Title: Blind Men and the Elephant

Period: Meiji period (1868–1912)

 

prayer and fasting

I'm amazed at how close the ancient Christian traditions (and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in particular) are so similar in form to Islam. They include regular prayers at specified times a day with given postures and a qibla and fasting much of the year. 

Manner of Prayer

The Fetha Negest, or Law of the Kings, reminds us that prayer is man’s way of communicating with Almighty God. In prayer, man thanks God, praises Him and recognizes His domain, confessing hid sin and seeking on his part the way of pleasing Him. The following precepts are laid down for one who prays. Firstly, he should stand up, as enjoined on the words of the Lord; “When you rise up for prayer; you shall stand up.” Secondly, he should gird himself with girdle; as the Lord has said “Let your loins be girt.” Thirdly, he should turn towards the east, for that is the direction from which Christ will appear in His second coming. Fourthly he should make the sign of the cross from the forehead downward and from left to right. Fifthly he should recite the prayer in fear and trembling. Sixthly he should kneel down and prostrate himself, since the gospel tells us that on the night of his passion, our lord prayed prostrating himself and kneeling.

Times of Prayer

The faithful should pray seven times each day. First upon arising from bed in the morning and before beginning work. Secondly at the third hour; thirdly, at the sixth hour; fourthly, at the ninth hour; fifthly, the evening prayer; sixthly, the prayer before sleep and lastly, the midnight prayer

Fasting
In the Fetha Negest* fasting is defined as follows:
“ Fasting is abstinence from food, and is observed by man at certain times determined by law, to attain forgiveness of sins and much reward, obeying thus the one who fixed the law. Fasting (also) serves to weaken the force of concupiscence so that (the body) may obey the rational soul.”

Fasting is strictly observed by all faithful members of the church. There are approximately 250 fast days in the year, although not all of these are compulsory for everyone. The average person may fast about 180 days in the year. There are seven official fasting periods for Ethiopian Christians.
1. All Wednesday and Fridays, except for the 50 days after Easter.
2. The Lenten fast of 55 days.
3. The Nineveh fast of 3 days.
4. The vigils, or gahad of Christmas and epiphany.
5. The fast of the apostles; this varies in length, depending upon the date of Easter, and maybe a minimum of 14 days and maximum of 44. This fast commemorates St. peter and St. Paul.
6. The fast of the prophets of 43 days.
7. The fast of the assumption, 15 days in august.
Of these fasts, the fast of the apostles and the fast of the prophets are compulsory for clergy only, although they are also observed by many of the faithful. All the other fasts are considered obligatory for all devout Christians, except children under seven. During fasting periods, Christians abstain from meat and all animal products: meat, milk, butter and eggs. No food or drink is taken before noon, at the earliest: even then only a simple repast should be taken. Pregnant women, the seriously sick and travelers are exempted from fasting. In Holy Week no food is taken before 1 p.m. or later. The really devout fast completely from Good Friday till Easter Sunday, while others eat only the evening meal on these days. The Lenten fast is traditionally broken by a joyful feast that takes place after midnight mass, at about 3 a.m., or the first cock- crow or Easter Sunday morn. (source)

 

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church Faith and Order

The Order of Fasts in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church

can black peter be redeemed / reimagined?

For a while now I've been thinking about writing a children's book where Black Peter leads a revolution against Saint Nick and replaces Santa's sweatshops with a socialist gift-giving cooperative based out of Palmares in  Brazil (or maybe Mondragon, Spain). Somehow it will probably connect to kwanzaa and the black wise men too. Hopefully saying it out loud will help light a fire under my behind.... we'll see...

I still haven't seen the film Santa and Pete but I just found out that it it is free on Tubi so maybe I'll get around to it this "holiday season". Apparently Ishmael Reed has also played with Black Peter in some of his recent fiction. 

