Please Log in to Vote.

4 out of 8 members found this useful.

Jesus Is Not Your Usual Lord.

Posted October 14th, 2009 by Greg Mayers

Jesus is Not Your Usual Lord ©

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles…”

St Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 1, verses 21-23

With realization, all things are of one family,

Without realization, everything is separate and different;

Without realization, all things are of one family,

With realization, everything is separate and different.

Mumonkan: Case 16, The Verse.

What’s the deal about the kerygma, the Gospel, being a scandal and foolishness? Today’s defanged Christianity doesn’t seem so tough. It is socially acceptable in numerous quarters of the world. Politicians court the religious minded, appeal to their finer and baser sensibilities, appear with their leaders hoping some of the influence will rub off onto their campaigns. Most of today’s Christians seem anything but controversial. And it didn’t start out that way.

A Stumbling Block to Jews

Jesus the Messiah was a scandal to the Jews, St Paul tells us. The 1st century intelligentsia in that little backwater occupied Roman province of Palestine accurately got the story that the small Jewish sect who followed a crucified criminal was preaching. It enraged them. They were saying in no uncertain terms, there’s a new sheriff in town and he ain’t like your old sheriff. Saul of Tarsus got the story before his conversion. He was murderously enraged and set about to stone these blaspheming heretics into oblivion. Jesus’ countrymen, at least the powerful ones, got it. They set about expelling those followers from the synagogues in the empire.

Big deal, you think? People get excommunicated from various religious groups all the time. Well actually it was a big deal. It was a matter of life and death in the 1st century Mediterranean world. Everyone in the empire was required to worship the divine emperor-god Caesar August and his successors. You were free to refuse of course, but you’d likely be crucified, your wife and children sold into slavery, and your property confiscated. Second thoughts anybody? But the Roman province of Palestine made a special accommodation with the divine emperor’s representatives, allowing them an exemption. They didn’t have to worship Caesar. Rome didn’t want trouble. Just pay your taxes will do fine, thank you. Religion can be so very accommodating around money. The religious power brokers’ reply to the followers of the Crucified One was: There’s a price you’ll pay if you insist that that guy hanging on a cross is the Messiah. Take that, you blasphemous heretics. Keep warm and well fed. Don’t call us, we’ll call you. Oh, they got it alright. They heard exactly what was being preached about Jesus, the Messiah.

What did they say to get so many that upset all of a sudden? Well, read the story the way a native American Indian reads nature. Be screwed. See through the words. See through the images. See what the real message behind all of that is. When Jesus dies, the curtain in the temple, separating the Holy of Holies, the Shekinah, from the rest of unclean creation is rent from top to bottom.[i] The story is telling Jesus’ contemporaries, the chosen race, your temple is empty. Your god, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Moses, is dead.[ii]

If he truly is the son of God let him come down off that cross, they taunted him. But He’s not the son of that god. On the cross Jesus cries out: My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?[iii] That god abandoned Jesus, because that god can’t save anyone. Furthermore, and this is what really enraged them, they found an empty tomb. The transcendent god of inaccessible holiness is gone. Replaced by the only God there is, the en-fleshed God, Jesus, who cannot be un-fleshed.[iv] Once God takes flesh the only move possible is transformation of flesh in the Resurrection. Even the god death is dead. The empty temple and the empty tomb is an absolute scandal (stumbling block) to Paul’s kin, whom he lumps under the umbrella label, the Jews. (The heart of the matter has nothing to do with ‘genetic’ Jews, but it has everything to do with power politics and power religion ‘lording it over others.’)

Once you get it, there is no turning back. You will either kill or be killed. The benign, gentle, wise sage of Israel image of Jesus preaching enlightenment, promoted among recovering Christians or Buddhists wantabe Christians, is a myth, in the worse possible sense of that word – a made up fib showing us a lie. He said he came to bring a sword, not peace,[v] and the sword is pointed not at those unbelieving sinners, it is aimed at us believers.[vi] That’s the meaning of Paul preaching Christ crucified. This is what awaits you! Not the “gospel” of prosperity, peace and enlightenment!

He said he came to bring fire[vii] to the earth and He wanted it to be enkindled. Once you get it, it will burn through you the way it burned through Jesus. Then you will no longer have the luxury of quietly detaching your intellect and weighing the options between religious traditions, for this fire will consume you body, mind and soul, and it will demand – not politely request – demand you choose. There is no middle way around Christianity. Not to choose is to choose. And yet, it is the simplest thing in the world to enter what Jesus identified as His “reign,” His description for Reality: become like little children.[viii] Those who aren’t against Him default to being for Him.[ix]

Foolishness to the Gentiles

Now for the “foolishness to the Gentiles” part. The best way to explain this is to go right to the heart of Mahayana Zen Buddhism, for this is without doubt the best that religious or spiritual philosophy has to offer. There are innumerable texts that demonstrate this part, but the verse to case 16 of the Mumonkan is one that is particularly insightful.

The first line of the verse: “With realization, all things are of one family,” is very straight forward. “Realization” refers to the kensho or satori experience, often mistranslated into English as “enlightenment.”[x] It means realizing your own Buddha nature, or buddhahood. “All things are of one family” refers to the experience of the sense of a separate self falling away, dissolving into everything that happens to be happening. No mystery here. It is a common enough an experience, endlessly talked about these days in books, by Eckhart Tolle, on Oprah, in this blog, etc.

The second line of the verse: “Without realization, everything is separate and different…” is very straight forward as well. If you don’t get “realization” then you have to content with all kinds of boundaries inside and outside of yourself, with the unspoken implication that you are in constant conflict. Welcome to hell.

The next two verses are where things get really interesting and revolutionary. As Dr Cameron Freeman says, “the reverse side also has a reverse side.” Line three is: “Without realization, all things are of one family…” which seems to contradict line one. Is Mumon playing a trick on us? No, he is stating the obvious. Whether you personally realize it or not, all things are not even one. Realization changes nothing. Or, to really nail it; Mumon is saying there is no realization, no Buddha nature, no buddhahood, nothing at all to attain. It’s just a mind game.

The final line in the verse is the real clincher. This is where Mumon scrambles your brains: “With realization, everything is separate and different.” What is he saying? Because there are no boundaries, there are boundaries! The German philosopher Shophenhauer made his first mistake when he asked: Why is there something and not nothing? He unconsciously accepts the illusion of a primal duality of nothing and something. Mumon doesn’t get caught in that trap! He sees clearly that there is something because there is nothing. It isn’t that nothing calls forth something. Mumon is not talking about a causal connection. He is stating the fact of a “deep structure of reality” which he sees, and everyone who has ever been “enlightened” saw, from Buddha down through the Patriarchs to the present day. Mumon’s depth of insight undercuts post modernism’s criticism of Western philosophy. Nothing and something are not contraries.

Now do you kind of get some of the flavor of St Paul’s “foolishness to the Gentiles”? It is an exact parallel with Mumon’s last line of the verse in case 16 of the Mumonkan. It is definitely not saying the same thing. Mumon is a Buddhist. Buddha taught nothing about any god. That’s not the parallel. The parallel is in the depth, not the content or the context.

To translate it into modern American English for you, so you won’t miss it: Because Jesus the Messiah is the only begotten Son of God, so are you![xi] Jesus, the Logos, overcomes our otherness without dissolving it.[xii] And it is only because of Jesus that this is true. Many minds through centuries have worked on the theology about the unique way Jesus is God, Lord. They just haven’t bothered to work out how you are uniquely that too, precisely because you are unique! St Paul simply says that we are adopted sons in Christ and leaves it at that.[xiii] And we take it as a put down! This is the foundational “deep structure of reality” that sees there is no conflict between flesh and spirit, God and man, transcendence and immanence. It refuses to fall into the trap that Shopenhauer so easily fell into, and Ken Wilber subtly does as well. It can’t be proven, by the analytical intellect, although many have tried, because the analytical intellect can’t spot it. It can only be seen in the same manner as Mumon sees the flaw in the opposition of nothing and something.

Conclusion

Christianity and Zen Buddhism are more alike than you think and more different than you imagine. Zen Buddhism seeps into the crevices of everyday life, just as Christianity does, but not as well and not to the extent of the Incarnation. That’s the difference. Jesus blesses those who are not ashamed of him.[xiv] The Messiah out Buddha-natures Buddha nature. He out buddhahoods, buddhahood. He is the fullness, the completeness, the totality of what the Buddha could only dimly see.[xv] Dogen Zenji’s great realization saw that body and mind drop away, thus freeing him and all sentient beings by transcending samsara.[xvi] Nirvana and samsara are not contraries. Jesus the Messiah is the embodiment of the Divine “body and mind,” thus fully entering into samsara and transforming (saving, redeeming) it from within, not escaping it.[xvii] Zen’s ordinary mind, its everyday-ness is not as meticulous as the Incarnation. It doesn’t reach as far in, all the way in, permeating the genetics of being human.

