Author and Writer in charge of 
THE SALARY OF CORPORATE CEO’S AND THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.
Retrospective
Part 8 of 11
As I see it, the corporate elites at AT&T were insufficient at coherently articulating the necessity of the huge downsizing that they implemented, which, in the opinion of most experts had to occur. Whether or not it had to be as large as it was is still in question. In addition, the huge salaries which were awarded to CEOs at the very time they were in the process of downsizing was profoundly unwise: Among other things, it was a public relations disaster. As such in inopportune time, it would have been wiser to recommended against it. AT&T is not alone in its infamy. Other companies have followed their ill-considered example and in the process have caused trepidation throughout society. In an article in the New York Times March 1996 edition, titled, “The Hardest Hit,” the affect downsizing has on society, which speaks to the outside environment (meaning the public at large) is very revealing. A portion of the article reads:
The tally of jobs eliminated in the 1990s-123,000 at AT&T, 18,000 at Delta
Airlines, 16,000 at Eastman Kodak- has the eerie feeling of battlefield
casualty counts, and like waves of strung-out veterans, the psychically
frazzled downsized workers are infecting their families, friend, and
communities with their grief, fear, and anger. The metabolic changes
taking place in the country are only beginning to be understood.”
Retrospective
Part 8 of 11
As I see it, the corporate elites at AT&T were insufficient at coherently articulating the necessity of the huge downsizing that they implemented, which, in the opinion of most experts had to occur. Whether or not it had to be as large as it was is still in question. In addition, the huge salaries which were awarded to CEOs at the very time they were in the process of downsizing was profoundly unwise: Among other things, it was a public relations disaster. As such in inopportune time, it would have been wiser to recommended against it. AT&T is not alone in its infamy. Other companies have followed their ill-considered example and in the process have caused trepidation throughout society. In an article in the New York Times March 1996 edition, titled, “The Hardest Hit,” the affect downsizing has on society, which speaks to the outside environment (meaning the public at large) is very revealing. A portion of the article reads:
The tally of jobs eliminated in the 1990s-123,000 at AT&T, 18,000 at Delta
Airlines, 16,000 at Eastman Kodak- has the eerie feeling of battlefield
casualty counts, and like waves of strung-out veterans, the psychically
frazzled downsized workers are infecting their families, friend, and
communities with their grief, fear, and anger. The metabolic changes
taking place in the country are only beginning to be understood.”
THE SALARY OF CORPORATE CEO’S AND THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.
Retrospective
Part 7 of 11
Americans have a sense of what is fair and what is not. AT&T under Allen’s leadership has come to symbolizes unfairness. However, it is not the only company that the public sees as greedy and uncaring. In the 1996 February 28th edition of the Journal of Commerce and Commercial, in an article titled “Americas Hated Companies,” AT&T shares deep dislike and distrust by Americans, along with Digital Equipment, IBM, and Scott Papers among others (p. A6).” They are viewed by the public as socially irresponsible for the way that they have gone about downsizing their companies and for lavishly rewarding CEOs during the process. Americans favorable or dis-favorable attitudes towards a company can eventually make or break it.
In my judgment, Robert Allen and the CEOs at AT&T made serious errors in the way they dealt with the decision to downsize. In general, (although it’s something that they will never welcome with enthusiasm) the public and workers alike realize that downsizing may be necessary in order to make a company more competitive and efficient. But, in my opinion, before action is finalized, organizations should coherently and systematically state the symptoms which foretell the problem, along with as much future notice as possible; in order to alert employees and soften the blow of what will ultimately be a devastating piece of bad news. As Richard Beckhard and Reuben Harris state in their book Organization Transitions, “the need for change is frequently described in terms of symptoms. One important dividend of a good organization diagnosis is an accurate statement of the problem that necessitates a change” (32). Another thought occurs to me; just as a corporation award stock to CEOs and their immediate executives, why shouldn’t that same stock be shared with and given to the people who are being permanently laid off or “downsized?” Wouldn’t it make downsizing more humane?