Planet Grenada:

so apparently the elves are black... and muslim

the wise men

the adventures of black jesus

past posts on Kwanzaa

NPR: So Long, Black Pete

WSJ: Ishmael Reed on "The Terrible Twos" and "The Terrible Threes"

"no thicker than this line"

For a while now I've been really curious about Oriental Orthodoxy, and especially Ethiopian Orthodoxy. It is amazing that Christianity starts off as an African / Middle Eastern religion but that the forms of Christianity which originate in MENA cultures (Coptic, Ethiopian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, etc.) are considered heretical by the majority. Ostensibly, this is because these churches rejected to Council of Chalcedon of 451 CE and developed a subtly different Christology.

In particular, I have started to wonder if, from an Islamic perspective,  the Ethiopian Orthodox Church should be thought of as having a special status among the People of the Book. 

One of the main inspirations for this notion is the story of the Muslim emigrants who sought asylum in Ethiopia from the Negus Ashama. Muhammad (saaws) himself called this Christian Negus a righteous king, had the  Negus represent him in a marriage and even led his funeral prayer. 

(Scene from the film "The Messenger")

 Al Hakam: King Negus: The Holy Prophet’s representative and true follower
An Ethiopian Journal: First Hijra

Planet Grenada
"i've seen ethiopians knocking out rome"
"i've seen ethiopians knocking out rome" (part 2)
ideology and temperament (the habashis)

To be continued...

khalil andani on the injil

This is a fascinating conversation between Dr. Khalil Andani and Paul Williams.  (Although they both go to great pains to say that Dr. Andani is there as an academic expert and not any kind of religious authority. I found it to be a little excessive. It seemed like Williams is worried to death that he will be accused of giving an endorsement to an Ismai'li). 

Adani has some interesting ideas of what the Quranic "Injil" is. He argues that there is a parallelism in the Quran / Islam between "Quran and sunnah" , "Kitab and Hikmat" and "Torah and Injil". And specifically he argues that the Injil isn't really a separate independent scripture in its own right. It should primarily be seen as the "wise application of the Torah" as taught by Jesus (as) and not a stand-alone text. In particular, it can't possibly be the New Testament or Biblical gospels. 

Finally, Andani points to some research which (contrary to what many Christian missionaries tend to say) there is a very long history of Muslim scholars accusing the Christian Bible of textual corruption. One claim which you might see Christians make is that Ibn Hazm (is it anachronistic to call him Hispanic?) of the 11th century was the first Muslim to accuse the Bible of textual corruption. But in fact, Al Jahiz  , the black Iraqi scholar, was accusing the Bible of textual corruption several centuries earlier. 

I've mentioned al-Jahiz in this blog before. I feel like I need to be more familiar with him. Many years ago, I read a translation of his Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh. He is also famous for having foreshadowed the theory of evolution. A real polymath.

good friday (part two)

Corpus Hypercubus by Salvador Dali

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: (4:157)

 

For a while now, I've started to become aware that "the" Islamic understanding of the crucifixion is not *quite* as simple as I once believed. Most Muslims maintain, based on 4:157 that Jesus (as) in no sense, died on the cross, nor was he ever even put on it. In this camp, some maintain that somehow Judas was made to look like Jesus and that he was put on the cross instead.   But there have also been minority opinions which to varying degrees have allowed for more points of contact with the Christian narrative (including some which even affirm Christ's biological death on the cross).

One good resource in this area is the book by Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Quran  which looks at a wide range of Muslim commentaries on 4:157. The author is a Bahai, and so perhaps one could argue that he wrote the book, in part, out an interest to gather evidence which supports Bahai interpretations of topic. (The Bahais affirm that the Quran is "absolutely authentic" including  4:157. But they also accept the validity of much of the Bible, in particular they, affirm the basics of the Biblical passion narrative. According to Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahai Faith, "The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Qur'ánic version is that the spirit of Christ was not Crucified. There is no conflict between the two.")

Whatever his agenda, Lawson's book is an interesting and valuable round-up of different tafsirs on the crucifixion verse and different Muslim narratives on the end of Christ's ministry on Earth. 

If you have the time (roughly 2 hours), Dr. Ali Ataie, a professor at Zaytuna College, has a lecture where he gives an overview of different Muslim perspectives of the crucifixion which takes heavily from Lawson's book. 