Who and what Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, is, makes all the difference in the world to who and what you are. And that is why those of us who say we are Christians can’t say that all Traditions are equal, that all Ways are complimentary, that all Truths are the same. We would betray you. And we would betray Jesus. And what is the difference, in the end, anyway? That’s the point. We can’t find God in the transcendent any longer. We can only find God in the flesh.[xviii] Foolishly scandalously en-fleshed! Now! The foundations of propositional truths in Platonism, Scholasticism, modernism, post modernism, post post modernism are all shot to hell in one stroke of “en-fleshment,” the Incarnation. None of us can be complete until all of us are complete in Love in, with and through Jesus, the Messiah.

P.S. Don’t worry about offending my sensibilities in your responses. Jesus beat you to the punch.

Greg Mayers

Zen taught me everything I can do

Christianity taught me everything I can’t do

[i] The Gospel of St Mark, chapter 15, verses 37-39.

[ii] In the Gospels most of the time when Jesus talks about the temple in Jerusalem it is a coded word for God.

[iii] The Gospel of St Mark, chapter 16, verse 34.

[iv] The First Epistle of John, chapter 4, verse 20: If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

[v] The Gospel of St Matthew, chapter 10, verse 34.

[vi] I first came across the phrase, “…and the sword is aimed at us,” in What Jesus Meant by the award winning American historian Garry Wills. Unfortunately today it is too popular to turn the Gospel around and make it mean the opposite of what is meant. Instead of being inclusive, it is used to exclude the damned from the saved, the unclean from the clean, etc. As Dr. Cameron Freedom has so aptly pointed out, Jesus specifically identifies Himself with the damned and unclean of his time and culture. (Cf. The forthcoming Post-Metaphysical Theology: A Source Code for the Authentic Teachings of the Historical Jesus,by Dr. Cameron Freeman, soon to be published in 2009-2010)

[vii] The Gospel of St Luke, chapter 12, verse 49. Fire is a notorious biblical stand in for The Divine.

[viii] The Gospel of St Mark, chapter 10, verses 13 to 16.

[ix] The Gospel of St John, chapter 9, verses 49-50.

[x] A better way of thinking of “Realization” is as “that which makes completely alive and vibrant.”

[xi] The Gospel of St Mark, chapter 9, verse 49: “For everyone will be salted with fire.” To repeat the obvious by now: Fire = Divinity.

[xii] “God overcomes otherness in Himself without dissolving it and that is the mystery of the Trinity in Unity. He overcomes it in his relations with us, again without dissolving it, and that is the distinction-identity of the reality and of the energies. ‘God is altogether shared and altogether unshareable,’ as Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor say.” Clement, Olivier: The Roots of Christian Mysticism; New City Press, Hyde Park, NY, 1993 p. 238.

[xiii] St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 1, verse 5. “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.”

[xiv] The Gospel of St Mark, chapter 8, verse 38.

[xv] The First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 13, verse 12. “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”

[xvi] “Eiheigen Osho (Dogen) came to Tendojo Osho. One day, Tendojo preached to his assembly at early morning zazen, saying, ‘Zazen is a dropping away of body and mind.’ Dogen, hearing this, suddenly had great realization. He went at once to the abbot's chambers and offered incense. Tendojo asked him, ‘Why do you offer incense?’ Dogen said, ‘Body and mind have dropped away.’ Tendojo said, ‘Body and mind dropped away. The dropped away body and mind.’” Denkoroku, Case 51, The Fifty-first Ancestor, Eiheigen Osho (Dogen Kigen); private translation by Yamada Kôun Roshi.

[xvii] The Gospel of John, chapter fourteen, verse six: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

[xviii] According to Houston Smith (Cf. The Soul of Christianity; HarperSanFrancisco, 2005, p. 96ff) the scandal of the 1st century wasn’t that Jesus attained Divinity. At that time, that was as common as sin, excuse the expression. Every little religious sect in the 1st century Mediterranean world claimed a leader who attained to some kind of divine status. (Oh, hum; yawn, yawn; another one!) The scandal which the early church had to keep insisting on in the face of opposition and ridicule was the exact reverse: God became human. “He was really born… He really suffered, He really died and was buried. These events were not just make-believe, a sequence through which God merely seemed to brush with the human estate. Christ endured these experiences as fully as we do. He was ‘truly man.’” (p. 102). The contemporary perspective that sees Jesus as a man who attains some kind of great enlightenment or divine statue, exactly parallels the 1st century Mediterranean pagan perspective of Jesus, and it is just as false. Evidently contemporaries are capable of another 1st century pagan parallel, that of being scandalized by Jesus, the Messiah, the true Son of God, or at least the modern equivalent of scandalized, outraged and offended by it.

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 3 members found this useful.

How Sad

Posted October 14th, 2009 by mysticolin

I have responded to much of your post. Your stuff is in italics and my responses start off with bold headers. It made my response quite lengthy but I could find no better way to respond.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

You said: What’s the deal about the kerygma, the Gospel, being a scandal and foolishness? Today’s defanged Christianity doesn’t seem so tough. It is socially acceptable in numerous quarters of the world. Politicians court the religious minded, appeal to their finer and baser sensibilities, appear with their leaders hoping some of the influence will rub off onto their campaigns. Most of today’s Christians seem anything but controversial. And it didn’t start out that way.

A consensus on the kerygma?

It is interesting that the so-called 'kerygma’ is not the same as Jesus’ ‘good news’. He was not his message. I’m not saying that his life didn’t speak to the people of his time and since. What I mean is that Jesus’ didn’t say, “I’m the Good News!” “Here I am!”

There are some comments about how he will die and be resurrected, but it’s uncertain as to whether he actually said this or if this was added due to the beliefs of his followers.

You said: What did they say to get so many that upset all of a sudden? Well, read the story the way a native American Indian reads nature. Be screwed. See through the words. See through the images. See what the real message behind all of that is. When Jesus dies, the curtain in the temple, separating the Holy of Holies, the Shekinah, from the rest of unclean creation is rent from top to bottom.[i] The story is telling Jesus’ contemporaries, the chosen race, your temple is empty. Your god, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Moses, is dead.[ii]

An…interesting interpretation

Well that’s definitely a supersecessionist’s interpretation of that event! Wow, Marcion would be so proud to hear you speak of the death of the “Old Testament” demi-urge! Or, with it being the curtain to the Holy of Holies, to the place where G-d was said to be enthroned between the seraphim, could it be that the Shekinah, the Presence of God was no longer considered limited to a particular part of the temple, but rather the whole earth is now seen as full of G-d’s glory? This seems less like an attack on the old god, but rather the first signs of a moving away from particular pre-modern beliefs of the Jewish people of that time. I’m curious as to whether you believe the curtain was actually torn or if that is symbolic language.

You said: If he truly is the son of God let him come down off that cross, they taunted him. But He’s not the son of that god. On the cross Jesus cries out: My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?[iii]

Have you read anything but the New Testament?

Really. Try reading the psalms sometime. Do some study on how reference to a fragment of scripture in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures imply a larger text found within Hebrew Scripture. Your above interpretation takes Jesus’ words and the verse he is quoting out of context! (That’s assuming that he actually said those words, which I’m fine with that possibility) On top of that you have apparently embraced the Marcion heresy.

You said: That god abandoned Jesus, because that god can’t save anyone. Furthermore, and this is what really enraged them, they found an empty tomb. The transcendent god of inaccessible holiness is gone. Replaced by the only God there is, the en-fleshed God, Jesus, who cannot be un-fleshed.[iv] Once God takes flesh the only move possible is transformation of flesh in the Resurrection. Even the god death is dead. The empty temple and the empty tomb is an absolute scandal (stumbling block) to Paul’s kin, whom he lumps under the umbrella label, the Jews. (The heart of the matter has nothing to do with ‘genetic’ Jews, but it has everything to do with power politics and power religion ‘lording it over others.’)

The Death of the Triune God?

If the only God is the enfleshed God, then there is no Trinity, right? Is the Temple empty or the whole earth filled?

