes. His is a staunch propagator of Hinduism and yet his outlook on religion is the logical outcome of neo-Vedāntism. According to him, religion is the unity of man and God, man and man and service of man because man is God. Thus religion should have contemplation and action, i.e., Nirvakalpa Samādhi and humanitarian work.[16] And so he calls the humanity to let go the small things such as claiming for prominence of religion, bloodshed in the name of religion, etc. in order to attain the oneness of God, the Infinite. Although Vivekananda is for the doctrinal monism he accepts the ceremonials in religion which he considers less truth and not truth in themselves. To answer the question of many gods in Hinduism he replies that they are the prototypes of man who are created by man to see world as paradise than an eternal prison that needs to be surpassed to reach heaven.[17]     

3. CONCLUSION

3.1 Implications of Practical Vedānta

The practical Vedānta of Vivekananda is a positive approach to life with the philosophical and scientific foundation. It is proof for the human transcendence to the Absolute. His concept of monism stands against the apparent dualism. In matters of change, his solution that Change is only in parts and not in whole is praiseworthy. In fact, he considers the evolution theory of Darwin as continuous expansion of the Infinite Individual.[18] The practical Vedānta has more humanitarian values. Sin is replaced with the ignorance or less good; love gains prominence in relationship with all including the non-human beings. Vivekananda, with his Vedānta, reacts against the injustice in the name of religion and so he wants to see the satisfaction of the hungry than the jewels in the temple. Moreover, he says that meditating on the real nature of one, will direct oneself to accept others as one’s ownself.

Although this Vedānta carries valuable humanitarian aspects the very concept of monism is questioned philosophically. Monism makes a over simplification of the plurality of things, especially it reduces the human individuality, the individual freedom is denied. His clarion call of ‘Freedom’ does not have sufficient philosophical ground. Human being is not absolutely free as Vivekananda claims. In addition, when we say that plurality in the world is actually One in God, we also mean that human being is infinite. To claim a concept to be true it must be verified by an extraneous method, but the mere fact of verification with other principles eliminates the concept of monism.

3.2 Counter Perspective

Vivekananda’s concept of impersonal God derived from his idea is based on Śaṇkara’s Advaita. But the eminent advaitin meant his theory neither for Hinduism nor monism. Will not the non-dualism be applicable for monotheism especially to Christian vision? The answer comes from a contemporary of Vivekananda, Brahmabandhab Upadhyay. His interpretation of Triune God of Christianity with Śaṇkara’s Advaita replies the intellectual attacks of Vivekananda on monotheism.

Upadhyay quotes that Śaṇkara while defining Parabrhman gives two views namely saguṇa and nirguṇa. Now, the concept of nirguṇa which is translated as ‘no quality’ favours impersonal God. On the contrary, Upadhyay takes the literal meaning of nirguṇa i.e., tie-less. To be tie-less means to be unrelated and this is what exactly denotes Parabrhaman. But this concept would contradict personhood of God for a person is always in relation with the person or thing outside the self, e.g. Creator and creation. But the relation is in the Trinity is not without but within thus it is tie-less therefore it is unrelated too. He also affirms it with the Thomisitic definition of person – that which subsists as distinct in a rational nature. After explaining this he moves on to relate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of the Trinity with the sat (Being), cit (Intelligence) and ānanda (Bliss) of Śaṇkara logically. The Father, the creator, should be necessarily be a Being and so He is Sat; the Son who made to us clear his Self-Knowledge and so He is cit; finally, Spirit is the One who proceeds from te union of Sat and Cit, the Blessed Breath and so the Holy Spirit is Ānanda. Thus the Trinity is Saccidānanda.[19]   

Thus Upadhyay acts like Thomas Aquinas, who fought against the Avveroist taking their own base Aristotle, by taking Śaṇkara’s position to prove Personal God.

  

---

[1]Swami Vivekananda, Vedanta in its Application to Indian Life (Kolkata: Advaita Ahsrama, 1988) 76.

[2] Harry Immanuel, “Vedas” ACPI Encyclopadia of Philosophy, edited by Johnson J. Puthenpurackal (Bangalore: Asian Tradiing Corporation, 2010) 1492-1493.