Retrospective
Part 7 of 11
Americans have a sense of what is fair and what is not. AT&T under Allen’s leadership has come to symbolizes unfairness. However, it is not the only company that the public sees as greedy and uncaring. In the 1996 February 28th edition of the Journal of Commerce and Commercial, in an article titled “Americas Hated Companies,” AT&T shares deep dislike and distrust by Americans, along with Digital Equipment, IBM, and Scott Papers among others (p. A6).” They are viewed by the public as socially irresponsible for the way that they have gone about downsizing their companies and for lavishly rewarding CEOs during the process. Americans favorable or dis-favorable attitudes towards a company can eventually make or break it.
In my judgment, Robert Allen and the CEOs at AT&T made serious errors in the way they dealt with the decision to downsize. In general, (although it’s something that they will never welcome with enthusiasm) the public and workers alike realize that downsizing may be necessary in order to make a company more competitive and efficient. But, in my opinion, before action is finalized, organizations should coherently and systematically state the symptoms which foretell the problem, along with as much future notice as possible; in order to alert employees and soften the blow of what will ultimately be a devastating piece of bad news. As Richard Beckhard and Reuben Harris state in their book Organization Transitions, “the need for change is frequently described in terms of symptoms. One important dividend of a good organization diagnosis is an accurate statement of the problem that necessitates a change” (32). Another thought occurs to me; just as a corporation award stock to CEOs and their immediate executives, why shouldn’t that same stock be shared with and given to the people who are being permanently laid off or “downsized?” Wouldn’t it make downsizing more humane?
THE SALARY OF CORPORATE CEO’S AND THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.
Retrospective
Part 6 of 11
In an interview which aired on CBS’s television program 60 Minutes, on 4-7-96, Correspondent Leslie Stahl caught up with and interviewed Chairman and CEO, Robert Allen (perhaps a more accurate world would be “ambushed,” for Mr. Allen did not know the interview was going to take place). The purpose of the interview was to question him about his massive increase in salary, from 1994 to 1995, and his stock options. When asked about his income and AT&T stock, Allen replied “I get paid by my performance and what the market price will pay.” Yet, as I just pointed out, his performance has been mediocre at best. Leslie Sthal reported that in 1995, Mr. Allen earned $1.5 million in cash, 1.5 million in bonuses, $585, 000 in miscellaneous pay, 1.8 million in stock, and another 11 million in stock options. His salary and benefits added up to over $16 million. Many believe that this is one of the reasons that the public is turning against big business and why Robert Allen has become the corporate poster child of callousness and greed. It should be noted that Mr. Allen is not the highest paid CEO in the United States by a long shot. Some HMO heads get as much as $100 million a year or more.
Retrospective
Part 6 of 11
In an interview which aired on CBS’s television program 60 Minutes, on 4-7-96, Correspondent Leslie Stahl caught up with and interviewed Chairman and CEO, Robert Allen (perhaps a more accurate world would be “ambushed,” for Mr. Allen did not know the interview was going to take place). The purpose of the interview was to question him about his massive increase in salary, from 1994 to 1995, and his stock options. When asked about his income and AT&T stock, Allen replied “I get paid by my performance and what the market price will pay.” Yet, as I just pointed out, his performance has been mediocre at best. Leslie Sthal reported that in 1995, Mr. Allen earned $1.5 million in cash, 1.5 million in bonuses, $585, 000 in miscellaneous pay, 1.8 million in stock, and another 11 million in stock options. His salary and benefits added up to over $16 million. Many believe that this is one of the reasons that the public is turning against big business and why Robert Allen has become the corporate poster child of callousness and greed. It should be noted that Mr. Allen is not the highest paid CEO in the United States by a long shot. Some HMO heads get as much as $100 million a year or more.
THE SALARY OF CORPORATE CEO’S AND THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.
Retrospective
Part 5 of 11
Many AT&T watchers believe that low morale among the employees could affect the performance and productivity of the company. And that could potentially cause it to under perform in the face of stiff competition in the telecommunication world. The January 3rd edition of the Wall Street Journal reported that “Experts said AT&T may be hard pressed to boost sagging morale just when it needs an esprit de corps [group spirit] among its workers to attack new markets” (P. A3).