What is also interesting is that Dr. Ataie himself seems to affirm the bodily death of Jesus. I would recommend listening to his own words on the subject. But his basic point is that 4:157 says "they killed him not" which still allows the possibility that Jesus (as) gives up his life willingly. As the Bible says: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father." (John 10:17-18).

I don't mean to be flippant, but I am almost tempted to compare this to the scene in Star Wars when from a distance it only seems as if Darth Vader kills Obi-Wan Kenobi. But in reality, Vader neither killed Kenobi, nor cut him with a light saber. It only appeared so. In reality Obi-Wan chooses to surrender to the Force at the end of his earthly life. He primarily engages in a duel with Vader to distract him and give the rebels enough time to escape the Death Star.

Another point which Dr. Ataie makes has to do with the question: What is accomplished by Jesus' death? And his interesting (and actually plausible) answer is Jesus death literally saved the people of Jerusalem from the wrath of the Romans for a generation.  As the Bible itself says after the raising of Lazarus:

John 11

[45] Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him;
[46] but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
[47] So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.
[48] If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."
[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
[51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,
[52] and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
[53] So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death. 

or if you are a fan of Jesus Christ Superstar:

In other words, Jesus' growing popularity while associated with messianic claims  (i.e. claiming to be the king of the Jews when under Roman occupation)  was politically subversive in a way which would bring about massive retaliation from the Romans. (And in fact we know this was realistic concern because only one generation later a different popular Jewish rebellion would cause the Romans to strike against the Jews and destroy Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.) Dr. Ataie seems to be arguing that if it weren't for Jesus' death on the cross, this destruction would have occurred much sooner.

Also note that according to John 11, Caiphas "did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation". This is an interesting, but seldom discussed point. The Jewish authorities who sought to kill Christ were not just acting out of jealousy or resentment over Christ's popularity or a selfish fear for their own political position. They were at least partially motivated by a legitimate concern for the fate of the Jews under Roman occupation.

Ismaili scholar Khalil Andani has also done some really interesting work elaborating on Muslims who have affirmed the material reality of crucifixion. (Apparently this is the mainstream Isma'ili position)

First here is Dr. Andani giving a talk on Shi'a Isma'ili Muslim Christology with an emphasis on the crucifixion:

And then here is a paper which covers much of the same ground but with more detail: “They Killed Him Not”: The Crucifixion in Shi‘a Isma‘ili Islam 

What is really interesting here (and this is elaborated on in both the paper and the video) is that the Ismailis don't just tentatively concede the physical reality of the crucifixion. Instead they give full-throated support to the crucifixion as a theologically significant event (although it still isn't some atoning sacrifice as Christians generally believe). And they even go so far as to say the symbol of the cross can be esoterically identified with the shahada of Islam)

Lots to unpack...

Planet Grenada:

Good Friday

"jah would never give the power to a baldhead/ run come crucify the dread."

"jah would never give the power to a baldhead/ run come crucify the dread."

(this is actually an old post which ended up getting republished)

I've been listening to Bob Marley's Natural Mystic in my car these days. And I'm especially intrigued by the song Time Will Tell (which is where the title of this blog entry comes from). To be honest, I still don't know for sure how the different groups of Rastafari understand the crucifixion of Christ, but whenever I hear this song I can't help but wonder if the Rastafarian perspective is similar to the Islamic one. In any case, this is all just a roundabout way of introducing the following (see also Grenada and the crucifixion) :

Story of Jesus Through Iranian Eyes By LARA SETRAKIAN TEHRAN, Iran, Feb. 16, 2008 

A new movie in Iran depicts the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. “The Messiah,” which some consider as Iran’s answer to Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ,” won an award at Rome’s Religion Today Film Festival, for generating interfaith dialogue. The movie will be adapted into a television series, shown on Iranian TV later this year. Filmmaker Nader Talebzadeh spoke to ABC’s Lara Setrakian in Tehran. 

LS: Why did you feel a movie showing Islam’s take on Jesus needed to be made? 

NT: I’ve been witnessing what’s been going on in Iran for the past 28 years; I’ve been living here after I lived a decade in America. Everybody knows Jesus, so why not make a film about something everyone relates to? And made in Iran.