[3] Richard DeSmet, Understanding Śaṇkara, edited by Ivo Coelho (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2013) 305.

[4] Devaisa M. Antony, “Vedanta” ACPI Encyclopadia of Philosophy, 1484-1485.

[5] R. Balasubramanian, “Śaṇkara” History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, edited by D.P. Chattopadhyaya Vol. 2, Part 2 (New Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilization, 2000) 70.

[6] Robert A. McDemotti, “Monism”, The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Elicde, Vol. 10 (New York: Macmikllan Publishing Company, 1987) 58.

[7] Swami Vivekananda, Practical Vedanta (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 2007), 65-67.

[8] Vivekananda, Practical Vedanta, 83-84.

[9] Vivekananda, Practical Vedanta, 63-66.

[10] Swami Vivekanda, “Hinduism”, Swami Vivekananda: A Biography of His Vision and Ideas, edited by Verinda Grover (New Delhi: Deep & Deep  Publications, 1998) 121.

[11] R.P Varma, “Swami Vivekananda: The Practical Vedantin”, Swami Vivekananda: A Biography of His Vision and Ideas, edited by Verinda Grover (New Delhi: Deep & Deep  Publications, 1998) 567.

[12] DeSemt, Understanding Śaṇkara, 115.

[13] DeSemt, “Spiritual Valuses of Advaita Vedānta and Social Life”, Understanding Śaṇkara, 165-166.

[14] Vivekananda, Practical Vedanta, 50.

[15] Vivekananda, Practical Vedanta, 102-103.

[16] R.P Varma, “Swami Vivekananda: The Practical Vedantin”, 570-571.

[17] Vivekananda, Practical Vedanta, 56-57.

[18] Vivekananda, Practical Vedanta, 89.

[19] Brayan Lobo, “Brahmabandhab Upadhyay: Tripersonalizing the Parabrahman”, Divyadaan: Journal of Philosophy and education Vol. 20, No. 1 (2009), 39-54.  

Formation: To Swim and To Fish

After the pleasant experience at home with the family, I was returning by bus to the community after my holidays. While cherishing the memories of the by gone days just then, I felt a nudge and I wanted to say that I already bought the ticket thinking that it was the conductor. Instead, it was from my neighbor who asked me, “Where are you going?” I replied that I was going back to duty after my holidays. This middle aged neighbour who asked me was curious in knowing about me and so I revealed my identity saying I was a catholic religious preparing to be a priest. He continued the conversation with interest since he was a past pupil of a catholic institute. Gradually, he drew my attention to the Bible although he was not a Christian. He quoted verses and explained them in his own terms. I was sure that he did not understand the value of Catholicism as he was skeptical about some of the devotional practices of piety. Then he posed an interesting question, “You are very young now. Won’t you later regret for your decision of abstaining yourself from the world’s pleasures and going against the human nature?” I understood his intention of pointing out to the renunciation of marriage.  I quoted a few scripture passages and explained that the decision is beyond human nature and not against human nature. Neither did he understand nor was I satisfied.

Deo gratias! I was reminded of my village experience with the fisher folk who taught me fishing in the middle of the sea. I asked my neighbour, “Say for example, if you do not know swimming will you go with the fishermen for work?” “Certainly not”, he continued, “I am afraid of sailing on the sea itself.” “Since it is dangerous according to you, will you persuade the fishermen not to go fishing?” In other words I meant whether he would stop them from their livelihood. The conversation ended because we reached our destination and we got off the bus with exchanging smiles.

Later, I gave a thought to this conversation. In fact, sailing on the sea can be an apt metaphor for religious life. It needs courage; it demands commitment and requires caution. A fisherman needs to know the two rudiments to go fishing namely to swim and to fish. Swimming guarantees his safety to a certain extent and fishing gives meaning to his journey on the water. I feel it is the same in religious life too. As the fisherman practises swimming and fishing in order to make it a profession, a religious needs to equip himself or herself for the profession by being formed well. Therefore the initial formation may be seen the practice to swim and to fish.