In their attempt to keep company morale from plummeting, and to stop public criticisms over their plans to let go of thousands of employees on such short notice, AT&T placed a full-page ad in the newspaper. It asked other corporations to hire its reduced and permanently laid off workforce. And it announced that the cutbacks may not be as many as the 40,000 estimated earlier. Many AT&T analysts remain skeptical, however. AT&T also said that many of the job cuts will be what they call “voluntary.” The word “voluntary” may be somewhat misleading in the way the company uses it, reported John Keller in the March 18th edition of the Wall Street Journal. He writes:
AT&T, however, applies the term voluntary to anyone who accepts a
buyout rather than waiting to be laid off. Many older employees who
first turned it down-before AT&T said it would slash 40,000 people-
are now reluctantly taking it rather than risk receiving less compensation
in an out right layoff. The buyout package included up to 35 weeks of
severance pay and up to a two-year “bridge” to let pension payments
kick in sooner for eligible employees. Those who are laid off without
the package get as little as eight weeks of severance pay and limited
medical benefits, but get ample job-finding help. AT&T has left it to
division heads to determine who get the voluntary package and who
doesn’t” (p. B1
Retrospective
Part 5 of 11
Many AT&T watchers believe that low morale among the employees could affect the performance and productivity of the company. And that could potentially cause it to under perform in the face of stiff competition in the telecommunication world. The January 3rd edition of the Wall Street Journal reported that “Experts said AT&T may be hard pressed to boost sagging morale just when it needs an esprit de corps [group spirit] among its workers to attack new markets” (P. A3).
In their attempt to keep company morale from plummeting, and to stop public criticisms over their plans to let go of thousands of employees on such short notice, AT&T placed a full-page ad in the newspaper. It asked other corporations to hire its reduced and permanently laid off workforce. And it announced that the cutbacks may not be as many as the 40,000 estimated earlier. Many AT&T analysts remain skeptical, however. AT&T also said that many of the job cuts will be what they call “voluntary.” The word “voluntary” may be somewhat misleading in the way the company uses it, reported John Keller in the March 18th edition of the Wall Street Journal. He writes:
AT&T, however, applies the term voluntary to anyone who accepts a
buyout rather than waiting to be laid off. Many older employees who
first turned it down-before AT&T said it would slash 40,000 people-
are now reluctantly taking it rather than risk receiving less compensation
in an out right layoff. The buyout package included up to 35 weeks of
severance pay and up to a two-year “bridge” to let pension payments
kick in sooner for eligible employees. Those who are laid off without
the package get as little as eight weeks of severance pay and limited
medical benefits, but get ample job-finding help. AT&T has left it to
division heads to determine who get the voluntary package and who
doesn’t” (p. B1
THE SALARY OF CORPORATE CEO’S AND THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.
Retrospective
Part 4 of 11
Of his $16 million salary, 11 million is in the form of stock options, which means that if it does not go up, neither does his pay. However, it is difficult to see Mr. Allen loosing pay as a result of decreasing AT&T stock. It should be noted that “AT&T’s core long-distance telephone and equipment manufacturing business were fairly healthy last year, generating $79 billion in revenues” (p.C5). The downsizing will inevitably generate, over a period of time, huge saving that can be invested elsewhere. AT&T “has plans” to enter a number of markets, including the local phone service market- which means, perhaps, the development of new jobs for a number of people.
With the loss of jobs and the knowledge that their boss is receiving a multimillion dollar salary, while their friends and co-workers loose their means of livelihood, cynicism is up and corporate morale is at an all time low. Workers are depressed, confused, and angry. Moreover, (despite the low unemployment rate which is under 6%) some feel that to find a good job will be more difficult then when they began working for the company years ago. Those who have well paying positions- managers, for example, believe it will be difficult to find jobs that will offer them the rate of pay and benefits they now receive. Others wonder if they will get a job that will pay them enough to raise their families or to purchase a home.
Retrospective
Part 4 of 11
Of his $16 million salary, 11 million is in the form of stock options, which means that if it does not go up, neither does his pay. However, it is difficult to see Mr. Allen loosing pay as a result of decreasing AT&T stock. It should be noted that “AT&T’s core long-distance telephone and equipment manufacturing business were fairly healthy last year, generating $79 billion in revenues” (p.C5). The downsizing will inevitably generate, over a period of time, huge saving that can be invested elsewhere. AT&T “has plans” to enter a number of markets, including the local phone service market- which means, perhaps, the development of new jobs for a number of people.
