The book has two readers on the site where I found it, as of now, and the other one is in hiding. But even apart from this there are ironies in the situation when one considers it as a title on shelf on a site based in US, what with the title with its first three words.
Two largest democracies of the world, US and India - both nations relatively large in sizes, relative to, say, any of the democratic European nations, and the latter making up in numbers (over a billion and counting) what it lacks in development and prosperity as measured by western standards - differ in may ways and contrast in much, but never in any as much as in this - that when you enter US you must declare if you have ever entertained any leftist sympathies, which is supposed to indicate you might be attempting a communist takeover of the country you are trying to enter; while anyone in India not overtly paying lip service to leftist thought and latest fads of whatever is dictated thereby is fraudulently accused of not only being "right wing" but of running around with knives, never mind the facts about any of it (the last time a major massacre happened one way with knives was in Calcutta in '46 in order to twist Gandhi's elbow to give in to demands of dividing the then united nation along religious lines with a truculent party with a fundamentalist inability to live with others of different views and faiths winning their separate piece to throw out others out of) - and hence the absurd title of "anti-communists" epithet here does not convey how much hatred is inherent in the two words, however undeserved.
A very militant Tamil once told a secure gathering how she hated Thackeray, and went on to repeat it for a few minutes with no explanations - she thought none were needed, since Thackeray has consistently opposed any politics and policies that go against local people in his state.
I did not wish to bring forth a diatribe of muck which I was quite certain she was capable of unleashing, and so forebore from pointing out what everyone - at least those that remember the beginning of Thackeray in his home state - know so well; which is, he is but a pale mirror image of those that rule her own home state, which allows no tolerance for anyone from outside the state, none for anyone who is of a different linguistic origin, and generally makes life hell for any dissidents; no jobs for outsiders however superior in qualifications of every sort, goes without saying, while Tamilians on the other hand not only enjoy jobs at every level including highest in most other states - especially in Mumbai and other economically prosperious cities of India - but promote one another without question and set up cry if locals are given a preference of any sort.
The state of Tamilnadu which was carved out with a major portion of Madras state pre independence enjoyed preferential treatment given by British due to help they gave in defeating 1857, especially compared to neighbouring states of Karnataka (then Mysore) and Kerala (then Travancore and so on), and still clamour to keep the status quo. If now one of the states is given a much needed railway connection, up goes the furore in Madras to claim more or most of the pie as per tradition - and let us not even get started with the ridiculous wars over water.
All this might seem irrelevant, except that left or right in India is mostly a matter of who calls names louder and gets established with his lies.
One person visiting a state across to east gets s promptly arrested and thrown out on charge of being a right wing trouble maker since he was for a particular temple with a popular support, while another one from the said eastern state threatens to arrive in a western metropolis to conduct a ceremony of worship for reproductive purposes publicly (the latter ceremony is normally a private affair) in order to establish that millions of his home state people have a right to live in the said one metropolis never mind how much bursting at seams. This latter one threatening to conduct the reproductive worship publicly is counted as a left wing non religious politician. He gets to call names, while those with more culture and civilisation conduct themselves on their dignity.
So the title really begins with a name calling, whether so understood in US or otherwise. And fact is, while for example Shourie might not love or hate communists per say, he would expose them for their frauds as he would anyone - he was a journalist par excellence and integrity with fearlessness was the forte of his newspaper as long as he was there. For this, lack of blind following of orders from the correct brand of "foreigners", he gets to be called anti communist here.
The rest? Chakravaty Rajagopalachari was a very respected man in Congress who was less than appreciated in his own home state of then Madras, due to his realistic and benefic views rather than pandering to populist vocalisation resulting in half baked economic results. He is branded as anti communist due to his policies which might actually might have benefited his people and his nation far better without keeping conservative past necessarily brought into future. But politics was more important than people to his opponents, who are branded leftist.
As for Mamata Banerjee, it is inexcusable to call her any names - she is, simply put, the sister of the poor and disfranchised in her state, which due to leftist (read obedient to marxist-maoist) policies is now one of the poorest states of India for several decades, down from the days of pride of being the capital of the British before the formality of empire and crowning (for which they chose the historical capital of India, Delhi). If she is anti communist it merely points strongly to communists being not only wrong but total jackasses. And so they have been in the state they have had a free hand to rule for quite a few decades, imposing the party rule rather than going with what is good for people, what people wish or feel or need, thus following the usual line of a totalitarian rule by whatever the name of creed. Mamata Banerjee is the much beloved Didi (sister) of her people, which is why she has any clout at all - she works for them, unlike the communists of India.