You said: Once you get it, there is no turning back. You will either kill or be killed. The benign, gentle, wise sage of Israel image of Jesus preaching enlightenment, promoted among recovering Christians or Buddhists wantabe Christians, is a myth, in the worse possible sense of that word – a made up fib showing us a lie. He said he came to bring a sword, not peace,[v] and the sword is pointed not at those unbelieving sinners, it is aimed at us believers.[vi] That’s the meaning of Paul preaching Christ crucified. This is what awaits you! Not the “gospel” of prosperity, peace and enlightenment!

Your words betray you

I am not against a radical Jesus. The degree of hyperbole in Jesus’ teachings portray a call to make the Kingdom of God one’s primary concern rather than wealth, security, food, all that we deem ‘necessary’ let alone that which is not ‘necessary’. His gospel was a wake up call, but we would disagree as to what that call was.

At the same time the whole ‘for Jesus or against Jesus’ is premodern/mythic. No doubt about it. That is not to say there isn’t something beautifully unique and powerful about Jesus teachings and example; but God has been ‘heard’ through other equally unique and powerful means. The curtain has been torn and it was done from the top down implying that the “god who cannot save” rent that division!

You said: And yet, it is the simplest thing in the word to enter what Jesus identified as His “reign,” His description for Reality: become like little children.[viii] Those who aren’t against Him default to being for Him.[ix]

Reading Jesus out of context

I did a post-grad paper on the kingdom of God. It led me on a journey in which I came to realize the ‘Kingdom of God’ makes little sense outside its original Jewish context. I then found this to be true of much of Jesus’ teachings and actions.

I loved Karl Rahner. I still think he was right about the future of Christianity being mystical. And this switching around of against/for is refreshing/reassuring or simply contradictory to everything else you’re saying. There seems to be a mythic-rational swinging back and forth in your writing.

You said: The next two verses are where things get really interesting and revolutionary. As Dr Cameron Freeman says, “the reverse side also has a reverse side.” Line three is: “Without realization, all things are of one family…” which seems to contradict line one. Is Mumon playing a trick on us? No, he is stating the obvious. Whether you personally realize it or not, all things are not even one. Realization changes nothing. Or, to really nail it; Mumon is saying there is no realization, no Buddha nature, no buddhahood, nothing at all to attain. It’s just a mind game.

Is it just a mind game?

Or is it an expression that there is simply nothing to attain. You are already there. I am not acquainted with this text, but considering what you’ve done with the Christian and Hebrew scriptures, I figure this is a possible interpretation.

You said: The final line in the verse is the real clincher. This is where Mumon scrambles your brains: “With realization, everything is separate and different.” What is he saying? Because there are no boundaries, there are boundaries! The German philosopher Shophenhauer made his first mistake when he asked: Why is there something and not nothing? He unconsciously accepts the illusion of a primal duality of nothing and something. Mumon doesn’t get caught in that trap! He sees clearly that there is something because there is nothing. It isn’t that nothing calls forth something. Mumon is not talking about a causal connection. He is stating the fact of a “deep structure of reality” which he sees, and everyone who has ever been “enlightened” saw, from Buddha down through the Patriarchs to the present day. Mumon’s depth of insight undercuts post modernism’s criticism of Western philosophy. Nothing and something are not contraries.

I don’t think it means what you think it means

So this is what you mean by something ‘beyond nondual’? Your mention of ‘nothing’…Are you talking about nothing or Nothingness? They are very different. Besides, this sounds like a koan or a beautiful paradoxical expression of nonduality. I guess that’s redundant. This sounds like the 10th Circle of Zen where, upon realizing the One, a person returns to the Many. It is the movement from freedom to fullness, transcending then embracing.

You said: To translate it into modern American English for you, so you won’t miss it: Because Jesus the Messiah is the only begotten Son of God, so are you![xi] Jesus, the Logos, overcomes our otherness without dissolving it.[xii]

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

Is this the same thing that you’re saying?

You said: And it is only because of Jesus that this is true.

Only because of Jesus?

I do see a distinction between everyone having to be Christian and Jesus’ having a metaphysical/spiritual influence upon the whole world that may be experienced within any Tradition. And you would argue that since Christians are aware of Jesus’ spiritual act, that it places Christianity ahead of the curve, right? You have mentioned in previous posts that everyone believes their tradition to be the most correct otherwise they would belong to another tradition which they found more correct. I think that as you move through the postmodern and integral stages, it’s less about which tradition is more correct and rather within which tradition you most vividly and deeply encounter and respond to Spirit/God. Like that marriage example. You marry the person that’s perfect for you rather than the perfect person.

You said: Many minds through centuries have worked on the theology about the unique way Jesus is God, Lord.

The uniqueness of Jesus

I agree that Jesus was a unique manifestation of Spirit. His message was unique, as was his example. Unique doesn’t mean the only way or the best way for everyone.

They just haven’t bothered to work out how you are uniquely that too,

You never cease to surprise me

In spite of all that precedes this. You touch upon what I believe to be the meaning of Jesus’ incarnation -- the revelation of our own I AMness (eros) and Spirit’s eternal incarnation (agape). And yes, every one of us is a unique manifestation/incarnation of God.

You said: precisely because you are unique! St Paul simply says that we are adopted sons in Christ and leaves it at that.[xiii] And we take it as a put down! This is the foundational “deep structure of reality” that sees there is no conflict between flesh and spirit,

HUH?

Did I just think, “Amen”? (It was in response to there being no conflict between flesh and spirit)

You said: God and man, transcendence and immanence.

My Wesleyan heritage

Grace and response (Wesley), initiating and responding (I Ching), projecting and receiving (Kabbalah), God and Goddess (Neo-Paganism, I think particularly Wiccan but not sure), and I know I’m forgetting some tradition(s). Process theology helped me realize that this isn’t simply between God and humanity but God and ‘Creation’/the Manifest world. The dance between the two blurs distinction -- even when there is distinction -- because the two are one.

You said: It refuses to fall into the trap that Shopenhauer so easily fell into, and Ken Wilber subtly does as well. It can’t be proven, by the analytical intellect, although many have tried, because the analytical intellect can’t spot it. It can only be seen in the same manner as Mumon sees the flaw in the opposition of nothing and something.

Pre/Trans Fallacy

The goal isn’t to be anti-intellectual, but rather trans-rational (implying that the analytical intellect isn’t checked at the door). It does play a vital role. It helps to ‘separate the sheep from the goats’ within pre-modern spirituality and theology.

Conclusion

You said: Christianity and Zen Buddhism are more alike than you think and more different than you imagine. Zen Buddhism seeps into the crevices of everyday life, just as Christianity does, but not as well and not to the extent of the Incarnation.

What about the Boddisatva?

Rusty on my Buddhism, but I can’t remember if that’s a part of Zen Buddhism. At the same time the 10th circle (circle, right? Or is it something else? I know there’s 10 pictures mapping a progression within Zen) seems to express a similar idea. I will admit that it is only similar and not identical to Christianity’s ‘incarnation’. Besides, zazen is very focused upon the here and now and the five senses isn’t it?

You said: That’s the difference. Jesus blesses those who are not ashamed of him.[xiv] The Messiah out Buddha-natures Buddha nature. He out buddhahoods, buddhahood.

My god beats your god?

Really? After a lot of good stuff, it comes back to this? I hope you can free yourself from this one day.

You said: He is the fullness, the completeness, the totality of what the Buddha could only dimly see.[xv] Dogen Zenji’s great realization saw that body and mind drop away, thus freeing him and all sentient beings by transcending samsara.[xvi] Nirvana and samsara are not contraries. Jesus the Messiah is the embodiment of the Divine “body and mind,” thus fully entering into samsara and transforming (saving, redeeming) it from within, not escaping it. [xvii]

Fullness vs. Freedom

I don’t think this is a matter of either/or so much as both/and, transcend/embrace.

You said: Zen’s ordinary mind, its everyday-ness is not as meticulous as the Incarnation. It doesn’t reach as far in, all the way in, permeating the genetics of being human.

Et Tu Judas?

An Integral Christianity can proclaim Jesus’ message of the Kingdom and the extreme trust and commitment it requires and even that God was encountered and encountered people through Jesus’ words and actions, but limiting God to this one man and limiting humanity’s spiritual experience to this one man betrays both God and humanity (and Jesus).

You said: And what is the difference, in the end, anyway? That’s the point. We can’t find God in the transcendent any longer.

Says who?

You spoke of presenting your theology of the Trinity, but according to the above, there is no Father and, possibly, no Holy Spirit. Integral spirituality recognizes that we encounter God in the transcendent and in the ‘flesh’/immanent.