With the loss of jobs and the knowledge that their boss is receiving a multimillion dollar salary, while their friends and co-workers loose their means of livelihood, cynicism is up and corporate morale is at an all time low. Workers are depressed, confused, and angry. Moreover, (despite the low unemployment rate which is under 6%) some feel that to find a good job will be more difficult then when they began working for the company years ago. Those who have well paying positions- managers, for example, believe it will be difficult to find jobs that will offer them the rate of pay and benefits they now receive. Others wonder if they will get a job that will pay them enough to raise their families or to purchase a home.
THE SALARY OF CORPORATE CEO’S AND THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.
Retrospective
Part 3 of 11
For many people and politicians, their favorite target and symbol of corporate callousness and greed, fairly or unfairly, has been Chairman Allen. In the February 28th edition of the New York Times, it was reported that during the same period that Mr. Allen ordered over “40,000 people cut from the company’s payroll, he received stock options last year that increases his total pay package from “$6.7 million to $16 million” (p.C5).
In that article, Mr. Allen defended himself against attacks and lashed out against what he called, “relentless and inaccurate news coverage.” He defended his business judgment, his salary increases, and articulated his concern for the painful decision he and his executives made in cutting jobs.
The question isn’t whether or not Robert Allen should have downsized AT&T, for he may have had little choice; nor is it whether or not he should be compensated for his position and service. But of how much or how well should that compensation be? How many people working directly with CEOs have been downsized? Is it really fair that when so many are loosing their jobs and experiencing stagnate wages he should get such a tremendous raise in pay? In my judgment, in order to evaluate what any person or employee is worth, one must assess their performance and contribution to an organization over a reasonable period of time. In February, the Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled, “Is Chairman Allen of AT&T Overpaid” his accomplishments were listed. The article did not appear to endorse him as a member of the high achievers. A portion of the article reads:
From the time Mr. Allen got the job in 1988 through the end of 1995,
AT&T’s stock rose about 12% a year, matching the S&P 500. It
would have done better-much-better-but for Mr. Allen’s disastrous
foray into computers, which drained earnings from his ably run long
distance business. A fair reading is that he started with above-average
material and got average results.” (C5).
Retrospective
Part 3 of 11
For many people and politicians, their favorite target and symbol of corporate callousness and greed, fairly or unfairly, has been Chairman Allen. In the February 28th edition of the New York Times, it was reported that during the same period that Mr. Allen ordered over “40,000 people cut from the company’s payroll, he received stock options last year that increases his total pay package from “$6.7 million to $16 million” (p.C5).
In that article, Mr. Allen defended himself against attacks and lashed out against what he called, “relentless and inaccurate news coverage.” He defended his business judgment, his salary increases, and articulated his concern for the painful decision he and his executives made in cutting jobs.
The question isn’t whether or not Robert Allen should have downsized AT&T, for he may have had little choice; nor is it whether or not he should be compensated for his position and service. But of how much or how well should that compensation be? How many people working directly with CEOs have been downsized? Is it really fair that when so many are loosing their jobs and experiencing stagnate wages he should get such a tremendous raise in pay? In my judgment, in order to evaluate what any person or employee is worth, one must assess their performance and contribution to an organization over a reasonable period of time. In February, the Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled, “Is Chairman Allen of AT&T Overpaid” his accomplishments were listed. The article did not appear to endorse him as a member of the high achievers. A portion of the article reads:
From the time Mr. Allen got the job in 1988 through the end of 1995,
AT&T’s stock rose about 12% a year, matching the S&P 500. It
would have done better-much-better-but for Mr. Allen’s disastrous
foray into computers, which drained earnings from his ably run long
distance business. A fair reading is that he started with above-average
material and got average results.” (C5).
THE SALARY OF CORPORATE CEO’S AND THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.
Retrospective
Part 2 of 11
Downsizing is the current name given to large numbers of permanently laid off employees. The huge number of people who would loose their jobs due to downsizing stunned everyone, including investment watchers and stockholders. AT&T has laid off “85,000” people in the decade since the break-up of the Bell System and the latest layoffs would bring the company’s total job cut to over “125,000.” Unfortunately, “the telecommunication company could be looking at future layoffs at the end of the decade, or in the early part of the next century” (p.A3).