LS: What are the key differences between Jesus through Islam’s eyes and Jesus through the traditional Christian perspective? 

NT: We are talking about the same beautiful man, the same beautiful prophet, the same divine person sent from heaven. In the Koran, it emphasizes maybe three main points: about the birth, about the fact that he was not the son of God, and then, that he was not crucified. The rest is [the same] Jesus … the sermons, and the miracles, and the political situation.

LS: So, when it comes to Jesus, the message and the reverence are there.

NT: Yes.

LS: But the virgin birth, the crucifixion… 

NT: The virgin birth was the same. The difference in the Koran, God says Jesus was saved. Instead of having him hung and crucified, the person who betrayed Jesus was crucified. This is how the Koran sees it, through the Gospel of Barnabas.

LS: So, you gave the alternate ending.

NT: Yes, two endings. I thought, the Christians, when they see it, it'll be important for them. [In the Koran] God says, emphatically, he was not crucified. Somebody was crucified in his stead. In the Gospel of Barnabas, there are explications of this. The majority of [Muslims] say the one who betrayed Jesus [was crucified].

LS: There's plenty of news today about Christians being persecuted, or even killed, today, in Muslim countries. So, where does the Muslim reverence for Christians go off-track?

NT: It doesn't go off-track. The Muslim reverence is very high for Jesus and Mary. This is the misunderstanding in the West — especially in America.

LS: So, then, why in your mind do Muslims, in some places, kill Christians?

NT: Well, those are not Muslims. They're murderers. First and foremost, they're murderers, and they dress as Muslims. Today, we have that problem. There is an evil strain in those people. They're, first, evil, and then they find a religion to address that evil, or to explain it, or as an excuse. But that's a minority that is aggrandized, and it's elaborated — it's constant. So, when you hear the word "Islam," you get a shock. Every time you hear "Islam," you get a little shock. What we lack is communication.

LS: While production on this movie was happening, Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" came out. What did you learn from watching that film?

NT: We were almost finished filming when Mel Gibson started shooting. I saw the film, and it's the first time the Gospel of John has ever been depicted. It was nice. But it was the wrong story. In my film, I respect that common belief with all the good intentions the Christians have ... according to what Islam says. Yet, Jesus, at the night of the last supper, ascends to heaven [without being crucified]. A beautiful man, a beautiful prophet. Why should he be bloodied that way?

LS: What kind of response have you gotten from Christians? What kind of feedback and interchange has there been since the movie was released?

NT: Many thought this film is a good step for serious inter-religious dialogue. Many of them liked it — seeing the Koran-based ending. And I was very happy that the practicing Christians were very happy with the film. I have never found one case among practicing Christians who are offended [by the movie]. American Christians, I respect them very much. I think these Christians, the born-again Christians, especially, are a very interesting group that Iran is not aware of, because a whole generation of Iranians haven't been able to travel to America. And those who do move to America, stay in America. So, how to create serious communication, not at the political, but at the religious level? I thought this would be a shortcut.

LS: Any plans for a movie that would help the dialogue between Muslims and Jews? 

NT: This film is about Jesus, who is the last Jewish prophet. The audience has to realize that Iranians have been living with Jews and Christians for centuries. Jews were saved by Iranian kings. This was always their home, and it still is their home. Also, the first Christian church was built in Iran. The first Christian tribe that became Christian, the first tribe — was the Armenians. Armenians were part of the Persian Empire ... they found comfort living with the Iranians.

LS: What is your hope for the movie?

NT: The film is an excuse to sit down and talk. Iran is so consistently demonized. Once an American visits Iran, they know it's a different story. So, how do we export our thinking? It's the movies. This is a film for students and for practicing Christians, for people to become curious, and go investigate more. My hope for the movie was, and is, and will be, to make people think about how God sees the prophets, how God talks about Jesus in the Koran. What was the main message of Jesus? And what was censored out of history? Part of the message of Jesus was censored out, which was the coming of the next prophets. If you listen to what Jesus said, Jesus talked about the Prophet Mohammad, many, many times. And it was eliminated in the Gospels and the Bibles that [made it through] history. In 325, the Council of Nice was out to destroy all the other Gospels. One of those Gospels was the Gospel of Barnabas, which I used in great detail.