Thus the politics of India, with words separated from meanings, never mind the Divine status of Word and Meaning expounded on by an ancient poet - fortunately the ancient tradition was not of burial, else they would all be turning in pain.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
In Spite the Gods: The Rise of Modern India; by Edward Luce.
The official description on the site, which may or may not represent the book or the author, and might very well be an editorial comment, goes :-
"India remains a mystery to many Americans, even as it is poised to become the world’s third largest economy within a generation, outstripping Japan. It will surpass China in population by 2032 and will have more English speakers than the United States by 2050. In In Spite of the Gods , Edward Luce, a journalist who covered India for many years, makes brilliant sense of India and its rise to global power. Already a number-one bestseller in India, his book is sure to be acknowledged for years as the definitive introduction to modern India. In Spite of the Gods illuminates a land of many contradictions. The booming tech sector we read so much about in the West, Luce points out, employs no more than one million of India’s 1.1 billion people. Only 35 million people, in fact, have formal enough jobs to pay taxes, while three-quarters of the country lives in extreme deprivation in India’s 600,000 villages. Yet amid all these extremes exists the world’s largest experiment in representative democracy—and a largely successful one, despite bureaucracies riddled with horrifying corruption. Luce shows that India is an economic rival to the U.S. in an entirely different sense than China is. There is nothing in India like the manufacturing capacity of China, despite the huge potential labor force. An inept system of public education leaves most Indians illiterate and unskilled. Yet at the other extreme, the middle class produces ten times as many engineering students a year as the United States. Notwithstanding its future as a major competitor in a globalized economy, American. leaders have been encouraging India’s rise, even welcoming it into the nuclear energy club, hoping to balance China’s influence in Asia. Above all, In Spite of the Gods is an enlightening study of the forces shaping India as it tries to balance the stubborn traditions of the past with an unevenly modernizing present. Deeply informed by scholarship and history, leavened by humor and rich in anecdote, it shows that India has huge opportunities as well as tremendous challenges that make the future “hers to lose.” "
The underlying biases are so taken for granted that they are not clear in plain sight, and amount to biases similar to equating blond with beautiful (with opposite assumptions silent but held tacitly far more strongly).
The title for instance assumes no reaction to any insult to the many, many religions and faiths and differences of thought that are equally held reverent in the country, mainly due to the character of the traditional way of thought of majority and their religion (often denied a status of religion in western television channels, since it does not confirm to a one person one book one god imposed on all followers and attempting to convert all others sort of pattern understood more easily for its simplicity, never mind the similarity of such faiths with any totalitarian way of thought) - but also the very freedom of worship inherent in the character of the nation is blatantly ignored, or worse, heavily disrespected, in the title and the underlying assumption therein.
Often people tend to hold concatenation as causal connection, and in west this has happened with economic rise being related to a relentless imposition of authoritative mode of faith and wiping out of alternatives - even all knowledge and rights thereto - being imprisoned within the authority fences and the duel that therefore necessarily was fought for freedom of thought against the religious authorities. It is forgotten that while this need to fight for the freedom of thought and knowledge might have helped a great deal, the prosperity would be far less if not accompanied by colonial occupation of other continents and usurping of their wealth, whatever the state of the local people and the treatment accorded to them by the colonial usurping occupiers, whether in Australia or across the ocean in American continent or Asia or Africa.
If this is not believable, just think of how life would be in Europe if there were no migration possible to any other continent, if everyone who wished to travel from Europe anywhere had to mortgage a significant part of their properties and undergo humiliating experiences on arrival in the other lands. Without the migration and the loot from other continents, Europe would be very crowded with poor as it was only two centuries ago - in fact, UK sponsored migration to Australia for all her poor just post wwII, officially, just as it was done for a while towards Canada or US prior to the wars so as to free large estates of aristocracy of the poor locals.
Much more to the graphic illustrative point, imagine if Africa owned the diamonds and the firms in Europe and coffee were to be as expensive as diamonds are today to west, while diamonds cost as much as best Champagne (and I mean, Champagne, not sparkling wine from elsewhere) - which might very well happen if local people owned the lands and used it to feed their own, sparing little for export to others for luxuries.