Although these massive layoffs greatly disturbed Main Street (ordinary income people who are not large stockholders) Wall Street celebrated the news. AT&T stockholders’ stock rose after the announcement was made. However, the respect and goodwill that AT&T enjoyed over the years has been eroding for sometime and the company is now widely viewed by the public as a pariah. As far as Main Street (where ordinary people live) is concerned, the telecommunication company had become the symbol of American corporate unfairness and greed.
Political figures such as President Clinton, Senator Bob Dole, Robert Reich- Secretary of Labor, and Patrick Buchanan- Presidential Candidate have all joined in the public criticisms of AT&T. I believe the reason for this has to do, in part, to political scapegoating of AT&T; and with the exploiting of fear by some of our political leaders. However, there is a real sense of outrage that politicians are tapping into which has to do with unfairness and shared sacrifice. Why, some would ask, should Chief Executive Officers (or CEOs) get big salaries for poor performances? Moreover, why pay big salaries to corporate leaders while in the midst of restructuring and corporate belt tightening?
Retrospective
Part 2 of 11
Downsizing is the current name given to large numbers of permanently laid off employees. The huge number of people who would loose their jobs due to downsizing stunned everyone, including investment watchers and stockholders. AT&T has laid off “85,000” people in the decade since the break-up of the Bell System and the latest layoffs would bring the company’s total job cut to over “125,000.” Unfortunately, “the telecommunication company could be looking at future layoffs at the end of the decade, or in the early part of the next century” (p.A3).
Although these massive layoffs greatly disturbed Main Street (ordinary income people who are not large stockholders) Wall Street celebrated the news. AT&T stockholders’ stock rose after the announcement was made. However, the respect and goodwill that AT&T enjoyed over the years has been eroding for sometime and the company is now widely viewed by the public as a pariah. As far as Main Street (where ordinary people live) is concerned, the telecommunication company had become the symbol of American corporate unfairness and greed.
Political figures such as President Clinton, Senator Bob Dole, Robert Reich- Secretary of Labor, and Patrick Buchanan- Presidential Candidate have all joined in the public criticisms of AT&T. I believe the reason for this has to do, in part, to political scapegoating of AT&T; and with the exploiting of fear by some of our political leaders. However, there is a real sense of outrage that politicians are tapping into which has to do with unfairness and shared sacrifice. Why, some would ask, should Chief Executive Officers (or CEOs) get big salaries for poor performances? Moreover, why pay big salaries to corporate leaders while in the midst of restructuring and corporate belt tightening?
THE SALARY OF CORPORATE CEO’S AND THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.
Retrospective
Part 1 of 11
In recent weeks, corporate pay/compensation of CEOs has been in the news. One of the most talked about stories has been the resignation and severance package of outgoing Home Depot CEO, Robert Nardelli. One of the criticisms which led to Mr. Nardelli’s resignation was the company’s stock performance under his leadership. Despite the poor performance, upon his agreeing to leave the company, Robert Nardelli was awarded a severance package of $210 million. In 2004-2005, Mr. Nardelli’s, “Total Compensation was $22.8 million,” reports Forbes Magazine (information obtained via internet). At that time Mr. Nardelli ranked #53. In a Forbes Magazine article in 2006 titled, “Best Paid CEOs” Mr. Nardelli ranked #47. At the top of that Forbes’s list is Richard D. Fairbanks (CEO of Capital One Financial). Mr. Fairbanks enjoys a total compensation package of over $249 million; second is Terry S. Semel (CEO of Yahoo) with a total compensation package of over $230 million; followed thirdly by Henry R. Silverman (CEO of Cendant) with a total compensation packed of over $139 million. It should be noted that Mr. Silverman is also the company’s founder. It should also be noted that both Mr. Silverman and Mr. Semel are running their companies successfully. Nevertheless, compared to the average salaries of American employees, it could be easily argued that CEO’s pay, in general, has been quite excessive over the years. It certainly gives the appearance of corporate greed. Is this a new phenomenon? Of course not. These huge compensation packages-which include money, bonuses, and stocks-, have been going on for more than a generation. In fact, just over a decade ago, I wrote about the phenomenon of excessive corporate pay/compensation of CEOs. I am not against people making a lot of money. Most of us wish to do as well. However, I have two concerns with this issue. One is the over-compensation of CEOs as a going away gift for poor job performance (what we’ve come to call the “Golden Parachute”). The other is that many- not all- corporations seem to lack fairness in sharing the profits with their employees when the corporation is doing well; but are far too willing to penalize employees when the corporation is doing not so well (they set in motion what we have come to call “downsizing”).
