After reading The Secret by Rhonda Byrne, I am faced with a dilemma: Why would anyone have unconditional faith in something they read from a book? If its philosophy only works when the person has faith, then people who don’t have it will get nothing out of the book, and after every disappointment, the level of faith drops, and so does the failure. The advantage that Jesus’s followers had, as well as the Gita’s primary character, Arjuna, is that they didn’t need to create faith, all they had to do was to be present when their beliefs were proven. They were able to see to believe. With Jesus’s miraculous healing, and Lord Krishna’s true powerful form, people’s faith was instantly kindled with a boost. It is very difficult to have faith in the unknown and invisible. It is simply against human nature. Why, then, would people go through so much trouble to have faith? According to Krishna, men that are “Neutral to blame and praise, silent, content with his fate, unsheltered, firm in thought, the man of devotion is dear to me. Even more dear to me are devotees who cherish this elixir of sacred duty as I have taught it, intent on me in their faith.” (Gita. 12. 19, 20). Jesus believes that “…Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.” (Mathew 17.20)
What I can interpret from the previous teachings is that faith provides godly power and immunity from not only pain, but death and reincarnation themselves. The problem I see in this is that people will have faith to be able to have godly power and immortality etc…, not because of some personal will to be a better person. I can tell how this could be a problem when Krishna finds greedy people seeking him, or if Jesus sees power-hungry lunatics moving mountains around. Faith is good, but only if it is acquired for the right purposes. In this way, both Krishna and Jesus should have, in my opinion kept their enrollment benefits more discrete. It was like if they wanted to acquire disciples and faithful people the easy way.
God, as seen in the old testament, was smarter when interacting with his people. During the times that preceded the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra, he told Lot, that if he could find a number of good people in the city of Sodom, that he would spare the whole population from destruction. Although he didn’t find the required minimum, I’d like to imagine a hypothetical situation in which God himself would have informed the sinners of his plans to destroy them, and how, if he could find enough good-doers, he would save them all, a very different chain of events would have occurred. First, the sinners would have probably doubted God’s power, which would have led this hypothetical Lord to demonstrate his magic. Then, trembling with fear, the majority of the population would have become, or at least pretended to become, much better people. The town would have been saved by the good-hearted people. The problem with this plan, is that faith and noble people should not come from fear of destruction or from eagerness to have power. It should be a completely neutral situation in which the people change because they know it in their heart that they want to. The hypothetical inhabitants of Sodom would have become better people only to save their own selves, and this doesn’t count. But we all know that God doesn’t cheat (Or at least he doesn’t do so in this situation). (Hint: David and Saul).
So what I learned after reading these texts, is that I disagree with Krishna and Jesus’s methods for gathering followers with faith. I believe that faith, however unconditional, only counts if it is blind and neutral faith, and that the ancient people CHEATED.