A few weeks ago at the end of a service at the temple I attend, my teacher/priest gave a short lecture, as he normally does, this time talking about the Bible. Now he wasn’t bashing the bible or any beliefs contained therein, more so he was just examining a particular parable in this book. Now I don’t remember the area of the book that it was in, maybe one of you will, but I do remember the basics of the story, two of which I’m sure most of you have heard. My teacher proposed a very interesting question when this was read, one that happens to coincide with what I have always thought to be true, see whatcha think.

Jesus, on one of his many trips J , was speaking with two noble men who did not know of his teachings. The men where very pessimistic of what Jesus had to say and therefor had decided to try and find fault in the words he was presenting.

The first man asked, "What is God’s greatest law?" Jesus answered "To love they lord God with all of your heart, mind, and soul, giving your self to him completely." The two men understood what Jesus was saying and then asked the second question. (This is where things become paradoxical, as it would seem the second answer poses certain problems with the first answer) the men asked, "what then is God’s second law?" Jesus answered, "to love thy self and thy neighbor as you would love him."

Now the second answer poses and interesting question, if one loves God completely, following his greatest rule, with all of their heart, mind, and soul, how then can you love yourself and your neighbor in the same way? If you have given all you have to God what is left to follow the second rule? Now there is a fairly simple answer to this question, one that many will not buy, but that’s ok to. In order to love God as completely as he has asked, and then to follow his second rule of loving they neighbor as you would love him, it would beg the answer, self, neighbor, and God must be the same. If God has commanded us to love him completely but then wants us to love others and ourselves equally and completely, God then would, by his very own words, be saying they are me, you are me and I am all of you. All the same.

It makes me wonder of course, what was truly meant by what was said. I mean look at translations of other languages even today, there are some words that simply have no English translation, so its left to the translator to determine what that word might actually mean in English. If the translation of this one parable was done without true understanding, it could mean a whole different thing to the Christian church. That is to say, this basic rule of God, the highest of all his laws, could mean that God is universally everything, and what Jesus had said to these two men was misinterpreted or not understood. Could it be that Jesus was enlightened and new the true nature of the universe, but as the Buddha did, used simple stories and analogies to teach the common people of the time in a way that they might understand? After all to come right out and tell people what reality actually is can be, not only confusing, but also completely ignored due to its complex simplicity and its deviation from our life’s conditioning.

In any case I thought I would give this to you all to think about, many of the devout "God is a single entity" believers will not agree I’m sure, and that’s ok. The one thing I’m sure we can agree on is that Jesus, like the Buddha, thought that universal loving kindness and compassion where the key, and it would seem knowing that, that both paths lead to the same place…just at different speeds.

~Mykkyo