The article I am currently submitting Is a RETROSPECTIVE one. It was written in January of 1996. At the time, Robert Allen, CEO and Chairman of AT&T was under fire. In analyzing and reporting on the phenomenon of over compensation of CEO’s pay/compensation, I will once again focus on Mr. Allen. Looking back, while currently considering the excessive salaries of CEOs, I stand by the article more so than when I originally wrote it. After reading the article, determine for yourself how much things have changed in the corporate world with regard to over compensation and also “downsizing.” Without further ado, I give you this article which as has been said before was first written in 1996.
In January of 1996, Robert Allen, CEO and Chairman of AT&T, announced that 40,000 jobs would be eliminated over the next three years. l 24,000 of those jobs will be management positions. Mr. Allen was quoted in the January 3rd edition of the Wall Street Journal as saying, “this is not one of my favorite days, but then I’m not the one who is in so much pain as some of our workers.” (p.A.3). Mr. Allen has good reason to not be in “so much pain,” as some of his workers naturally are. During AT&T’s downsizing process, he has become one of the highest paid CEO’s in American history, but not the highest by any means. His salary with stock options is estimated at $16 million. Some financial experts estimate his income to be as much as $21 million.
do the same.
The Mystical as part of the Life and Legends’ of
Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad
Part 13 of 13
CONCLUSION: a final word
I think it is fair to say that those who come to be thought of as great religious founders or masters are measured by the life they’ve led, the legacy they’ve left behind, and the largeness of impact or influence they’ve left on the peoples of the world. Moreover, to qualify, they must be thought of as “larger than life” figures of mystical and mythical proportion. Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad irrespective of what one may think about the mystical narratives found in their text, or about the truth or falsity of the claims they certainly qualify as great men. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the number of converts into these three religions number into the billions. Those impressive but sometimes dry religious doctrines combined with enchanting and wonderful narratives contain- among other things- hope, salvation, progress, and wisdom. In addition, these great teachers show a certain confidence in the human race and a belief or faith in spiritual charity that’s ever lasting. A type of food being necessary to the soul, these three spiritual leaders offer a spiritual sustenance to humanity that reveals a love of mankind. If mankind is to have any chance of creating a better tomorrow and a more prosperous world for the people who inhabit it and their posterity, lessons imparted by these teachers will be a necessary ingredient in accomplishing that.
These mystical narratives’ intent is to communicate to its believers- and the world in general- that through respect of brotherhood and friendship, life is made better. These extraordinary figures were on a mission to impart and to do good. They busied themselves about bringing results that were not simply theoretical or even spiritual, but results that would have a positive practical effect in the everyday life of people in need. These religious and/or spiritual founding fathers taught and behaved in a way that ultimately convinced large numbers of people that they were indeed on a cosmic or heavenly mission. What was the purpose of their mission? To save the people of the world. To save the people of the world from what or from whom? From themselves for themselves is the only answer I can think to give.
Works Cited
Buddhist Mahayana Text. Ed. Cowell, E. B:
Dover, 1969.
Cook, Michael. Muhammad. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1983.
Holy Bible: King James Version. New York:
American Bible Society, 1611.
Jesus and Buddha: The parallel sayings: Ed. Marcus Borg:
Ulysses, 1997.
The Koran. Trans. N. J. Dawood. London:
Penguin, 1999.
Ross, Nancy, W. Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought. New York:
Vintage, 1980.
Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions. New York:
Harper Collins, 1991.
The Mystical as part of the Life and Legends’ of
Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad
Part 13 of 13
CONCLUSION: a final word
I think it is fair to say that those who come to be thought of as great religious founders or masters are measured by the life they’ve led, the legacy they’ve left behind, and the largeness of impact or influence they’ve left on the peoples of the world. Moreover, to qualify, they must be thought of as “larger than life” figures of mystical and mythical proportion. Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad irrespective of what one may think about the mystical narratives found in their text, or about the truth or falsity of the claims they certainly qualify as great men. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the number of converts into these three religions number into the billions. Those impressive but sometimes dry religious doctrines combined with enchanting and wonderful narratives contain- among other things- hope, salvation, progress, and wisdom. In addition, these great teachers show a certain confidence in the human race and a belief or faith in spiritual charity that’s ever lasting. A type of food being necessary to the soul, these three spiritual leaders offer a spiritual sustenance to humanity that reveals a love of mankind. If mankind is to have any chance of creating a better tomorrow and a more prosperous world for the people who inhabit it and their posterity, lessons imparted by these teachers will be a necessary ingredient in accomplishing that.