My neighbour on the journey was right in a sense; it is difficult in the early stage of the religious life to be sure of perseverance till the end in the religious order; it is known that some priests leave their priesthood even at advanced age. It is also true and we hear news about the fishermen who are good at swimming but have gone missing for years.

These are not obstacles for an ardent follower of Christ in the religious life. They give a witness to the world. On the contrary, priesthood or religious profession is not the culmination of this special vocation. It is the beginning of the extraordinary journery, an everyday endeavour like that of a fisherman who has to cast the net at every dawn in the middle of the sea.

Religious commitment is not an overnight venture and it needs practice. And so the Catholic Church suggests years of preparation at different phases of formation for the future ministers of the Church. For such, is the responsibility of each individual. Once a superior from the formation department of the Salesian congregation said, “If formation does not bring transformation it remains only as information.” Who makes this transformation – formator or formee? Certainly, it is in the hands of the formee who should learn to swim first that is to persevere in this way of life. Gradually, the meaning of priestly or religious life is realized in the mission and so the people of this special vocation need to know the different skills of fishing as Jesus called us, priests and religious, to be fishers of MEN.

This twofold nature of religious life may also answer those who think that priestly and religious life is meant to serve people alone forgetting the holistic formation.  

Christmas - For Whom?

There is no other event that has affected history as much as the birth of Jesus. World History today is divided into BC and AD based on the birth of Christ. No wonder we call Christmas a universal event.  The world celebrates the feast with the joy as much as we Christians do. But, just imagine what would happen if the Church wanted to stop celebrating Christmas on December 25. I am sure the world would continue celebrating Christmas because it is a great season of income for the businessmen; season of relaxation for students and teachers and the list could go on. But now I pose a question: Christmas – for whom?

The immediate answer, probably, running in our minds is, ‘for all’ because Christ came for all. Basing my reflection on the Gospels, especially the narration of the birth of Christ, I affirm that the birth of Christ was not known to all, even among those who knew about this  incarnation of God many were not able to find Him.  According to the Gospels, two groups rather two cities did not find the Babe in the Crib.

The first city is Bethlehem. It is a paradox that the city that hosted the First Christmas did not witness the event. It is interesting to know that St. Joseph was not able to get a place for his wife in travail or a home in his hometown. Why? We read in Luke2:7 that there was no place for them in the Inn. Now the problem is with the word ‘inn’. The Greek word that is used here is ‘Kataluma’ or ‘Katalima’, which denotes not only inn but also a special room, a kind of guest room or a store room. Usually, any woman in labour would be admitted there since encountering blood is an act of untouchablity for the Jews. Now, this room was not available for our Blessed mother as the city was filled with guests who had already registered their names.

And so, Bethlehem, the house of Bread as it literally means, did not have a proper place for the Bread from Heaven. I assume the city was not aware of the coming of the Redeemer since it clung on to the law rather than show love for its townsman.

The second city that was not able to have the glimpse of the Heavenly Babe was Jerusalem. As the president or the prime minister represents a country, King Herod represents Jerusalem. Moreover, it is also given in Matthew 2:3 that along with Herod all Jerusalem was frightened of the arrival of the new king of Jews. What blinded his eyes, from reaching the manger that received the messiah, was his craze for power. Furthermore, his passion for position led him to massacre the innocent without a grain of compassion in his heart. And so, the city of Jerusalem could not hear the ‘Gloria’ on the first Christmas day.

Now it is clear that when people have recourse more to law and not to love and are filled with passion for power rather than with compassion, they are unable to meet Christ in the crib.

The next important fact is how two kinds of people found Jesus: the wise-men and the shepherds.

The first group of people who were able to celebrate Christmas is the three wise-men, why wise-men, let us call them philosophers of those days. Great philosophers are not mere thinkers but persons who have love for wisdom and truth. The sign in the sky moved them to be in search of the source of wisdom. It was not the laws that they had have studied but their love of wisdom that unveiled the truth in the Nativity.