You said: We can only find God in the flesh.[xviii] Foolishly scandalously en-fleshed!

Mythic language

The foolishness was in the context of that time and place (especially that time). To hold so tightly to pre-modern assertions is where the folly lies – not simply from an analytical perspective but from any post-mythic perspective. What’s so tragic is that you’re so close and yet so far.

You said: Now! The foundations of propositional truths in Platonism, Scholasticism, modernism, post modernism, post post modernism are all shot to hell in one stroke of “en-fleshment,” the Incarnation. None of us can be complete until all of us are complete in Love in, with and through Jesus, the Messiah.

Simply Tragic

Your Footnotes read:

[vi] I first came across the phrase, “…and the sword is aimed at us,” in What Jesus Meant by the award winning American historian Garry Wills. Unfortunately today it is too popular to turn the Gospel around and make it mean the opposite of what is meant. Instead of being inclusive, it is used to exclude the damned from the saved, the unclean from the clean, etc. As Dr. Cameron Freedom has so aptly pointed out, Jesus specifically identifies Himself with the damned and unclean of his time and culture. (Cf. The forthcoming Post-Metaphysical Theology: A Source Code for the Authentic Teachings of the Historical Jesus,by Dr. Cameron Freeman, soon to be published in 2009-2010)

My response: Post-Metaphysical…wouldn’t that mean the end of such ideas as Jesus being The way by which we are “adopted” as sons/daughters of God?

[xviii] According to Houston Smith (Cf. The Soul of Christianity; HarperSanFrancisco, 2005, p. 96ff) the scandal of the 1st century wasn’t that Jesus attained Divinity. At that time, that was as common as sin, excuse the expression. Every little religious sect in the 1st century Mediterranean world claimed a leader who attained to some kind of divine status. (Oh, hum; yawn, yawn; another one!) The scandal which the early church had to keep insisting on in the face of opposition and ridicule was the exact reverse: God became human. “He was really born… He really suffered, He really died and was buried. These events were not just make-believe, a sequence through which God merely seemed to brush with the human estate. Christ endured these experiences as fully as we do. He was ‘truly man.’” (p. 102).

My Response: This is why I loved The Last Temptation of Christ. It emphasized his humanity and, in so doing, awakened me to God’s immanence. I once heard that one must begin with Jesus’ humanity to see his divinity. I still think that’s a beautiful way of putting it. But I don't think that negates the acknowledgment that Jesus attained such a state of manifestation of the Divine and that he wasn't simply born with it. Jesus being born that way does not fit within a Post-metaphysical theology.

The contemporary perspective that sees Jesus as a man who attains some kind of great enlightenment or divine statue, exactly parallels the 1st century Mediterranean pagan perspective of Jesus, and it is just as false. Evidently contemporaries are capable of another 1st century pagan parallel, that of being scandalized by Jesus, the Messiah, the true Son of God, or at least the modern equivalent of scandalized, outraged and offended by it.

Edit: I wanted to shorten the length of this post because it stretched so far. I would have liked to edit the content but that would leave the resulting responses out of context. I encourage anyone who found this post too critical to read on. I am not proud of how I responded in this post and have apologized to Greg. That apology is within this thread.

Broken and Divine

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Re: How Sad

Posted October 15th, 2009 by Greg Mayers in response to How Sad

First of all, I want to point out that I have identified myself to this community in my bio with a brief description of who I am, which anyone can check on line with a simple Google search, and if they want to pay the money, a full background check. I put myself and my reputation on the line when I post an opinion here. I think if you are going to attack my opinions, it is a simply courtesy that you identify yourself instead of hiding behind the anonymous “mysticolin” and “Broken and Divine” handles.

Secondly, I am not going to get bogged down in post reformation sectarian confessional controversies. Your Presbyterian interpretations are okay with me. More power to you. I am representing my Catholic heritage. Christianity is an immensely rich tradition, reaching far beyond the American confessional denominations, into the Mar Toma Church in India which traces its heritage to the 1st century and St Thomas the Apostle and even into Buddhist/Toaist China in the Jesus Sutras, six centuries after the Resurrection.

Thirdly, while quite erudite, your response basically misses the forest for the trees. The thrust of my presentation stated clearly at the beginning is to explain as best I can why the Christian message was considered scandalous and foolishness. You added nothing to that premise by picking away at the edges of arcane differences with Catholic theology.

Fourthly, most readers on this blog haven’t the slightest idea what you are referring to when you mention the Maricon heresy, nor are they familiar with your Trinitarian allusion. (If anyone is interested in the Maricon heresy, check Wikipedia). I will first state that you have misinterpreted my words through your confessional lenses and that I am completely Catholic in my understanding of Jesus’ role in salvation. As far as the Trinity, I ascribe completely to St Hilary of Poitier’s teaching, a Doctor of the Church, namely: The persons of the Trinity “reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes”. - Concerning the Trinity 3:1 (For those who are unfamiliar with the term “Doctor of the Church” it means in Catholicism, that one may follow the opinions of the doctor without fear of error, the Church’s highest endorsement of a theologian).

Fifthly, it is this kind of witching hunting, which is eager to see the worst kind of meaning possible in any presentation that is not in lock step with its own, that gives Western Christianity its bad, and unfortunately, well deserved reputation. The inquisition is alive and well, hiding in the shadows.

Finally, if I read you correctly, you fit very well into a 1st century mentality that has no trouble believing that a human may achieve divine status. Christianity announced the exact opposite, the Divine emptied Himself to become human. That is the scandal and the foolishness. That is the fact upon which Christianity hinges, not mystical experiences, not self righteousness, not any kind of personal achievement. It is all grace in, with and through Jesus the Messiah.

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.

Apology

Posted October 17th, 2009 by mysticolin in response to Re: How Sad

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Greg,

I have not meant to hide. Most forums I have encountered consist of usernames rather than one’s real name. I guess I did it out of habit and out of a paranoid tendency not to release too much personal info on the internet where anyone can access it. As for not having any other info on my profile, that is more a matter of not getting around to it yet.

My name is Colin Bronsink and I am sorry that I made you feel so attacked. Previous to your response I had thought I probably needed to go back and edit it, but I didn’t get back to it in time. I was frustrated with your blog. There are some great ideas there and other ideas that I personally find detrimental to Christianity evolving. I am a passionate person and I let it get the best of me. You seemed so thick skinned (not to say that I now think you are easily offended – no pun intended) that I didn’t worry about how I was coming across. Some of my bold titles were meant to be a bit playful, but I realize, with the level of critique, that it was in poor taste.

While I find you infuriating, I also find you to be someone I want to better understand. But I realize I keep hoping you’ll change your views on things you may never change your views on. I’m not saying you’re not open to changing your perspective. What I’m saying is that it’s not up to me. I am struggling with what it means to have a healthy dialogue with others who think differently than me. Sometimes it comes easy and other times, I wonder if it’s worth it and why I’m trying. I think we all can gain something from dialogue but maybe there’s a limit to that.

I know there are differences between protestant and catholic theology and biblical study, but I’m not exactly sure to what you are referring. This realization has made me also realize that there may be some things that I’ve horribly misunderstood. I thought you had been expressing what all Christians are to hold to, not catholic Christians in particular. This may be a good example of how inter-religious dialogue and ecumenical dialogue have some similarities. So on top of our theological differences, we have this communication barrier that I don’t know how we can overcome. Though, I still wish to.

I don’t think our differences are simply ecumenical though. Some of it has to do with my own parting with Christianity and trying to re-integrate it into my present understanding of God…if that’s possible. So some of what you’re seeing in my responses is this very personal struggle to do that.

As for the forest from the trees, I tend to take things apart before being able to synthesize them. You seem so full of contradictions (whether you are or not). Sometimes you sound completely stuck in pre-modern thought and other times you sound more integral. Addressing your blog point-by-point seemed the only way for me to get some clarity, but maybe that is the wrong approach. I will think about that.

As for the references to Marcion and supersessionism, I tried to attach wikipedia links but failed. As for the “Trinitarian allusion”, are you referring to the Hegelian reference to Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis or something else? I figure if people have read any Wilber, they probably have some familiarity with that Hegelian formula. I wasn’t trying to show off. I was simply trying to keep a very long response as short as possible, but you have a good point there. I can’t assume such things.

St. Hilary’s articulation of the Trinity is very similar to that of Jurgen Moltmann, a contemporary Lutheran theologian. I wonder if he was influenced by her. As for misinterpreting your words, I’m coming to believe that is very much the case.

