Ok, so 'The Brothers Karamazov' was perhaps the most influential book I have ever read. I was quite pleased to find that this "book" is really just a small piece of that story. Brother Ivan (the Atheist) is telling his little brother Alyosha (the pious one) a fictional tale about the return of Christ during the Inquisition. The Grand Inquisitor arrests Christ and informs Him that he intends to burn Him at the stake although he knows exactly who he is. Only Dostoyevsky could wade into such deep and abstract matters and still make sense! Ivan's story of the Grand Inquisitor is interrupted only by Alyosha, who counters the wisdom of the inquisitor with simple and brilliant points.
Also, the return to perhaps my favorite story ever was like looking at pictures of some of my most precious memories. This dialog must have happened during the time of 'The Brothers Karamazov' since Ivan.....well, I wont ruin it.
But if you struggle with belief (as we must), read Dostoyevsky.

Один з братів Карамазових придумав історію про Ісуса, який вертається на землю за часів інквізиції і культурно спілкується з головним Інквізитором.
Що цього разу чекає на месію?

Though this is indeed a great work of literature, it is important to remember that is part of a larger and even greater piece of literature. I am not a fan of only reading a single chapter out of a larger work as I believe a reader will be missing out on what the author is truly trying to say. This is especially the case with this chapter. If you found this chapter captivating and extraordinary, I implore you to read the entire text of "The Brothers Karamazov". The chapter, "Talks and Homilies From Father Zosima", reads like a sort of opposing argument from this particular chapter and it is, in my opinion, a more beautiful and hopeful chapter. Furthermore, it truly cuts to the root of what Dostoyevsky is ultimately trying to convey in this novel, which is essentially that we, all of us, are responsible for the worlds sins and, as a result, the only way to atone and achieve happiness (if that's even possible) is through unconditional and christ-like love for humanity.

But I digress. Though this particular chapter stands out, you owe it to yourself to read the entire text.

Preguntas válidas y una crítica interesante, sin embargo al caer en blasfemias creo que el autor se vuelve algo similar a lo que él cuestiona. Una forma creativa de expresar su opinión.

A book that is incredibly thought provoking is an excellent way to describe The Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The book questions society's overall desire for freedom and proses the idea that society, the human being, does not want to be free and would much rather follow a structure set up by whomever they've given authority to. Although this text if from the 19th century, the concepts and proposals are still relevant in contemporary time. Dostoyevsky describes the battle between true free will versus, what is a actually, a patriarchal approach to order and uses religion as a carrier for his message. There are four characters in this book: Ivan, Alyosha, The Grand Inquisitor, and a prisoner who is actually Christ. Ivan and Alyosha are brothers, however, Alyosha is a religious monk and Ivan does not believe in his brother's religion. Ivan tells Alyosha the story of the Grand Inquisitor and, essentially, falsifies Alyosha's beliefs that his religion gives freedom to its followers. This results in confusion and disbelief for Alyosha. He, similar to the prisoner in Ivan's story, listened to all Ivan had to say and understood the point he was attempting to make. However, Alyosha is still tied to his core beliefs. Now that his morals have been questioned, he no longer knows where his ideals lie. This reveals a key struggle of identity, where individuals desire to fit into a category and the minute they do not feel that they fit perfectly, they feel confused and lost. Yet, there is a greater struggle that the book also discusses, which is the paradox of freedom. Towards the end of Ivan's story, the character, The Grand Inquisitor, is monologuing about how the church has given people an idea of what is right, what is wrong, what is punishable and what punishments will come if one strays from the ideals of the church; yet, somehow, followers of the prisoner's religion believe that they have been cleansed and reached some form of salvation. The inquisitor continues to explain how the church has added more to what Christ had originally preached and added restrictions and rules that he believed Christ never truly said. It goes to show that the human being wants to be controlled, not even by a divine power, but by any authority. This brings to question how freedom is defined. Naturally, one may think that freedom is the ability or right to behave in the manner one wants to without constraint. However, it is blatantly clear that being free does not exist in society today. As the inquisitor explained, the church was the distributor of rules, rewards and punishments. In the modern world, governments take the position of society's rulers. The United States of America preaches that it is a free country, but in late political endeavors, oppression has continued to rear its ugly face. This goes to show how relevant this book can be at any day in age. True freedom does not exist in this world. What society claims to be freedom is simply just the ability to pick and choose from a bin of options some authority figure has laid out.

