Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

There are a few things in life, the difficulties of which, without attempting, through aspiration and desire, could never be understood. One of those is the art of conveying an event poignantly in poetic form.

Homer’s epic runs into many books – rather divided into many books- not just a poignant poem, yet in the course of the flow, which is swift and precise in expression, there appear descriptions which suddenly knock us out of our knowledge and plunges us into an experience.

At school, I’m sure we had all read of Cyclops in the “adventures” of Ulysses. The story tells us how Ulysses got trapped inside the cave of Polyphemus, a Cyclop, and how he and his mates made good their exit by scorching the eye of Polyphemus with a stake.

When we read Homer, it is no more a life saving tactic of an adventurer or the payback time for a giant for having mercilessly killed Ulysses’ mates.

The following lines, immediately makes us reach out for our own eyes, a participation in human predicament. Maybe, the scorching is justified, yet when a human being’s eye is scorched with a fiery brand while in a drunken stupor, startles us.

It is that poignancy of human predicament, when brought out in all its gore, which rouses us from mundane knowledge to an experience we would like to spare ourselves from.

Here are the lines from Homer:

“And as when armourers temper in the ford

The keen-edged pole-axe, or the shining sword,

The red-hot metal hisses in the lake,

Thus in his eye-ball hiss’d the plunging stake.”

If one believes that these poetic expressions are flashes in a ocean of words, the poem being an Epic, one is lost. Here is the description of the very act of Ulysses and his mates on the hapless Polyphemus:

“The stake now glow’d beneath the burning bed

(Green as it was) and sparkled fiery red,

Then forth the vengeful instrument I bring;

With beating hearts my fellows form a ring.

Urged my some present god, they swift let fall

The pointed torment on his visual ball.

Myself above them from a rising ground

Guide the sharp stake, and twirl it round and round.

As when a shipwright stands his workmen o’er,

Who ply the wimble, some huge beam to bore;

Urged on all hands, it nimbly spins about,

The grain deep-piercing till it scoops it out:

In his broad eye he whirls the fiery wood;

From the pierced pupil spouts the boiling blood;

Singed are his brows; the scorching lids grow black;

The jelly bubbles, and the fibres crack.”

Excerpt From

The Odyssey


Is the scene not redolent of what happened to Samson, the Judge of Israel? Look at the verse where Samson’s plight at the hands of the Philistines is expressed:

Judges 16:

21 But the Philistines took him, and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he did grind in the prison house.

Prose, gives knowledge to the reader. If one were to let one’s imagination on every information, there might be possibilities whereby one wouldn’t be able to reconcile the threads of facts with the fabric of the full narration. That’s where an Epic Poet like Homer with his craft, imagination and ethics blends it with balance.

The scene of Ulysses preparing and punching the only eye of Polyphemus may momentarily elicit sympathy, but when one had read the preceding stanzas where Polyphemus had brutally killed four of Ulysses’ mates, it gratifies the reader on two counts that the action taken by Ulysses was essential – as there was no other way; and secondly, the innocent guests were killed for no necessity of Polyphemus and those innocent wayfarers, who had strayed as uninvited guests into his cave, were without justification brutally killed and consumed.

Epics may be tedious, but if one gets involved in the poetic content, the imagery would be elevating and eye opening.

We, the Paris.

The apple of discord

Is the choice we all

Make in handing over.

Power, Wisdom & Beauty

One of the three

Is to be the choice.

The most visible is Beauty-

Seen & could be relished.

The next visible in its expression

Is Power.

The least visible is Wisdom.

Like Paris, one can blow away

One’s kingdom or even like Menelaus, lose it.

Juno’s gift has high procurement value.

Power can translate.

But the least appealing is

Wisdom, but durable.

Gives Life, longevity,

Experience, loyal friends,

Circes, Sirens’ indelible music,

With a Penelope

Hoping spouse’ safe arrival

At Ithaca, keeping the suitors

At bay with mild flirting

To feed her mind, but

Keep her body chaste;

An Argos to identify &

Get back to ruling his people.

Wisdom aids in vicissitudes

Seldom expected or hoped.

Power and Beauty,

The subsets of Wisdom,

Reside outside oneself

Whereas Wisdom

Is the superhuman chip

Embedded in ones own


Giving Divine capabilities.

One could still misuse

It like Solomon and

Tax his subjects

To finance his expensive Helens

And leave Rehoboams with

Disgruntled populace.

Wisdom, to be wisely used

Is more important than Wisdom Itself.

Such is the case of the other two too.

Yet, Wisdom gives something

Which the other two can’t give:


Humility is the greatest

Disguise against the

Outrageous tides of Time.

The Iron complained,

You weren’t strong enough to pull me to you.

Said the Magnet to the Iron:

I could only attract you,

But you have to yield & move.