On the subject of Marcion though, he spoke of the God of the “Old Testament” as an evil demi-urge who wasn’t the God whom Jesus spoke of or the God who called “Abba, Father”. He said Christianity could do away with the “Old Testament”. Have I misunderstood you in expressing the same thing? Are you simply saying that Jesus and how he revealed God was so different from Judaism that he presented a “new” image of God, an enfleshed God? Again, my personal journey influenced my response to this. I have come to find a great deal of truth and beauty in the Jewish tradition and I see a lot of Judaism in Jesus’ life and teachings.

In response to “witch hunting”, you have completely misunderstood me. I thought our differences were minor when I first read your posts. As I continued to try to understand what you were saying there seemed no denying the pre-modern elements in your thought. Yet you spoke of yourself as post-premodern (excuse the excessive prefixes). In spite of all my attempts to understand where you’re coming from, you have responded minimally. I’m not sure why this is. Maybe it’s because my questions implied certain assumptions which are, if not protestant, non-catholic.

No I wasn’t saying humans achieve divine status. Rather I’m saying that humanity (and all of creation) is the incarnation of God. And I would say Christianity brings this to light. I see a close relationship between being the Image of God and imitating God. Jesus’ parable about “whatever you do to the least of these” parallels the rabbinic answer to what it means to be holy, to imitate God: cloth the naked, feed the hungry, etc. So I would say that in Jesus we see God’s enfleshment. Humans don’t become divine. They manifest their divine origin, that they are the children of God. Like Father, like sons/daughters. This is what I mean by nonduality. There is distinction and oneness. I’m not sure if I’m articulating my thoughts well enough here.

As for God emptying Himself, this seems similar to the Tzimtzum of God in Kabbalah. That God constricted/withdrew into himself in order to create the world. The idea that God creates by self-restriction seemed very similar to God humbling himself and becoming man. From my Christian perspective, I saw the humbling of God seen in Jesus to be a revelation of what God has always been. This played a part in my present view of God, but I won't go into that right now. I'm still trying to trace how I have arrived at my present view of God, realizing so many influences have played a factor in this.

Of course when it comes to the issue of grace, I am aware of there being differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and I see no reason to debate these things. I referred to my understanding of a dialectical/dialogical relationship between grace and human response as an articulation of my personal understanding of God, nonduality and how I see the Trinity as a way to articulate that nonduality of particularity and oneness. You have spoken of the Trinity and so I was throwing that out there as one appropriation, my appropriation, of that theological concept. That is all. It’s definitely something you can take or leave. I don’t think it’s the only correct understanding of the Trinity or God. The Trinity is an expression of the mystery of God as far as I’m concerned.

I hope this resolves some things. I did not expect my comments to illicit such a reaction from you. I have been careless and I apologize again for that.

Colin

Broken and Divine

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

WOW

Posted October 17th, 2009 by Greg Mayers in response to Apology

Dearest Colin:

Wow. I am truly humbled and deeply touched, near tears, by your response. I hope everyone reads your post. This is live Christianity. You saw I was offended, and even when you intended no offense, you apologize to me. I am encouraged in my own faith, by yours, and deeply inspired.

I am provocative in my posts. For better or worse, I try to capture the provocation of the message of Christianity and translate the “feeling,” as well as the message of the kerygma, in fresh images and language. The wonderful thing to me is that you are not lukewarm, but engaged in the message (not necessarily a reference to my message).

Thank you, Colin, for your kindness and tenderness. I feel we’ve become friends over the ethers.

Greg Mayers

Zen taught me everything I can do.

Christianity taught me everything I can't do.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

and what about this?

Posted October 20th, 2009 by Federico Parra in response to Re: How Sad

You wrote:

"Finally, if I read you correctly, you fit very well into a 1st century mentality that has no trouble believing that a human may achieve divine status. Christianity announced the exact opposite, the Divine emptied Himself to become human. That is the scandal and the foolishness. That is the fact upon which Christianity hinges, not mystical experiences, not self righteousness, not any kind of personal achievement. It is all grace in, with and through Jesus the Messiah."

So, please answer me, without running, without making circles, only a honest and straight answer please:

What you think of this?

http://integrallife.com/applications/purpose-being-human

This is the very core of Christianity to me, and it appears to be exactly exactly the opposite of what you are proposing.

Blessings,

Federico

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted October 20th, 2009 by admin in response to and what about this?

This comment has been deleted by the author.

5 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Transcending and Including

Posted October 21st, 2009 by mysticolin in response to [Comment Deleted]

While I agree with the insistence on a certain tradition or belief system having a lot to do with feeling secure, I think there is something else going on in addition to this. In the Integral stage of spirituality do all the religions/traditions look the same? It seems Greg is fighting against a homogenizing of the traditions, a loss of what makes each tradition different and unique. While I would argue that's what postmodern/green spirituality tends toward when it goes too far, Integral is refreshing in it's transcending and including. So an Integral Christianity need not loose the language of Christianity, while at the same time meaning something a bit different. At the same time this "different meaning(s)" would have some connection with what makes the tradition unique. How does any tradition embrace the new and hold to certain elements of the "old"? When does the tradition embrace so much "new" that it no longer bears any resemblance to its former self? While change of any sort consists of a sort of dying away of certain elements, Christianity (maybe better than some other traditions) is aware that death precedes resurrection into a higher state (or more accurately, stage) of being.

Broken and Divine

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

But this is happening to all traditions!

Posted October 21st, 2009 by Federico Parra in response to Transcending and Including

I agree with what you say; but you (and Cameron and Greg) fail to recognize that if Integral Theory is MAYBE cutting too much of the Catholic tradition (wich, by the way, is NOT the unique or original or more valid version of the Christian tradition) then it is cutting SO MUCH of the others traditions as well! Take the example of Tibetan Buddhism. According to the Tibetan tradition:

The end of the path is the Rainbow Body, wich (i imagine) Integralists directly don't believe in at all. Instead, they put the NON DUAL attainment as the "last step" of the path.
Processes like the Buddha of Medicine are traditionally supposed to really heal body illnesses of all kinds. Discarted by Integral Theory.
Reincarnation (specially in the Tulkus lineages) are believed to be central and even KEY for Tibetan Buddhism; Ken tells all the time he is (at best) suspicious about reincarnation; and most integral debates about it leave it as a very possible mythical believe.
Complete Illumination, as traditionally believed in (ie. a perfect person, wich complete wisdom and that sees the truth aspects of all situations and that were believed even capable of flying), are now seen at best as people that attained horizontal state-training non-dual mastery.

So, it is not only Cristhianity who is "suffering" as tradition when leaving behind the myths, even the CENTRAL MYTHS!

What is more important to the Tibetan tradition (often called Lamaism) than the believe in the sanctity/complete wisdom/supernatural powers of the Lamas?

I think for Tibetan Buddhist tradition, to leave behind that faith in "super-lamas" is as painfull as for Christians to let go the idea of Jesus being the only incarnation of God.

Wouldn't you agree?

sorry for my english language mistakes, I'm not native english speaker.

Blessings,
Federico

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Just in case..

Posted October 21st, 2009 by Federico Parra in response to But this is happening to all traditions!

I would like to get it clear that I think this process of "Integralizing Religions",

as painfull as it is for every tradition, is nessesary and a blessing in itself.

Like a higher reborn.

Federico

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Integralizing or Assimilation?

Posted October 22nd, 2009 by mysticolin in response to But this is happening to all traditions!

Actually, I know that Greg and I are both aware of this occurring within other traditions. In fact, he has mentioned this a few times in his thread on the "offensiveness of Christianity" and "reforming Integral thought" (that may not be the exact titles but they're close). If Wilber has backed off on "nondual" being less a stage and more of state, then that might solve this problem a bit.

I responded to your comment under "God becoming Man becoming God" before reading this one. It seems I misunderstood you a bit. To gain some clarity, is there a nondual element within Tibetan Buddhism? Is it simply one of many mystical states or is there a nondual stage within Tibetan Buddhism as well. Greg has said something about going "beyond the nondual" which I don't understand yet, but maybe this is a point of agreement between the two of you?

Whatever the case may be, I do agree that this is a difficult process for any religion. First, there is the tradition's coming to terms with modern and postmodern paradigms and insight. Second, there is the question of whether Wilber's model works across the board or just for his tradition and others that run parallel. As a former Christian trying to reintegrate Christianity, Wilber's model works just fine. Then again, I'm a nondualist so you see the problem here. It works for those of us who see a permanent nondual awareness as their goal, but what if people differ on the goal? While Wilber seems to have differentiated the nondual state from the stages, does the final Integral stage still assume the nondualistic paradigm? These are the two issues that I already see many here struggling with.