Once a neighbour in Germany had described poverty of East Germany where she visited relatives by relating how they could not afford bananas. I pointed out that first and foremost if the thing does not grow locally it could not be good for health, much less a necessity; as long as they had apples in their back or front yards on trees, they were in good shape for health and food and fruit. Bananas in fact are suitable only for tropical consumption, where they do grow - they are good food for heat of the locales and are cold in effect as food.
But to continue the thread, here is one more - imagine bananas cost more than opium and its byproducts in lands where they do not grow, and coconuts are no less than precious metals by weight. Would that be deprivation, when a product of one's own land gets a mere fraction of that from another? That is what the ex colonial lands (and natives of occupation forgotten lands of Australia and America too) have lived through.
In short, the prosperity of west has just as much to do with the looting via colonial occupations of various lands and migration to the lands taken over for good, as to do with the science versus faith wars Europe had to fight resulting in tremendous growth in science and technology.
Relating this prosperity to the religion of the west is the false assumption inherent in the title. Relating the prosperity to virtue of every kind is the other, deeper false assumption.
"India remains a mystery to many Americans, even as it is poised to become the world’s third largest economy within a generation, outstripping Japan. It will surpass China in population by 2032 and will have more English speakers than the United States by 2050. In In Spite of the Gods , Edward Luce, a journalist who covered India for many years, makes brilliant sense of India and its rise to global power. Already a number-one bestseller in India, his book is sure to be acknowledged for years as the definitive introduction to modern India. In Spite of the Gods illuminates a land of many contradictions. The booming tech sector we read so much about in the West, Luce points out, employs no more than one million of India’s 1.1 billion people. Only 35 million people, in fact, have formal enough jobs to pay taxes, while three-quarters of the country lives in extreme deprivation in India’s 600,000 villages. Yet amid all these extremes exists the world’s largest experiment in representative democracy—and a largely successful one, despite bureaucracies riddled with horrifying corruption. Luce shows that India is an economic rival to the U.S. in an entirely different sense than China is. There is nothing in India like the manufacturing capacity of China, despite the huge potential labor force. An inept system of public education leaves most Indians illiterate and unskilled. Yet at the other extreme, the middle class produces ten times as many engineering students a year as the United States. Notwithstanding its future as a major competitor in a globalized economy, American. leaders have been encouraging India’s rise, even welcoming it into the nuclear energy club, hoping to balance China’s influence in Asia. Above all, In Spite of the Gods is an enlightening study of the forces shaping India as it tries to balance the stubborn traditions of the past with an unevenly modernizing present. Deeply informed by scholarship and history, leavened by humor and rich in anecdote, it shows that India has huge opportunities as well as tremendous challenges that make the future “hers to lose.” "
The underlying biases are so taken for granted that they are not clear in plain sight, and amount to biases similar to equating blond with beautiful (with opposite assumptions silent but held tacitly far more strongly).
The title for instance assumes no reaction to any insult to the many, many religions and faiths and differences of thought that are equally held reverent in the country, mainly due to the character of the traditional way of thought of majority and their religion (often denied a status of religion in western television channels, since it does not confirm to a one person one book one god imposed on all followers and attempting to convert all others sort of pattern understood more easily for its simplicity, never mind the similarity of such faiths with any totalitarian way of thought) - but also the very freedom of worship inherent in the character of the nation is blatantly ignored, or worse, heavily disrespected, in the title and the underlying assumption therein.
Often people tend to hold concatenation as causal connection, and in west this has happened with economic rise being related to a relentless imposition of authoritative mode of faith and wiping out of alternatives - even all knowledge and rights thereto - being imprisoned within the authority fences and the duel that therefore necessarily was fought for freedom of thought against the religious authorities. It is forgotten that while this need to fight for the freedom of thought and knowledge might have helped a great deal, the prosperity would be far less if not accompanied by colonial occupation of other continents and usurping of their wealth, whatever the state of the local people and the treatment accorded to them by the colonial usurping occupiers, whether in Australia or across the ocean in American continent or Asia or Africa.
If this is not believable, just think of how life would be in Europe if there were no migration possible to any other continent, if everyone who wished to travel from Europe anywhere had to mortgage a significant part of their properties and undergo humiliating experiences on arrival in the other lands. Without the migration and the loot from other continents, Europe would be very crowded with poor as it was only two centuries ago - in fact, UK sponsored migration to Australia for all her poor just post wwII, officially, just as it was done for a while towards Canada or US prior to the wars so as to free large estates of aristocracy of the poor locals.