LS: And what did that say that was left out?

NT: It had a lot of sermons of Jesus that you do not see in the Bible; miracles, and at least a hundred references to the Prophet Mohammad, about his coming. It's one of the biggest censorships of history. So, I thought somebody should say this, and then others might disagree, say, "Ahhh, this could not be! This is blasphemy!" But it's OK — this is the 21st century. It's time for information. It's time for communication. They can go check it out.

LS: Anything else you felt while making the film?

NT: I thought about Americans when I was shooting this ... I was thinking that I have very good memories of the '90s, living in Virginia, remembrances of kindness. The misunderstanding of the past three decades really burns my heart. There's so much misunderstanding about Islam today. And one of those key missing links, that would bind the chain together, is Jesus Christ. I thought, we should work on talking through something that's much more dear to us than other things. I thought that, through art, you could do a lot more than with the politics.

ABC News

medieval jain version of parable

 

lost property

Part of the reason I've been on an elephant kick lately is that the fable is one of the better ways to make sense of religious diversity. It is humble and modest. Many other approaches to religious difference end up coming from a place of arrogance or presumption. I mean, in order to have a grand unified vision of all religions you are almost necessarily claiming to be able to judge the merits of vast traditions and spiritual systems from a place of authority and knowledge. A very top-down vision. And sure, maybe there are certain scholar-saints with the comprehensive knowledge to pull it off, but they'd have to be few and far between in human history. Everyone else is going to have non-trivial limitations and "blind spots".

A more modest ground-up approach makes more sense to me. I'm not a Perennialist who claims to know the Sophia Perennis. I'm just a Muslim with a charitable view of other religions. So I'm tentatively open to the idea that Buddha, Zoroaster, Aesop, Akhenaton, Lao Tzu and others were prophets and that the Book of Coming Forth By Day, Mandaean scriptures, the Gathas, the I Ching and other writings contain prophetic guidance (or at the very least, some good advice).

I'm not trying to advocate for a syncretic approach. We should only follow one shariah, not mix-and-match among different rituals and commandments.

But at the same time, we should be willing to learn from various sources.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The word of wisdom is the lost property of the believer. Wherever he finds it, he is most deserving of it.”

(Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2687)

"of elephants and blind men" by david meng

 "Of elephants and blind men" by David Meng

grenada's past

 I don't want to do a lot of public navel-gazing on here but a certain amount seems unavoidable. From 2005 - 2010 I was blogging over 200 times a year. After 2011 I was down to a couple of times a month and then only a few times a year. This month I've started to blog a lot more frequently and I'd like to continue this uptick.... at least for a while. Let's see what my work schedule allows....

Also, as I've made a return to blogging I've started to go back and look at old posts. I now realize that, unfortunately, my tendency to share links to content I found interesting did not age very well and so a non-trivial fraction links to pages and blogs are no longer functioning. This means that some parts of Planet Grenada are like an internet graveyard. Occasionally I can fix the links for some content which can still be found elsewhere, but other times there is no real solution (which I hope folks can forgive).

elephant by beauchamp

 

I saw this on the Etsy page for Gregory Beauchamp

quarreling over names

A man gave four persons a silver coin. The (first) one (who was a Persian) said, "I will give this for (buying) some angûr."

An other one (who) was an Arab said, "No! I want `inab -- not
angûr, O deceitful (man)!"

The (third) one was a Turk and he said, "This (coin) is mine. I
don't want `inab. I want üzüm."

The (fourth) one, an Anatolian Greek, said, "Quit (all) this talk! I
want istâfîl."

3685 In (their) disagreement, those individuals were (soon) in a
fight -- since they were uninformed of the hidden (meaning) of the
names.

They were striking at each other (with their) fists out of ignorance.
They were full of foolishness and (were) devoid of knowledge.