Broken and Divine

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Non-duality as last step

Posted October 22nd, 2009 by Federico Parra in response to Integralizing or Assimilation?

Hi!

It's interesting what you say, because somehow I have this feeling that in Integral Spirituality as Wilber is putting it, the top goal would be to achieve a human life with 24 hours non-dual awareness. But, in various traditions, the idea of the spiritual path goes beyond that, up to a moment in wich the human stop being human and becomes other thing.

Obviously this could be seen as a methaphor but I'm not much concerned about that but into the question of Non-dual attainment (and then, embracing the world) as being (or not) the last step of the path..

And it is important because it set up what we think an illuminated teacher is or should be.

Wich are the higher spiritually developed ones? The non-dual sages that come back to a "normal life" (have a wife, children, sex, work, and so on, like a Bodhisattva) or the ones that, even after the attainment of non-duality awareness (Christ, Buddha, many Tibetan Teachers) continue to develop and develop until they go (apparently) even higher into a realm that is beyond humans?

Is this only a myth? or is it possible?

What is important about it?

Well, I somehow feel not confortable with the idea of the non-dual realized teacher that "appears" to live like a normal person as being more realized than this kind of Saints that after non-dual attainment continues to make spiritual practices during years of retreat and privation from everything. Are they just "don't getting it"?

There are stories of Tibetans (I imagine there are them of Mystical Christians as well) that spends 50 years in retreat in obscurity (no light), to attain some kind of knowledge (don't remember now what it was supposed to be (I read about it in "The Yoga of Dreams" by a disciple of Namkhai Norbu).

So, if a person can attain an experience of non-duality in question of minutes (like the Ken's introduction of the book about Big Mind by Khempo Roshi pretends) and then can do a complete cycle of Tibetan teachings to stabilize it (let's say 2 retreats of 3 years)...

So, that's all "there is"? What about what these people (like the 50 years retreatans) are doing?

What about Tibetan teachers that, even being reincarnated (supposedly) many lifes (of complete practice), continue to affirm they didn't arrive "to it" and continue to practice may be 10 hours a day?

From the Integral non-dual embrace-life point of view: maybe Jesus didn't realized he didn't need to be crucified? (like the Temptation in Kazantzakis book..) He could just embrace the world (like the 10th picture of the Zen) and help people in that way?

Instead of that he dead (at purpouse?) and (supposedly) resurrect, and then went to heaven in Body and Soul.

So the kind of non-dual human-normal life integral version of enlightment as the end point of the highest spiritual journey leaves all this kind of "trans-human" stories without sense (and their efforts as not-worthy!).

Why, I ask, this sage (Jesus) went to the cross if he had attained non-duality? (and I really think he had).

Maybe because there is more "to it" than "living a life as human with non-dual attainment".

Sorry for the messy way of describing my thoughts on this.
May be someone more instructed can develop from here, or may be this idea of Non-duality as the last step (or not) needs a place on it's own (a post?).

So I'm too a little not-confortable (as Greg) with the idea of Non-Duality as the last step in Spiritual Enlightment cause it lets all the rest nonsense or just myth. But in profound difference with Greg I think everyone have the same chances of doing all this path completely, and in that way I really see Jesus as a human that attained something that, "potentially" is attainable by every other human being.

But I am too incapable of talking more about this because of ignorance.

It is more an intuition than another thing.

Blessings and thank you,

Federico

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

God becoming Man becoming God

Posted October 21st, 2009 by mysticolin in response to and what about this?

I think I might have found a title for one of my books. Greg, how do you get that nifty copyright symbol on your posts?

I wish I could have heard more of Father Thomas Keating's talking about our becoming God, but I haven't started the premium package yet. The little synopsis isn't enough to determine if I understand what he's saying. Is he referring to our being made in the Image of God and therefore made to imitate God? In other words, he is elaborating upon holiness/godliness/god-likeness. It seems a bit stronger than that though.

Ken Wilber writes of the Involution and Evolution of Spirit; meaning that all that exists (the "Manifest World") is an Involution of the Infinite/Nothingness and that humanity's Evolution is a return of the Manifest World to it's 'original' Awareness. Human beings become the part of the Manifest Universe who realize they are really an Involution of the Infinite. "Image of God" implies that there is a representative role that humanity plays. It is because of this "Imago Dei" that one can Imitate God ("Imitatio Dei").

And while all of this seems a bit heady, a Rabbinic answer to what it means to be holy is the imitation of God. And what does it mean to Imitate God? Well, the Rabbinic answer continues, God clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, etc. Sounds a lot like Jesus' teaching concerning whatever you do to the "least" of humanity you do unto God. Again the Imitation of God is tied to the recognition that the "least" are also Images of God. So these heady ideas have a very practical application in how one lives and interacts with others.

It seems Keating is talking about indiviiudal Awareness of the I AM, what I referred to above as human beings realizing they are the Involution of God. And I am playing with the idea that this means we are the Incarnation of God, that the whole of creation/manifest world is the Incarnation/Involution of God, to various degrees. So Awareness of our I AMness could result in relating to people as other incarnations/Images of God. So maybe this is a bit stronger idea that it at first seems. This could also be a beautiful Christian articulation of spirituality consisting of both freedom (realizing I AM) and fullness (imitating God in a life of compassion toward others).

The thing is whether Father Keating is saying this or if he is saying we transform into God. If he is saying we transform into God, and not simply taking on the Awareness/perspective of God, then that could be compared to the first century paradigm to which Greg is referring. I believe Keating is using the language he is using to articulate something different from that paradigm though. It may seem similar and some may appropriate what he's saying in the same way those in the first century did; but that would seem to indicate a pre/trans fallacy.

Broken and Divine

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Re: God becoming Man becoming God

Posted October 23rd, 2009 by Greg Mayers in response to God becoming Man becoming God

Colin, my friend:

Re: the copyright symbol, I first write my response or post in MS Word, go to the insert menus and click on "symbols" and you'll find the copyright symbol there. Just click on insert and you've got it.

There is a wonderful and erudite post on the Christian spiritual goal of becoming God at this site: http://vox-nova.com/ entitled Theosis. It is in two parts. I think you'll find it interesting and informative.

Good chatting with you again.

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.

Theosis

Posted October 23rd, 2009 by mysticolin in response to Re: God becoming Man becoming God

Hey Greg,

Thanks for the tip.

And yes, I had forgotten about Theosis! Thank you! It's been so long since I read on that subject, I definitely need a refresher course. Plus I have come to find that how I understood a topic 5 years ago is different from how I understand it now. I never got around to reading Edward Schilebeeckxx, but I was thinking he did something along these lines as well. Are you familiar with his work?

I have a friend who was looking into Eastern Orthodoxy at one point. They have a concept called "deification" that sounds quite similar to theosis. The thing about such concepts is that the more you find out about them within their original contexts, the subtle distinctions become more and more obvious. I have been thinking about this whole "becoming God" or even "becoming holy/godly" and how there are subtle nuances between the various traditions' expression of what seems to be the same idea.

I believe I'll need to do some further research on both theosis and deification.

So what is your take on theosis? Is there a place for it in your paradigm? How do you understand the concept? This may take some translating but I'd like to hear what you think. Looking forward to your response.

Your friend,

Colin

Broken and Divine

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Is Tibetan Buddhism in your "first century" list?

Posted October 21st, 2009 by Federico Parra in response to God becoming Man becoming God

You said:

"I wish I could have heard more of Father Thomas Keating's talking about our becoming God, but I haven't started the premium package yet. "

mmm...don’t know what to say. I would like to record it and send it to you but I imagine that would mean a suspension from Integral Life maybe!!

You said:

"Ken Wilber writes of the Involution and Evolution of Spirit..."

Can you tell us in wich book? It is important because, in moving from Wilber I to II to III...and so on, he many times made 180 degree changes in his views.

You said:

"The thing is whether Father Keating is saying this or if he is saying we transform into God. If he is saying we transform into God, and not simply taking on the Awareness/perspective of God, then that could be compared to the first century paradigm to which Greg is referring. I believe Keating is using the language he is using to articulate something different from that paradigm though. It may seem similar and some may appropriate what he's saying in the same way those in the first century did; but that would seem to indicate a pre/trans fallacy."

I don’t understand really what you and Greg are calling “first century”; do you refer to the new age movements?