Said the Iron: my Will could’ve

Been overpowered

by your attraction,

But you didn’t.

Replied the Magnet: I didn’t

pull you,

Lest you resist & I lose your friendship too.

But you could’ve leapt & clung.

Said the Iron: my baggage was

Too heavy to leap or cling;

And Your attraction was weak to pull me to your side.

Reticently they’d borne their Love,

Undisclosed to the addressees.

Uncommunicated Love

Fermented, effervesced,

Casked, distilled and bottled – forever.

Precious but….

There she stands

With anklets over her socks

Waiting at the arrival

Of someone she cares.

High heels to boot;

Crimson hued lips.

I see that look aching for

Approval on first sight

Of her beloved.

Lack of opportunities may

Reveal in garishness.

Aspiration achieved without

Culture, reveals.

Each set out to do what they could. One got all the knowledge and implements to test out the contents of his knowledge, the other having got nothing, set out to search himself.

The former became a super skilled engineer, having learnt to prove by experiment all the theories propounded by the ancient and modern physicists.

The latter propounded theories which none could disprove. His only proof was that, all that he said could be proved only beyond Life – an euphemism for Death. But if one were to wait, then after the point of reckoning (another euphemism for Death) there would be no redemption. Fear, utter Fear, drove the masses into the latter’s hands. He has been the Baba for those devotees.

Better to propound what can be proved and be useful to mankind. Better still is what can be propounded which can never ever be disproved. Worst is spending a lifetime learning to prove others’ theories and hypotheses.

Get propounding.

If one walks up to the horizon, whichever way one walks, that’s the path. Lesser mortals, who move by sight, would find it a path to walk. It is not the path which is important, but that you went beyond the known and seen horizon, which makes you a propounder.

Horizons are only limits to the eyes, but beyond those seen horizons exist Life, not as we understand it, but waiting to be understood

Just as the Chaldeans, astrologers and others from the court of Nebuchadnezzar said, ‘there is no king or lord who had asked for something like this’, nobody could have even thought of asking anyone what Nebuchadnezzar had asked.

The king had just been the king for two years and he had learnt all the precious knowledge required for executing the affairs of his kingdom. His commandment was this:

Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

The efficacy of an interpretation would lie only in the coming to pass of such events as interpreted.

Let us analyse what Daniel did. Daniel says that God revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that he was the head of gold of all the kingdoms that had been and yet to be.

Is that even remotely true by hindsight?

I guess not. Compared to the Kingdoms held by Xerxes; Suleiman the Magnificent; or even some of the lesser known Caesars, neither was Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom as vast as theirs nor did he have the power that some of the above mentioned kings/ emperors had wielded. We are not including the Akbars and Louis the Fourteenth, who were more tactful and wisely ruled their kingdoms with vast resources. Nor are we including the brutal Chengiz Khans, Tamerlanes and their ilk of marauders. So by hindsight, the interpretation of the head of gold being Nebuchadnezzar nailed it for Daniel. It was a wise self promotion scheme, which was not by motive or intent, but a by product of a mind that was wired for survival – not just to escape – but to thrive and overcome all odds. Daniel submitted to the ultimate of all logic – if Daniel could repeat the dream which Nebuchadnezzar had dreamt earlier, Daniel’s interpretation would be believed, rather trusted. But Daniel had to place all interpretation beyond the life of Nebuchadnezzar except exalting him to a position which the wily Nebuchadnezzar had desired. The rest of it is all read as prophecy.

This prophecy was not ‘time specific’ like that of Joseph’s explanation of seven cattle as seven years and that accurate prediction of the coming of the seven years of famine in succession to the plenty of seven years, to the Pharaoh.

Then the silver, brass or bronze (as per the version of your Old Testament), the iron and clay. At the time of Daniel, no one could have imagined any of those kingdoms. Much less the possibility of a more powerful kingdom than that of the then Babylonian empire coming into existence, which lasted only for a total of 80 years. In fact Darius, the Persian takes over Babylon within Daniel’s own lifetime. In all, the interpretation satisfied the deep seated desire of Nebuchadnezzar – which was pandered to by Daniel.

Maybe God wanted it that way – to elevate Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. I am more inclined to believe that. For God, there is no such thing as a fact or fiction – He could turn a fiction into a fact and make any fiction into a reality.

We as living human beings don’t have to exalt God, because He showed the dream of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel upon the prayers of Daniel and his three friends, but our very life is a miracle in many ways. A self realisation is enough.

If we build our Faith based on these instances, which smack of stupidity, we are just getting into the jingoism of praise because we are aligning ourselves with a ‘powerful’ God, and not because we are in alignment with God’s expectation in men.