Much more to the graphic illustrative point, imagine if Africa owned the diamonds and the firms in Europe and coffee were to be as expensive as diamonds are today to west, while diamonds cost as much as best Champagne (and I mean, Champagne, not sparkling wine from elsewhere) - which might very well happen if local people owned the lands and used it to feed their own, sparing little for export to others for luxuries.
Once a neighbour in Germany had described poverty of East Germany where she visited relatives by relating how they could not afford bananas. I pointed out that first and foremost if the thing does not grow locally it could not be good for health, much less a necessity; as long as they had apples in their back or front yards on trees, they were in good shape for health and food and fruit. Bananas in fact are suitable only for tropical consumption, where they do grow - they are good food for heat of the locales and are cold in effect as food.
But to continue the thread, here is one more - imagine bananas cost more than opium and its byproducts in lands where they do not grow, and coconuts are no less than precious metals by weight. Would that be deprivation, when a product of one's own land gets a mere fraction of that from another? That is what the ex colonial lands (and natives of occupation forgotten lands of Australia and America too) have lived through.
In short, the prosperity of west has just as much to do with the looting via colonial occupations of various lands and migration to the lands taken over for good, as to do with the science versus faith wars Europe had to fight resulting in tremendous growth in science and technology.
Relating this prosperity to the religion of the west is the false assumption inherent in the title. Relating the prosperity to virtue of every kind is the other, deeper false assumption.
Turin Shroud: by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince.
The famous relic named or known popularly as Turin Shroud is not a relic after all, but a photograph, made during renaissance or thereabouts, using process and chemicals well known since antiquity. This in short is the conclusion of the book, presented with compelling evidence and arguments but very badly written in most part, especially the first few chapters until they go into the personal attacks they had to suffer in the process of working on the research.
This is the book telling about the research, sifting through evidence, experiences of various interactions with diverse people involved in the process, and a conclusion arrived at about the mystery of the Turin Shroud presented with compelling evidence of part of the fact and good arguments but not quite conclusive ones about the identity of the person responsible for the relic or artifact.
The duo went through some horrendous opposition of the sort intended to terrify them into shying away from any conclusion away from the official position that the relic is a true shroud of no one other than the church object of worship, a position not held up by scientific evidence - ironically the carbon dating test was officially supported by church with intention of proving the relic as true, which in fact cannot be done even if the artifact is two millennia old precisely - since the carbon dating proved that it was only about eight or so centuries old, give or take a century or two at most.
Towards the end the writers recount how there was a mysterious fire with equally mysterious hour of delay in calling for firemen post the evidence that not only this is not a true relic but in fact it is a photograph, proven by many recreations of the process involved in what could have been the way it was made during renaissance using a camera obscura, recreations by many persons independent of one another.
The fire might have or might have been intended to damage the artifact so far as to declare it officially destroyed so that no further examination can be made, since such an examination or even a casual viewing might further not only convince the general populace of the fact that it is a photograph but might raise questions about the complicity of the church in producing the forged relic in the first place for the sake of power over people's minds and financial gain in more than one way.
(Monday 22 November 2010)
.........................................
If one would like to know about the general history facts and reasoning on the subject, this is not quite the book one should begin with.
One generally picks up a book of this sort for information about what is going on, what is known, and so forth. Opinions and biases of writers are bound to come in, but good writers and thinkers manage to sift through what is known and go with some reasonable logic to their conclusions and manage to present them in their work with some credibility. That last part is somewhat missing or at least garbled in this work.
Less than halfway through one manages to see the pattern that continues consistently - the duo has arrived at some conclusions and are presenting them as fait accompli from almost page one, without going through the process of reason or logic for benefit of the reader. It begins to look like a session of bashing up some other writers and thinkers and more, on the whole, and it is not clear why since the thinking process of this duo is obscure.
Often they object to the thinking or logic or conclusions of others with huge gaps in their own logic for doing so, and it is repeatedly this sort of confusing material that brings one to suspect that the whole idea is to bash up the reader with a great deal of emotionally charged diatribe without much logic until one gives up and agrees with the writers - a typical tool of gossip sessions of afternoon coffee sessions.