This is actually a story inside a book (The Brothers Karamazov), but it stands alone. It is a truly great work, pitting the cynical bishop against the risen Christ. This is one of the greatest works of Russian literature, more like poetry than prose. If Brothers Karamazov is too long for you (I understand), at least read this bit.

This was the last reading I had to do for my Russian literature class, and we lowkey ended with a banger. I read this completely out of context from the rest of the book so I was a bit confused at first and it took me a tiny bit to get into, but when I did?? Loved it. I am a big fan of religious allegories and this one was awesome, I have no idea how it fits into the entire narrative but it raised so many interesting questions and concerns about religion, free will, etc. The ending in which the Grand Inquisitor reveals to Christ that the Church has been surreptitiously carrying out Satan's will—not because it is wicked, but rather because it aims to establish the safest and most effective system for humankind?? CHEF'S KISS. PERFECTION. YES.
I'd give this a five star but the story takes place in Spain so automatic -1 star (I am joking)
Short and sweet, a good ending.
4 stars!

Dostoievski intenta mostrarnos cómo es que la Iglesia (representada por el inquisidor) es quien pervierte la figura de Cristo, importándole más la obediencia de la gente antes que la llegada de la figura en la que se centra su religión, a quien le importa la calidad de vida de sus seguidores y que no estén encadenados a la obediencla terrenal ciega. Por sus valores, contrarios a los de Cristo, el inquisidor está dispuesto a que "el rebaño" se mantenga alejado de la figura predicada por la biblia con tal de mantener su poder.

Dostoevsky manifested a Brecht-Hufflepuff-Commie before it became cool and, what can I say, I loved reading it.

Esta edición de Ariel Universal, contiene 4 relatos del maestro ruso Fedor Dostoievski: “El gran inquisidor”, “Un corazón débil” (ya reseñado), “La mujer de otro o el marido bajo la cama” y “Polzunkov”. El texto “el gran inquisidor” forma parte de la mítica novela los “Hermanos Karamazov”, se trata de un pequeño relato sobre la segunda venida de Cristo en época de inquisiciones. El apóstata y/o mesías es encarcelado e interrogado por un prelado de la iglesia: el gran inquisidor. El religioso cuestiona la actitud y la respuesta de cristo cuando fue tentado por el maligno en el desierto. El relato le permite a Dostoievski reflexionar sobre el carácter de la existencia: la dualidad materia y espíritu. Sugiere que las tres preguntas del desierto encerraban toda verdad, que fueron más grandes que la misma humanidad; pero que las respuestas no estuvieron acordes ¿o sí? Avanza el texto especulando el desvarío de las piedras y los panes, el hambre, el sustento; pero no solo de pan viven los hombres dijo el altísimo. Dostoievski cuestiona y afronta la autoridad de la Iglesia, erigida para crear dogmas que aseguren la sumisión de un rebaño de ovejas que no puede lidiar con la inmensidad. Y el mesías eligió el albedrío por encima del sometimiento, sin embargo, asusta la libertad, la muchedumbre prefiere los colectivos, los gremios, las ideologías, el servilismo. Dostoievski es tremendo, este texto es apena una muestra de sus extravagantes Karamazov.

“La mujer de otro o el marido bajo la cama” es una divertidísima treta, un relato sobre la terrible enfermedad de los celos y sus consecuencias. Un marido es llevado casi al borde de la locura debido a sus recelos y sospechas, imaginando a su esposa con un amante fugitivo, se conduce a los más graciosos desatinos. “Los celos son una pasión imperdonable, y lo que es peor, una verdadera desdicha”. El perfecto celoso termina debajo de la cama de una señora honorable, un enredo de lances amorosos que recuerda aquella vieja y primigenia enfermedad. Polzunkov es un hombre estrafalario, profundamente desgraciado, elige reírse de sus infortunios para ocultar sus heridas. Busca aceptación a través de sus anécdotas bochornosas, parlanchín, adulador, terminó siendo blanco de la jugarreta que pensó ejecutar, el día de los inocentes. Este libro es una pequeña muestra de la pluma de Dostoievski, un maestro que supo retratar en sus personajes las antiguas y profundas contradicciones del alma, las tuyas y las mías.