The second group is the group of shepherds. They too received a sign rather a direct message from an angel. They were extremely happy as thy found the savior amidst the sheep and the cattle. What could be the reason for their privilege to encounter the Messiah? I think it is because they were people of compassion. Jesus the good shepherd, later in his public ministry, had compassion for the flock of people following him. I personally experienced this attitude of shepherds through a shepherdess who is working in one of our Salesian houses. The childless woman takes care of the sheep as her own children calling them by name. Any feast with mutton in the house would be a day of boundless sorrow for her. These simple people may not have passion in life but they can be seen to be people of compassion.

The two kinds of people who were able to meet the Saviour in the stable were persons of love and compassion. And this is probably the answer to the question that I asked in the beginning, “For whom is Christmas?” 

I feel that to celebrate Christmas worthily we need to be people of love and compassion as the love of God leads him to be one among us and His compassion for us gave meaning to His acceptance of the Cross. Though our logic pushes us towards law and our reasoning may give passion, the true meaning of Christmas is in the opposite – in Love and in Compassion.

My wish for all of us is that we celebrate and share the joy of Christmas with love and compassion for one another. 

Sri Aurobindo's Concept of Man

1. Origin of Human Being

Involution:

Involution is more of a metaphysical outlook on the origin of beings. It is the process by which the Divine manifests Itself in the cosmos. For Sri Aurobindo involution is the process by which the Omnipresent Reality, i.e. the Absolute (Brahman) extends Itself to create a universe of separate forms out of Its own Force/Energy. The reason behind the involution is the desire or the delight of the Absolute Being. It is the descending process as evolution is the ascending process.

Evolution:

According to Aurobindo, the process of Evolution is the process of Human being to move upwards to the Infinite Brahman. Evolution takes place in three phases. All evolution is a growing of the Self in material nature to the conscious possession of its own spiritual being. It is a formation of life, mind and Supermind in matter.

Physical Evolution is the evolution of external visible material bodies of living beings. It is the process of moving from simple to higher form. Birth and growth are the evident factors of this evolution.

Spiritual Evolution is not external but the realization of the innate Divinity in human being.  The nucleal presence of Brhaman in human makes the psychic being in unison with Jivātman. In this phase human self-fulfillment takes place. Human being is aware of his or her consciousness.

Supramental Evolution is the growth of Divine consciousness-Force in human being. It is the final conquest of spirit over matter. The partial human mind receives higher knowledge in the integrated Divine.

2. Human Existence

Existence (Sat) – Consciousness Force (Cit) – Bliss (Ānanda) - Supermind  à  Matter – Life – Psyche – Mind

“Man is a transitional being, he is not final; for in him and high beyond him ascend the radiant degrees which climb to a divine supermanhood.”Man is the extention of Saccidānanda through the Consciouness-Force out of Blissful desire.For him matter (prakṛti) denotes the gross and subtle physical body; life -  individual life is part of universal life; Soul or psyche (puruṣa) is something of the Divine (immortal) that descends into the evolution as a divine Principle within; mind is the faculty of thinking.

3. Religious Dimension of Human Being

Man has the spiritual nature as he has the tendency towards Infinite. He is not just a reasoning animal but a soul in constant relation with the Divine. Body, Mind and Psyche do not form a complete meaning of man. The essence of spiritual dimension of man is not in just knowing the Brahman but to be in union with the Brahman. It is done through the four-fold method of realization through Yoga namely:

Yoga of Knowldege                 Yoga of Activity              Yoga of Devotion          Yoga of Self-perfection

Religion must help human being to practice the four-fold method of realization. Relgion must be subjective apart from the rituals and ceremonials.In addition, religion must be understood with the transcend intellectual reason.

4. Social Dimension of Human Being

Human being is social by nature. Although human is whole yet is incomplete without the other human beings and the Divine; this triple relationship keeps the ṛta of the cosmos. There is relationship of giving and reciving between the human beings in the presence of Divine. This reciprocal relationship should be done in the level of being and not of  having.

In the social dimension of human being one can find the two aspects namely, individual and social. Human being is individual in as much as he/she is looked as a complete being, on the other hand, human is a part of society. He proposes a twofold conception of society: objective and subjective – the former is the material part of the society like geographical, laws, institutions and the latter is the union of individuals, inner form of external society which is a living organism.