.............................................
The idea here seems to be that since one cannot pooh pooh scientific evidence that has gone against the faith about the shroud and the identity of the shrouded, then of necessity there must be someone to pay the price, pay for the demolition of faith of millions those that have been following the line set out by Rome, even if the line is general and not specific in this matter.
And who better to pay for it than the most brilliantly intelligent of the geniuses of renaissance, the mysterious artist who also was a scientist and thinker par excellence, of not only his time but amazing even today with his various sketches of inventions of his own, the one recently shot into fame due to a painting and its coded messages, "the" Leonardo Da Vinci?
So here is a book to hit him with accusation of fooling everyone, for which every other possible thesis must be first and foremost discredited if not ridiculed.
...............................................................
As for the shroud, it remains mysterious to the writers as it is to perhaps everyone else (or we would have had huge headlines about the solution to the puzzle) - how the image formed, how it remained on one side, why it seems to be that of someone crucified but is merely from renaissance according to carbon dating, who could then have done it in what way that is unknown today and cannot be replicated, and more - if it indeed is genuinely from two millenia ago, where was it all this while?
But the last is begging the question in many ways, including the loyalty of church to the actual person (and his relatives) of the worshiped figure on the cross - what with various writings of last quarter of a century and discoveries of church dictating definite versions of the story and wiping out not only other versions but any trace of anyone who could possibly be a clue to the other versions, possibly the real ones at that, it is more than possible that such possessions had to be in hiding.
For instance many of faith find it troubling to read Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code - and this is silly, since the only thing that DVC demolishes is the official version of the story, not the question of divinity. But the official version has been forced with burning alive of people daring to think independently and during centuries before Science established her reign as the alternative alter for intellectuals of west, and this divide has created havoc. Persecution of Galileo and others did not help.
..............................................
Even if the shroud were to be proven scientifically to be two thousand years old this does not prove whose it was, to begin with, since the crucifixion was not limited to one person but quite commonly used to punish all sorts of those that went against the occupation of the land by Rome. The shroud if it is two millennia old still could be anybody's, logically and scientifically speaking, unless there is more proof of the identity of the shrouded.
Such identity could come from DNA, in two ways - one, with living relatives, and second, with a known grave and body therein. Even this might be not conclusive enough evidence, the second that is, since such a tomb and grave ought to be known for all this time and not suddenly discovered now or disclosed without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Living relatives, for which there is such overwhelming evidence pointed at although not conclusively established, what with the various persecutions through centuries by church and yet the new discoveries of various manuscripts in places unsuspected when they could and would have been destroyed, is another matter.
Quite possibly there are living relatives in spite of the persecution through centuries including holocaust and pogroms and general hounding of his people - for that precisely is what Jews are after all, his people and possibly descendants of relatives - but such a discovery and establishing of such a fact would be threatening to church and power of church just as much today as it has been since the crucifixion; so it is highly unlikely such evidence would come forth.
And so there goes any possibility of establishing the shroud through DNA even if carbon dating were to either confirm age of the shroud or to be bypassed for some convincing reason.
..................................................
Really, though - why this obsession with scientific proof of something that is clearly a matter of faith, of spiritual realm?
To begin with science has demolished the possibility of shroud being two thousand years old with carbon dating - but even if another one of the right age were to be found, so what? It could be of anyone crucified, of which there were plenty.
On the other hand the formation of the image seems to baffle science, but quite likely there were processes then known - possibly even today known except in west where inquisition wiped out knowledge - that might form such image either due to shroud being real or with some other process. The writers here go on (and on and on) discrediting any such thought, but really all that comes to is that they are discrediting it and something else still might be out there, not widely known yet, which is what the solution to the puzzle is. (Ok, so it is not oil and myrrah, how about this other spice?)
....................................................
And most of all - why does faith need scientific proof?
If the shroud - this shroud, or any other so declared - is not real, so what? If the resurrection was a story made up later, so what? If he were really married as a young male from a respectable family then ought to have been, and fathered a respectable number of progeny - so what? If there is divinity in someone, and it is innate rather than a human achievement, why should it be wiped out with something so natural to all life?
An artist, a scientist, a person of tremendous achievement in one or more realms can very well have a normal - or at least relatively normal - family life; and so could one with a spiritual facet. Why is it necessary for humans to determine that a divine being could not just as well do so?