These mystical narratives’ intent is to communicate to its believers- and the world in general- that through respect of brotherhood and friendship, life is made better. These extraordinary figures were on a mission to impart and to do good. They busied themselves about bringing results that were not simply theoretical or even spiritual, but results that would have a positive practical effect in the everyday life of people in need. These religious and/or spiritual founding fathers taught and behaved in a way that ultimately convinced large numbers of people that they were indeed on a cosmic or heavenly mission. What was the purpose of their mission? To save the people of the world. To save the people of the world from what or from whom? From themselves for themselves is the only answer I can think to give.
Works Cited
Buddhist Mahayana Text. Ed. Cowell, E. B:
Dover, 1969.
Cook, Michael. Muhammad. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1983.
Holy Bible: King James Version. New York:
American Bible Society, 1611.
Jesus and Buddha: The parallel sayings: Ed. Marcus Borg:
Ulysses, 1997.
The Koran. Trans. N. J. Dawood. London:
Penguin, 1999.
Ross, Nancy, W. Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought. New York:
Vintage, 1980.
Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions. New York:
Harper Collins, 1991.
The Mystical as part of the Life and Legends’ of
Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad
Part 12 of 13
With regard to the Buddha, we find that he was married and had a child but left both to answer his calling: to seek “enlightenment” and to eventually teach the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path among other teachings. However, he returns to them both, but his relationship with them was never the same. Muhammad on the other hand, was not a man that practiced celibacy. However, he remained married to his first wife, Khadija, until her death. And only then did he take up the practice of polygamy and marry several women. A practice still honored by some types of Muslims today.
Although these religious leaders were not great emancipators of women, (women were treated more like chattel or property in earlier centuries), Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad all appear to have respected them; and even taught in a way that progressively advanced their condition. Through their teachings, men were expected to treat women in a measurable better way than ever had previously been the case. Women also enjoyed a type of status in their presents that they never had before. For example, “The Buddha’s ministry lasted forty years. He had made a great concession, considering the social climate of the times, by admitting women into his Order.” (Ross 33) One, however, could argue that none of them went far enough in that direction- or in the direction of abolishing an evil institution like slavery, just to take another example. But a conscious reading of their teachings and the lives surrounding these religious masters suggest that they moved the ball further along the goal line from where they found it. They emphasized words and terms such as compassion, justice, truth, mercy, abstention from evil, God’s commandments, variations of the golden rule, and the practice of doing good- among other virtues. These are all things Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad taught and practiced and they challenged humanity to do the same.
Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad
Part 12 of 13
With regard to the Buddha, we find that he was married and had a child but left both to answer his calling: to seek “enlightenment” and to eventually teach the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path among other teachings. However, he returns to them both, but his relationship with them was never the same. Muhammad on the other hand, was not a man that practiced celibacy. However, he remained married to his first wife, Khadija, until her death. And only then did he take up the practice of polygamy and marry several women. A practice still honored by some types of Muslims today.
Although these religious leaders were not great emancipators of women, (women were treated more like chattel or property in earlier centuries), Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad all appear to have respected them; and even taught in a way that progressively advanced their condition. Through their teachings, men were expected to treat women in a measurable better way than ever had previously been the case. Women also enjoyed a type of status in their presents that they never had before. For example, “The Buddha’s ministry lasted forty years. He had made a great concession, considering the social climate of the times, by admitting women into his Order.” (Ross 33) One, however, could argue that none of them went far enough in that direction- or in the direction of abolishing an evil institution like slavery, just to take another example. But a conscious reading of their teachings and the lives surrounding these religious masters suggest that they moved the ball further along the goal line from where they found it. They emphasized words and terms such as compassion, justice, truth, mercy, abstention from evil, God’s commandments, variations of the golden rule, and the practice of doing good- among other virtues. These are all things Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad taught and practiced and they challenged humanity to do the same.