Because (someone correct me if I’m wrong please!) in the state of Non Duality, where there is no separated self, YOU ARE THAT, so, that's being god, in that moment one could say you ARE EVERYTHING, wich is the same as saying YOU ARE GOD, isn't it?

And I would go further in saying that I think Jesus went trought that process and became GOD, in that sense: you could say he became Enlighten! (but only in the same sense you could say that Buddha became the SON OF GOD when he himself finally died (as separated self), and became one with the totality (God).

So, I am not so sure that a man CANNOT attain divinity. For example, in traditional Tibetan Buddhism (or in some forms of Shamanism) the human is seen somehow as a transitory state, wich can be perfected and transformed more and more into divinity, up to the point in wich (traditionally speaking) even the body is thouth to become divine (thus, the Rainbow Body in wich the person is said to finally completely dissapear into a rainbow l(body included!), wich is by the way very near to the idea of Jesus ascending to the heaven with his body don't you think? (and very near the myth of the final journey of the Shaman in some versions of the Tolteca mythology, where the Shaman also dissapear, his body included, and go with his body to a higher realm).

I still would like the Cameron and Greg opinion on the video. Hope they have a premium account!

And...what would be best...how nice would be to have Father Keating himself entering these fruitfull conversations with you, Greg and Cameron that are (in a way) shapping the new Integral Christianity!!

Blessings and sorry again for my Argentinian English.

Federico

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

"First Century"

Posted October 22nd, 2009 by mysticolin in response to Is Tibetan Buddhism in your "first century" list?

By "first century" I'm referring to the Roman/Greek religious beliefs which were the popular spiritual paradigm during the time of Jesus and the beginnings of what would become Christianity. (I do not believe Christianity existed during or immediately after Jesus' life, but rather it started out as a messianic movement within Judaism that became distinct from Judaism over time) I am sorry for the lack of clarity.

You mentioned nonduality and then proceeded to write about 'becoming' God. The difference with the "first century" belief is that one doesn't start off as God, it is not nondualistic. It seems the "becoming God" to which you are referring is the human real-ization of one's inherent divinity (in that you have always been God or a part of God).

Unfortunately I don't know enough about Tibetan Buddhism or the "Rainbow Body", though I would say this may be more similar to the idea that Jesus' resurrected form consisted of a 'glorified body'. I would be interested in hearing Greg's catholic view because protestants have gone different directions into what that is and it's been too long since I have studied that or concerned myself with that. Though now I'm kinda curious. I suspect that there are broad similarities but the particularities would be quite different. We have to remember that such articulations are within the context of the traditions to which they belong and each has very different metaphysical assumptions.

As for the Involution/Evolution idea, I'm not entirely sure. It may very well be from "No Boundaries" or "The Atman Project" but it has also been articulated as "Agape" and "Eros" which I believe can be found in his later material. This has also been articulated as God playing "hide and seek". While that is definitely in one of the above books, I've never heard Wilber refute that or say anything contrary to it in his later work. Does it seem to run contrary to your reading of Wilber? I'm not challenging, just curious.

And no, I wouldn't try sending me a copy. I'm pretty sure the Integral Life gods would frown upon it (understandably). I've looked up books by Father Thomas Keating but they focus more on the practical (centering prayer) and so I am unsure as to how much of the things he's saying on Integral Life are in his books.

Broken and Divine

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Wilber I is almost obsolete :(

Posted October 22nd, 2009 by Federico Parra in response to "First Century"

Hi!

"No Boundaries" is Wilber I. I'm not sure about "Atman project" but it is old too.

About Wilber I's "No Boundaries", generally speaking we could say Ken challenged almost 100% of the content of that book in his forecoming work (yes, he almost complete disagree with himself - wich by the way is one of the key features of the genious of this man, at least, in my view - he continues to radically change).

Did you read "Integral Spirituality"? I think that's a good summary of what Integral Theory says about spirituality now (or, to be more precise, some years ago).

Blessings,

Federico

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Integral Spirituality

Posted November 2nd, 2009 by mysticolin in response to Wilber I is almost obsolete :(

I went back and looked up Eros, evolution and involution (I didn't find Agape) in the index of Integral Spirituality. They lead to the two appendices. The first appendix has to with the tracing the movement from the Great Chain of Being to Posmodernism and the second is Wilber's articulation of an Integral Post-Metaphysics. These two appendices contained some of the most interesting material in my opinion. I'm going to have to re-read these more fully, but the involution/evolution element is still a part of Wilber's thought as well as Eros being that which draws the manifest world to evolve. While my quick skimming over the pages on these concepts found no mention of Agape, it would seem strange to have the other three without it, but who knows.

Colin

Broken and Divine

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Multiple Wilbers

Posted October 23rd, 2009 by mysticolin in response to Wilber I is almost obsolete :(

That is one of the things I like about Wilber as well. And I'm really not concerned with being more congruent with the most recent Wilber if the older Wilber makes more sense, especially if none of his new material seems contradictory to the older stuff. I've read Integral Spirituality and while there are quite a few changes in his model, I didn't notice if he no longer writes of agape and eros as he does in SES. Makes me want to go over it again and see if I overlooked something. Maybe he makes a differentiation between involution/evolution and agape/eros or doesn't refer to either anymore. For me they are simply nondualistic formulas.

I don't think that, even if Everything is Spirit when you get down to it, there are no distinctions. I guess I see the Trinity as a beautiful illustration of how God can be One and Many (Three). And when we get to God, Creation/Humanity and Oneness, there are a variety of expressions. What one person means when they speak of becoming God isn't what another person means. And yet we often get in discussions assuming everyone is working from the same definitions and assumptions without even being aware of it.

I agree that this would be a better discussion on another thread. This has totally gotten away from Greg's original post. I will work on my first post. Fitting that it has to do with the blurred relationship between God and humanity. This seems to be central to my last several years of research.

Broken and Divine

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Seeking to understand

Posted October 15th, 2009 by Brian Turner

Greg,

I've been following your blogs for some time and I admit that I haven't yet added or dropped enough filters to take your perspective, let alone locate its "Kosmic address." So I hope you'll indulge me- I'd like to rephrase "your" central message in my own language in the hope you might be able to bridge the gap from where I am to where you are. What I hear is:

The relationship between Jesus and the Divine (what we call here the 2nd face of God) clearly demonstrates the this type of relationship is mutually transformative.

(This seems to me a different way of stating that we all participate in the evolution of conciousness. Not a radical idea in the "Integral" here and now, but likely heretical 2000 years ago.)

And most importantly

The specific relationship between Jesus and the Divine singularly changed (evolved?) God's subsequent relationship to humanity.

I think this is the "scandal of particularity" that you and Cameron referenced. Jesus was the "omega point" (borrowed from material science) that causes the transition between different states, hence forever changing how God relates to humanity and vice versa.

Am I in the ballpark?

Regards,

Brian

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Re: Seeking to understand

Posted October 15th, 2009 by Greg Mayers in response to Seeking to understand

Brian:

Thank you so much for NOT locating me on the kosmic address board. You are one of the few who doesn’t seem eager to pigeon hole me or confine me to the dust bin of magical/mythic mentalities. I really appreciate that small kindness you show and for a really important reason. I don’t think what I see and what I say fits into the Wilber map. We are both talking about the same territory, but we are using different mapping techniques. Here is an example. I live very close to a major airport. If I look at a Google address of my house right next door to the airport, I see one kind of helpful map. If I look at a FAA chart that the pilots use to land at the airport, I see another kind of map, completely different from the Google map, but nonetheless useful. I think that the Integral Theory when applied to Christianity shouldn’t be used to land airplanes. To say it clearly, I think that Integral Theory leaves out really important data to make Christianity fit its modeling. And it seems that a lot of people on this site fall for it.

I do not think that the three faces of Spirit is an adequate illumination of the Christian understanding of the Trinity. Yes, I am saying that Jesus singularly changes the relationship of each particular human to the Divine uniting us more intimately in and with the Divine than anything else, without dissolving us into the Divine.

Thank you, Brian. I think my post is not an easy read. You are very patient and kind to plough through it and to honestly attempt to understand what I am struggling to say.

Greg Mayers

Zen taught me everything I can do.

Christianity taught me everything I can't do.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

please!! pleaaaaaseeeeeeeeee!!

Posted October 21st, 2009 by Federico Parra in response to Re: Seeking to understand

Greg, you said:

"To say it clearly, I think that Integral Theory leaves out really important data to make Christianity fit its modeling. And it seems that a lot of people on this site fall for it."