.............................................................
There is of course another possibility - that crucifixions went on during inquisition, destroying any evidence of any sort that might threaten the power of church by methods other than burning people in public. The shroud might be real, and belong to another age, whether to a divine being or a mere human.
And then there is the widely known factor of the legend about his having traveled to India twice - one, his missing years between boyhood and sudden appearance shortly before crucifixion; second, post crucifixion, when he vanished - and there is the Himaalyan village that claims to have known, always, that he arrived and lived there, and there is the grave there that they claim to have known was his, known all these centuries.
............................................
Faith ought not to cling to scientific proof of something material, or possibility that someone after all did have children.
Spiritual realm is not enclosed in faith, whether it be blind faith dictated by some authority with power or faith given some crutches with a story and some relics.
Science has to do with an intellectual working out, of reality - and spiritual can only be higher, more inclusive of possibilities, than intellectual.
Faith is only one factor of spiritual realm, and not necessarily something to need crutches for.
(Wednesday, October 6, 2010)
This is the book telling about the research, sifting through evidence, experiences of various interactions with diverse people involved in the process, and a conclusion arrived at about the mystery of the Turin Shroud presented with compelling evidence of part of the fact and good arguments but not quite conclusive ones about the identity of the person responsible for the relic or artifact.
The duo went through some horrendous opposition of the sort intended to terrify them into shying away from any conclusion away from the official position that the relic is a true shroud of no one other than the church object of worship, a position not held up by scientific evidence - ironically the carbon dating test was officially supported by church with intention of proving the relic as true, which in fact cannot be done even if the artifact is two millennia old precisely - since the carbon dating proved that it was only about eight or so centuries old, give or take a century or two at most.
Towards the end the writers recount how there was a mysterious fire with equally mysterious hour of delay in calling for firemen post the evidence that not only this is not a true relic but in fact it is a photograph, proven by many recreations of the process involved in what could have been the way it was made during renaissance using a camera obscura, recreations by many persons independent of one another.
The fire might have or might have been intended to damage the artifact so far as to declare it officially destroyed so that no further examination can be made, since such an examination or even a casual viewing might further not only convince the general populace of the fact that it is a photograph but might raise questions about the complicity of the church in producing the forged relic in the first place for the sake of power over people's minds and financial gain in more than one way.
(Monday 22 November 2010)
.........................................
If one would like to know about the general history facts and reasoning on the subject, this is not quite the book one should begin with.
One generally picks up a book of this sort for information about what is going on, what is known, and so forth. Opinions and biases of writers are bound to come in, but good writers and thinkers manage to sift through what is known and go with some reasonable logic to their conclusions and manage to present them in their work with some credibility. That last part is somewhat missing or at least garbled in this work.
Less than halfway through one manages to see the pattern that continues consistently - the duo has arrived at some conclusions and are presenting them as fait accompli from almost page one, without going through the process of reason or logic for benefit of the reader. It begins to look like a session of bashing up some other writers and thinkers and more, on the whole, and it is not clear why since the thinking process of this duo is obscure.
Often they object to the thinking or logic or conclusions of others with huge gaps in their own logic for doing so, and it is repeatedly this sort of confusing material that brings one to suspect that the whole idea is to bash up the reader with a great deal of emotionally charged diatribe without much logic until one gives up and agrees with the writers - a typical tool of gossip sessions of afternoon coffee sessions.
.............................................
The idea here seems to be that since one cannot pooh pooh scientific evidence that has gone against the faith about the shroud and the identity of the shrouded, then of necessity there must be someone to pay the price, pay for the demolition of faith of millions those that have been following the line set out by Rome, even if the line is general and not specific in this matter.
And who better to pay for it than the most brilliantly intelligent of the geniuses of renaissance, the mysterious artist who also was a scientist and thinker par excellence, of not only his time but amazing even today with his various sketches of inventions of his own, the one recently shot into fame due to a painting and its coded messages, "the" Leonardo Da Vinci?
So here is a book to hit him with accusation of fooling everyone, for which every other possible thesis must be first and foremost discredited if not ridiculed.
...............................................................
As for the shroud, it remains mysterious to the writers as it is to perhaps everyone else (or we would have had huge headlines about the solution to the puzzle) - how the image formed, how it remained on one side, why it seems to be that of someone crucified but is merely from renaissance according to carbon dating, who could then have done it in what way that is unknown today and cannot be replicated, and more - if it indeed is genuinely from two millenia ago, where was it all this while?