As Man is social by nature he is moral by nature too. Thus morality in man should come not out of desire but out of nature (the inner oughtness). Besides, it is also a requirement of society and  to keep harmony in realtionship. Morality does not consist in action but in nature of human being. If the ethical laws are seen as help to reach the Divine, there is no conflict between the laws and individual freedom. Because freedom is not license it is the possibiltiy to become one with the Brahman and be Its insturment.

Social dimension of man matures in the society. He can develop his capacity only to the extent that he enters into relationship with others. Both the society and its laws are at his service, and they attain their scope only if they help the individual to reach the Divine.

5. Rebirth and Karma

Rebirth is an act of evolution of the soul. This rebirth is meaningless without the theory of Karma. He gives an example of heredity to prove past-life. But heredity is not much important. Past history remains but it is the individual creates his or her life.  With the environment and other conditions each jivātman acts in the circle of rebirth. Therefore, no predestination is possible in his theory. This also answers the seeming duality. Karma is only a lesson that is learned from the present life towards next (as present is of past). It is a link that binds the past with the present action.

Lord You are so Precious to me: Lyrics and Chords

C      Em               F              G

Lord, You are so precious to me

C       Em          F                G

Lord, You are so precious to me

F       G      F      G

And I  love You

F     G7  C     Am

Yes, I     love You

        F            G              C

Because You first loved me.

C   Em     F        G

Lord, You are so gracious to me

C   Em     F                G

Lord, You are so gracious to me

F     G F      G

And I  love You

F     G7  C     Am

Yes, I     love You

        F            G              C

Because You first loved me.

Simple Yet Profound

The year of faith that we have begun last October should have been a time of renewal of our faith rather a time to know more about our faith. Various occasions like prayer services, talks, and retreats would have enriched our faith. My experience of faith during this intense moment of learning more about faith was different; it was a living experience not with the scholars of faith but with the simple people who are unknown to the world. It was in a hamlet called ‘Roman Morjong’, in the hillock of Karbi Anglong district in Assam with the tribes of Karbi and Tiwa where I went for my mission experience.

The village ‘Roman Morjong’ is a very small and a remote village in Assam. The total population would not be more than 800. The catholic presence in this village crosses 95%. Another interesting fact is that it is believed that this village was the first one to receive faith in the North-East India.  I had the chance of going for Easter blessings as part of my mission experience at North-East India.  Since this village is situated on the hills the journey was adventurous and was a journey of faith.

The very first gesture that caught my attention was their attitude towards the clergy. The moment they saw people with religious habit these simple people perceived us, religious as the representatives of God. In fact, at the end of the Eucharistic celebration these were their words of gratitude, “thank you for bringing God’s blessings for us.” This questioned my task of being a religious on the way to priesthood. I was waiting for the people to come for the Mass as I was in the church where few people continued singing for a long time. But almost the whole village was standing outside the church. My curiosity led me outside and I was astonished. The whole folks were standing in line to make their confession. I was told that it was their custom to receive the Lord with pure heart. These people remind us of the publican in the parable that Jesus spoke of. Nevertheless to say about their prayerful and joyful participation in the Holy Sacrifice, even the children were very devout as they are brought up in that atmosphere to partake in the Eucharist. It is a lesson for us to learn from this simple Christians.

After the Mass, we continued with the blessing of the houses which were either thatched or made up of bamboos. Although the houses were very small they kept a place for prayer where they kept the holy articles. At the end of the prayer in each house they would offer something according to their ability. Their offerings were very simple like eggs or some kilograms of paddy from their fields.  Later it was told that these offerings were the first fruit of that season which they would offer God first and only then they would start selling.

The simple lesson that they render us from these incidents is, I feel, that God gets the prominence of life. Faith is not a theory to be memorized or only to quote in necessary instances rather it is a fact to be lived out. The gestures of these faithful may be simple but they have profound meaning. The message or rather a challenge that these people pose us is to live the faith and be the bearers of faith.