Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

Enlightenment for Free

Posted May 13th, 2009 by Greg Mayers in Integral Christianity
All this talk about enlightenment and teachers too often just confuses me. I take the bible literately sometimes, especially the injunctions given by Jesus. “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” is one of them. Another is, “Love your enemies.”
 
There’s no wiggle room in either of those to slip into nice metaphors and similes. Just stalk, straight forward, simple injunctions. I don’t know where it all fits in the integral model, but these injunctions haunt me more than red, to orange, to green, to turquoise, to indigo progressions.
 
I am reminded of a quote from Olivier Clement: “We need slaves and enemies. We invent them. We lord over others to feel as if we were gods, we have enemies in order to hold them responsible for our anxiety. Torturing others – as it is always their fault – violating their bodies and perhaps even their souls, keeping them at our mercy, on the verge of extinction but without letting them escape into death – this is the experience of a nearly divine omnipotence. In them I hate my own mortality. As I trample them down, I trample down my own death. There have been god-kings and deified tyrants – every display of power takes on a sacred character… This is why, at the cost of their lives, the first Christians refused to call Caesar lord. Only God is lord…”
 
Anyone who achieves that standard (love your enemies) is by any definition enlightened regardless of the tradition they may adhere to. And I can honestly report to you that I have to date achieved a perfect score by this standard. F. But still trying after all these years.
 
Greg Mayers
Zen taught me everything I can do
Christianity taught me everything I can’t do

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

"literately" vs. "literally"

Posted May 20th, 2009 by muennemann

Fr. Greg:

Did you really mean to take the Bible "literately" or "literally?"  I've followed a thread in calcatholic.com, in which people who take the bible literally insist that God's Holy Spirit is all-male.  God's maleness and the dualistic mind-set it supports are very important to them.  As proof, they cite for example John 14:16, John 14:26 and John 16:13.  Christ says he will send the Parakletos and refers to the Parakletos as "He."  The literalist, with characteristically pre-Orange vigor, is typically "disgusted" by those who ignore "Truth" and who believe God is beyond gender.

A look at the Greek received text shows that in fact, "He" in these passages is an artifact of English translation; male pronouns don't appear in the Greek!  So here we have a dramatic example where "literal" and "literate" readings of the Bible lead to very different understanding! 

I believe a truly integral reading brings the full power of rational thought (and Google) to bear on the question; then, when the intellect has served its purpose, transcends its linguistic traps to act with a child's simple sincerity and total faith in God.  If God calls me to love, I will love.

To continue my "perilously integral intellectualizations": I don't always love my enemies either, but I can clothe myself in Green body paint and pretend to love them.