But the last is begging the question in many ways, including the loyalty of church to the actual person (and his relatives) of the worshiped figure on the cross - what with various writings of last quarter of a century and discoveries of church dictating definite versions of the story and wiping out not only other versions but any trace of anyone who could possibly be a clue to the other versions, possibly the real ones at that, it is more than possible that such possessions had to be in hiding.
For instance many of faith find it troubling to read Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code - and this is silly, since the only thing that DVC demolishes is the official version of the story, not the question of divinity. But the official version has been forced with burning alive of people daring to think independently and during centuries before Science established her reign as the alternative alter for intellectuals of west, and this divide has created havoc. Persecution of Galileo and others did not help.
..............................................
Even if the shroud were to be proven scientifically to be two thousand years old this does not prove whose it was, to begin with, since the crucifixion was not limited to one person but quite commonly used to punish all sorts of those that went against the occupation of the land by Rome. The shroud if it is two millennia old still could be anybody's, logically and scientifically speaking, unless there is more proof of the identity of the shrouded.
Such identity could come from DNA, in two ways - one, with living relatives, and second, with a known grave and body therein. Even this might be not conclusive enough evidence, the second that is, since such a tomb and grave ought to be known for all this time and not suddenly discovered now or disclosed without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Living relatives, for which there is such overwhelming evidence pointed at although not conclusively established, what with the various persecutions through centuries by church and yet the new discoveries of various manuscripts in places unsuspected when they could and would have been destroyed, is another matter.
Quite possibly there are living relatives in spite of the persecution through centuries including holocaust and pogroms and general hounding of his people - for that precisely is what Jews are after all, his people and possibly descendants of relatives - but such a discovery and establishing of such a fact would be threatening to church and power of church just as much today as it has been since the crucifixion; so it is highly unlikely such evidence would come forth.
And so there goes any possibility of establishing the shroud through DNA even if carbon dating were to either confirm age of the shroud or to be bypassed for some convincing reason.
..................................................
Really, though - why this obsession with scientific proof of something that is clearly a matter of faith, of spiritual realm?
To begin with science has demolished the possibility of shroud being two thousand years old with carbon dating - but even if another one of the right age were to be found, so what? It could be of anyone crucified, of which there were plenty.
On the other hand the formation of the image seems to baffle science, but quite likely there were processes then known - possibly even today known except in west where inquisition wiped out knowledge - that might form such image either due to shroud being real or with some other process. The writers here go on (and on and on) discrediting any such thought, but really all that comes to is that they are discrediting it and something else still might be out there, not widely known yet, which is what the solution to the puzzle is. (Ok, so it is not oil and myrrah, how about this other spice?)
....................................................
And most of all - why does faith need scientific proof?
If the shroud - this shroud, or any other so declared - is not real, so what? If the resurrection was a story made up later, so what? If he were really married as a young male from a respectable family then ought to have been, and fathered a respectable number of progeny - so what? If there is divinity in someone, and it is innate rather than a human achievement, why should it be wiped out with something so natural to all life?
An artist, a scientist, a person of tremendous achievement in one or more realms can very well have a normal - or at least relatively normal - family life; and so could one with a spiritual facet. Why is it necessary for humans to determine that a divine being could not just as well do so?
.............................................................
There is of course another possibility - that crucifixions went on during inquisition, destroying any evidence of any sort that might threaten the power of church by methods other than burning people in public. The shroud might be real, and belong to another age, whether to a divine being or a mere human.
And then there is the widely known factor of the legend about his having traveled to India twice - one, his missing years between boyhood and sudden appearance shortly before crucifixion; second, post crucifixion, when he vanished - and there is the Himaalyan village that claims to have known, always, that he arrived and lived there, and there is the grave there that they claim to have known was his, known all these centuries.
............................................
Faith ought not to cling to scientific proof of something material, or possibility that someone after all did have children.
Spiritual realm is not enclosed in faith, whether it be blind faith dictated by some authority with power or faith given some crutches with a story and some relics.
Science has to do with an intellectual working out, of reality - and spiritual can only be higher, more inclusive of possibilities, than intellectual.
Faith is only one factor of spiritual realm, and not necessarily something to need crutches for.
(Wednesday, October 6, 2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