If a master of (the meaning of) secrets, a venerable one (with
knowledge) of numerous languages, had been there, he would
have given them reconciliation and peace.

Then he would have said, "By means of this one silver coin, I will
grant the wishes of all of you.

"This coin will cause effects such as these when you submit (your)
hearts (to me) without deceit.

"Your one coin will become (like) four (coins) for the desired
(result). (And) four enemies will become (as) one from unity (of
friendship).

"The words of each one of you offer (only) fighting and separation.
But my words will bring you harmonious agreement.

"Therefore, you be quiet (and) stay silent! So that I may
become your tongue for (needed) conversation."

-- Rumi

Dar-al-Masnavi: Quarreling Over Names

Mughal painting of the blind men and the elephant, from the 1600s AD (now in Walters Art Museum)

the blind men and the elephant by katsushika hokusai

The Blind Men and the Elephant, by Katsushika Hokusai

The illustration, which accompanies this story is a Japanese version drawn by the famous artist Hokusai (1760-1849) and taken from his collected prints in the Mangwa- Vol. 8, in which he increases the number of blind men to eleven. Because of the fact that in Japan (according to a recent book) elephants are rather uncommon we can well believe that this fable in Japan was borrowed from China or India.

blind men examining an elephant

Blind men (here, monks) examining an elephant by Japanese painter, poet and calligrapher Hanabusa Itchō (1652–1724) 

 

elephant in the dark

"Elephant in the Dark" (trans. Coleman Barks)

Some Hindus have an elephant to show.
No one here has ever seen an elephant.
They bring it at night to a dark room.
One by one, we go in the dark and come out
saying how we experience the animal.
One of us happens to touch the trunk.
"A water-pipe kind of creature."
Another, the ear. "A very strong, always moving
back and forth, fan-animal."
Another, the leg. "I find it still,
like a column on a temple."
Another touches the curved back.
"A leathery throne."
Another, the cleverest, feels the tusk.
"A rounded sword made of porcelain."
He's proud of his description.
Each of us touches one place
and understands the whole in that way.
The palm and the fingers feeling in the dark are
how the senses explore the reality of the elephant.
If each of us held a candle there,
and if we went in together,
we could see it.

-Rumi

the elephant in a dark room

 The Elephant in a Dark Room (trans. E.H. Whinfield)

Some Hindoos were exhibiting an elephant in a dark room, and many people collected to see it. But as the place was too dark to permit them to see the elephant, they all felt it with their hands, to gain an idea of what it was like. One felt its trunk, and declared that the beast resembled a water-pipe; another felt its ear, and said it must be a large fan; another its leg, and thought it must be a pillar; another felt its back, and declared the beast must be like a great throne. According to the part which each felt, he gave a different description of the animal.

The eye of outward sense is as the palm of a hand,
The whole of the object is not grasped in the palm.
The sea itself is one thing, the foam another;
Neglect the foam, and regard the sea with your eyes.
Waves of foam rise from the sea night and day,
You look at the foam ripples and not the mighty sea.
We, like boats, are tossed hither and thither,
We are blind though we are on the bright ocean.
Ah! you who are asleep in the boat of the body,
You see the water; behold the Water of waters!
Under the water you see there is another Water moving it,
Within the spirit is a Spirit that calls it.
Keep silence that you may hear Him speaking
Words unutterable by tongue in speech.
Keep silence, that you may hear from that Sun
Things inexpressible in books and discourses.

-Rumi

"an elephant is soft and mushy"

 

I remember seeing this image many years ago in a book of cartoons by Sam Gross with the title, "An Elephant is Soft and Mushy". I think it came out around the same time that Gary Larson's "The Far Side" cartoons were really popular. (And both cartoonists used a similar witty, bizarre one-panel style). This cartoon is a playful riff off of the famous fable of the blind men and the elephant (which I will try to explore over several posts).   Gross' work generally didn't make as much of an impression on me as Larson's but this one obviously stuck with me. The only other cartoon I remember of his also combined the scatological and the religious and was captioned "Jesus (as) turns wine into water" (and I will not be sharing the image but you can imagine it).