This (which I have read) is a self-contained parable from The Brothers Karamazov (which I’ve not read). It addresses the conundrum of an omnipotent and loving God allowing the existence of evil. Can it all be blamed on free will and the desire for happiness? It also contrasts institutional religion and warped theology with the simple faith Jesus taught.

Ivan imagines Jesus returning during the time of the Spanish Inquisition, in a story rich with New Testament parallels. There are occasional interjections from his brother, Alyosha.

Jesus

Jesus comes quietly and unobtrusively, but is immediately recognised by the people:
“The Sun of Love burns in His heart, and warm rays of Light, Wisdom and Power beam forth from His eyes, and pour down their waves upon the swarming multitudes of the rabble assembled around, making their hearts vibrate with returning love.”

He performs familiar miracles, even by a touch of his garment. He restores the sight of a blind man, and raises a girl from the dead.

The Inquisitor

But the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor sees all.
“He is tall, gaunt-looking old man of nearly four-score years and ten, with a stern, withered face, and deeply sunken eyes, from the cavity of which glitter two fiery sparks.”

Arrest and Sentence Without Trial

Jesus is arrested, imprisoned, silent - and instructed to remain so. He is told that he will be found guilty and burned at the stake the following day. The Inquisitor expects the crowd of Jesus' followers to support this (just as Pontius Pilate turned the mood of the crowd).


Picture: The auto-da-fé (public penance of heretics and apostates) in Plaza Mayor, Madrid in 1680. By Francisco Rizi in 1683.

Devilish Institution

The Cardinal Grand Inquisitor, and by extension, the Catholic church, want to protect themselves, rather than allow the people to be free.

He tempts Jesus, just as the Devil did in the wilderness, and mockingly quotes Jesus' words and actions, explaining why he was wrong not to do as the Devil suggested.

The Inquisitor thinks God’s work is complete, and that people “can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, miserable nonentities born wicked and rebellious”. Feeding them is enough. Earthly bread. Not the bread of Heaven that Jesus promised. The Inquisitor fears the consequences of Jesus (rather than the church) having thousands of followers.

"Whom or what shall we worship?"

“There are three Powers, three unique Forces upon earth, capable of conquering for ever by charming the conscience of these weak rebels—men—for their own good; and these Forces are: Miracle, Mystery and Authority. Thou hast rejected all the three.” - by not succumbing to temptation in the wilderness, through pride and overestimating the qualities of mankind.

The Inquisitor has a dark view of mankind and how to enslave them to the whims of the Church, willingly.

“Oh, we will take good care to prove to them that they will become absolutely free only when they have abjured their freedom in our favor and submit to us absolutely.”

Judas Rewritten

Jesus was betrayed unto death by a kiss. Forgiveness can come from a kiss as well.

Read it For Yourself

I read two versions in parallel:
* David McDuff, Penguin Books, 1993, in a modern style: here

* HP Blavatsky in 2005, with more classical flounces, on Gutenberg: here.

Related Reading

I’m grateful to Michael pointing me to this, in the context of my review of The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography, HERE.

I was reminded of Ursula Le Guin’s justly famous and troubling short story, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omeals, which I reviewed HERE.

Not Forgetting

I’ll be in trouble if I don’t include this
Expect the unexpected.

I'm pretty sure I didn't understand half of this, but Even so, one can get something out of it. To me, this passage stood out:

"Knowest Thou not that, but a few centuries hence, and the whole of mankind will have proclaimed in its wisdom and through its mouthpiece, Science, that there is no more crime, hence no more sin on earth, but only hungry people? "Feed us first and then command us to be virtuous!" will be the words written upon the banner lifted against Thee--a banner which shall destroy Thy Church to its very foundations (...)"

Not a bad observation - in 1880.