What will happen to such faith built on these stories if in some point in the future the excavations discover a record of the dreams dreamt by the Babylonian kings which are recorded real time and kept by a scribe? – just like the records maintained by the Kings of the line of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) of the Book of Esther? Would it not lead to a speculation that Daniel could have sweet talked his way to read those contemporaneous records of the Babylonian kings, with the assistance of the Ariochs?

Therefore, I believe that certain factual narrations which might have triggered our faith at the Sunday school level, should not be used as props to our faith in God after self realisation.

Life is a miracle and God is the master planner running the entire gamut of existence through set principles, with exceptions and provisos and special mentions. As such no knowledge – human knowledge would be sufficient to make formulae on the methods of God.

But acknowledging the existence of God and submitting to such a thought considering the vastness and depth and continuity of Existence could bring one to a sober self-realisation which is the best way to realise God. Definitely not through these jingoistic episodic narrations.

I love Andrew.

Andrew the brother of Peter. He had excelled in the art of Special Mention.

A Special Mention is a time allocated in the legislatures for bringing up issues which are not covered under any specific Rules of the Legislature concerned. Or so it was designed, but now to impress the voters in a constituency, issues are raised/ advertised etc.

Andrew was the first, of all the twelve disciples, to have met Jesus – that is if you go by the Gospel of John. But to believe that you have to also believe that Jesus was not in touch with his cousins John and James before He was identified as the Messiah. Further, you have to also believe that John and James had not introduced their partners Peter and Andrew. But surmises and suppositions, however probable they might have been from the realm of possibilities, facts are facts when reported. There OUGHT to be a finality to facts, otherwise they turn to myths and long winding epics of dubious history.

John and James might have been childhood and teenage acquaintances of Jesus, assuming that the Cousins’ mothers were close. But, after Jesus assumed Messiahship, it could be safely presumed that Andrew was the first to meet Jesus.

Is the meeting so important? I consider it was – for the reason that he connected his brother Peter to Jesus. John narrates thus in the Gospel:

1 Chapter

35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus.

So contextually, Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist first, before he identified Messiah, based on the utterances of the Baptist, relating to the superiority of Jesus. As regards John the Baptist, his actions were based on a CALLING, but Jesus’ was not based on anything called Calling, for He had been/was and is the Son of God – not a mere ‘calling’ but a descent of Godhood to dwell with men in the flesh.

It might look so simple to us – because the Kingdom of God had come and we have taken Jesus to be a part of our existence, but for Andrew the CURIOUS SEARCHER, it was a divine discovery.

I can imagine how much Andrew must have venerated his relationship with John the Baptist – a man who was the greatest of men born before the dawning of the Kingdom of God, according to Jesus Himself! But all that counted for nothing when the man whom Andrew venerated says that he wasn’t worthy enough to ‘stoop’ down and unloose His shoe’s latchet’. Andrew discovers the longing of generations of expectation blossoming before him. Andrew jumped out of the boat of the Baptist and went after Jesus. Andrew’s thirst for finding out the Truth is amazing and his ability to go after Jesus leaving aside his master John without any compunction is not any lack of loyalty but an innocent thirst for attaining an association with the Truth. How could he have resisted following the Messiah, when his own master had certified the dawning of the kingdom of God?

Andrew rushes to his bother Peter and informs him of his discovery – not a small event. Most of the prophecies of the latter prophets revolve around that event – the arrival of the Messiah. It must have been a moment much greater than the Eureka moment of Archimedes- he merely was attempting to solve a doubt of a temporal king- but here an intergenerational longing was suddenly unfolding with the assurance of person like John the Baptist. I’d have fainted – had I been in that position. If Elisabeth was excited to see her Lord’s mother how much more, when the Messiah stands there in front of me in life and blood, with the assurance of the greatest man born of a woman?

Unimaginable ‼️

It is this Andrew who identifies a boy with the loaves and fishes and makes a Special Mention to Jesus with a rider “what is that to so many?”. Jesus honours that, probably because Andrew believed that Jesus could do MUCH with little.

At Luke 11:1 a disciple, whose name is not mentioned asked Jesus, How to pray and adds a sting “Like John taught his disciples”. Who could that disciple have been and who could have qualified to say that? According to John’s Gospel, two of the disciples of John followed Jesus, but there is only evidence to show that out of those two, only one became an Apostle. Who could that have been? My unshakable Faith is that it must have been Andrew.

If Andrew has not asked Jesus for that prayer, possibly we wouldn’t have had the Lord’s Prayer today.

There are unverified a as nd unverifiable narrations regarding Apostle Andrew, but these three events give me certainty of belief that though he might not have been most impetuous in his Faith like his brother Peter, or filled with grace like John, or with the gravity of James, he had made special mentions, the outcomes of which sets his role in great importance.

Tag Cloud