So I (for third time!) need to ask you what do you think of the vision and work of Father Thomas Keating wich appears to "leave out really important data" and even so, it appears to work!

Can you please (please! PLEASE!! ) tell me what you think of it?

It's not so difficult! You can invite Cameron and see this together (you can have the cross in your hands just in case (heresy is everywhere these days!) :

http://integrallife.com/applications/purpose-being-human

thanks!!

Federico

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Re: Jesus Is Not Your Usual Lord

Posted October 15th, 2009 by Balder

Hi, Greg,

I appreciate the thought and passion you put into this, and I also can relate to your 'call' to fellow Christians not to be 'lukewarm' or 'de-fanged' in relationship to conventional society. I am wondering, though, whether it makes sense to set out to 'be offensive' because that is the 'precedent' set by the early Christians. To assume that the Christian kerygma is, or must be, universally or transhistorically offensive seems problematic to me, because it seems to ignore the particular developmental, historical, and cultural 'contexts' in which the original offense arose, or else to illegitimately extend that context out to all times and places and developmental stages. Maybe there is good reason for Christians to serve a 'provocative' role in society, as a general rule, but I doubt it would always be for the same reason (e.g., a mythic or prerational one).

In my comments here, I will not attempt to address whether or not your views work within a Christian context (whether they are actually acceptable to fellow Christians), but will instead only focus on the parts of your letter that might be relevant to a 'pagan' like me.

You wrote: The parallel is in the depth, not the content or the context. To translate it into modern American English for you, so you won’t miss it: Because Jesus the Messiah is the only begotten Son of God, so are you![xi] Jesus, the Logos, overcomes our otherness without dissolving it.[xii] And it is only because of Jesus that this is true. Many minds through centuries have worked on the theology about the unique way Jesus is God, Lord. They just haven’t bothered to work out how you are uniquely that too, precisely because you are unique! St Paul simply says that we are adopted sons in Christ and leaves it at that.[xiii] And we take it as a put down! This is the foundational “deep structure of reality” that sees there is no conflict between flesh and spirit, God and man, transcendence and immanence. It refuses to fall into the trap that Shopenhauer so easily fell into, and Ken Wilber subtly does as well. It can’t be proven, by the analytical intellect, although many have tried, because the analytical intellect can’t spot it. It can only be seen in the same manner as Mumon sees the flaw in the opposition of nothing and something.

The immediate question that arises for me is, in such a vision, what pins everything exclusively to Jesus in paradoxical identity, rather than to, say, Muhammad, or Adi Da (others who have claimed to be the 'ultimate' or 'final' revelation of God), not to mention to anything else (the Indra's net image)?

In other words, why is this uniquely the case, if you are describing the 'deep structure' of reality, as you say, and nothing 'causal'? For instance, why isn't this also legitimate:

Because Adi Da is the unique 7th Stage Avatar, the final Self-Revelation of Reality Itself, so are you!

If you follow the link and actually read what he's saying, it actually isn't that far off from what you're saying above about Jesus and his unique revelation.

I also think something slippery happens in your claim above, because first you say that you are describing reality's deep structure rather than something causal, but then you also say that "Jesus ... overcomes otherness without dissolving it," which is a causal claim (similar to Adi Da's, in fact). You also say that the identity of believer and Jesus can't be worked out logically, but can only be seen in the same manner as Mumon perceives the flaw in the opposition of nothing and something. But it seems to me that in making this claim, you allow certain propositional claims about the nature of Jesus, his identity, his place in history, etc, all to 'ride along' with this perception of otherness/identity. I don't think such propositions are disclosable via that mode of perception; rather, they appear to be presupposed by the believer who has such a unity experience. For a believer to experience this form of paradoxical otherness/unity with the object of his devotion (and you find similar 'realizations' in other traditions too) in no way 'proves' or 'demonstrates' the truth value of particular doctrinal or theological claims about that individual. In other words, I don't think it is really legitimate to say -- at least in an interfaith context -- that, because you had an experience of paradoxical otherness/unity with Jesus, that proves that he is the Messiah, the only-begotten son of God, seated at the right hand of the Father, or that he rose on the third day and one day will come again to judge the living and the dead. That would be an unfounded leap -- and I think both you and Cameron have made them in several places in your writings.

You wrote: Zen Buddhism seeps into the crevices of everyday life, just as Christianity does, but not as well and not to the extent of the Incarnation. That’s the difference. Jesus blesses those who are not ashamed of him.[xiv] The Messiah out Buddha-natures Buddha nature. He out buddhahoods, buddhahood. He is the fullness, the completeness, the totality of what the Buddha could only dimly see.[xv] Dogen Zenji’s great realization saw that body and mind drop away, thus freeing him and all sentient beings by transcending samsara.[xvi] Nirvana and samsara are not contraries. Jesus the Messiah is the embodiment of the Divine “body and mind,” thus fully entering into samsara and transforming (saving, redeeming) it from within, not escaping it.[xvii] Zen’s ordinary mind, its everyday-ness is not as meticulous as the Incarnation. It doesn’t reach as far in, all the way in, permeating the genetics of being human.

Read within the interfaith context we've been discussing, I have to say this comes across to me as an un-apologetic piece of triumphalist apologetics. Which is fine -- it may be that Christianity essentially demands a triumphalist approach, and any attempt to take a non-triumphalist one would basically mean breaking with the religion's central messages. This is a question I was trying to explore with Cameron: can there be a (post)post-modern, integral, non-triumphalist Christianity, or not?

Maybe there can't be.

Cameron denied he was saying that "Jesus is a Better Buddha" or "Jesus is a Better Yogi," or whatever; but here you do appear to be saying that. If your core beliefs compel you to take this position in relation to other traditions, then I would say a non-triumphalist orientation is precluded, at least for your present understanding of the tradition.

You wrote: Who and what Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, is, makes all the difference in the world to who and what you are. And that is why those of us who say we are Christians can’t say that all Traditions are equal, that all Ways are complimentary, that all Truths are the same. We would betray you.

I also do not think all ways are equal or complementary, but I haven't heard anything from you (or from many other Christians I've talked to) that really supports the claim of inherent superiority that you assert. I just hear assertions, announcements. Perhaps the "scandal" is just the refusal to abide by accepted rules of discourse -- not bothering to support your claims or 'demonstrate' the superiority of your way, but instead just starting from that assumption, declaring or 'announcing' it, and then insisting on it till others give in or give up and walk away. When I hear people talking 'foolishly' like that, I realize I'm talking to someone who is in love, and generally do not try to talk them out of it. But neither do I consider their claims to be 'objectively' true, or to have any bearing on the 'objective truth' of my own beliefs or the relative value of my own commitments.

Best wishes,

P.S. I also want to return to an unanswered question from your previous blog. In your opening blog, you wrote:

Here’s the outrage, even more than what Cameron so aptly expresses. There is no one in history like Jesus of Nazareth who is uniquely completely human and totally divine. He gave himself up to the will of his Father in order to save everyone without exception from our deadly self-deception and for the transformative love of God. It is through Him, his incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, that this redemptive act of each particular human person “happens.”

Do you still maintain that this self-described 'offensive' statement does not contain propositional truth claims or assertions? How it not a propositional statement? What is the relationship between this sort of assertion and the more direct, intuitive form of knowing you say is necessary to grasp what Mumon is saying, or what you are saying about paradoxical identity with Christ?

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Your Response...

Posted October 15th, 2009 by Greg Mayers in response to Re: Jesus Is Not Your Usual Lord

Dear Bruce:

As usual, you make me think. Give me time. And, I hadn't forgotten about the topic in your PS where we left off. Time management is always a problem... :-)

Greg Mayers

Zen taught me everything I can do.

Christianity taught me everything I can't do.

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

For Bruce

Posted October 17th, 2009 by Greg Mayers in response to Re: Jesus Is Not Your Usual Lord

Dear Bruce:

I like our exchanges. One rarely learns anything new from those who agree with one. You are the only person I know who understands what I say without accepting it. Most who talk to me accept what I say without understanding it. You’re right, I’m in love. But that is because I was first seduced, which I resisted mightily, and then found that my resistance changed nothing. And I want to please my Lover. The only way I know of doing that is by trying to do what He wants. It isn’t out of guilt, or the desire to control, or obligation, or any such human motive. It is the simplest gratitude. He pleases me so, that I cannot not want to please Him in return. It has all the freshness of a first love in its early bloom, intoxicating. And I want to convert everyone, not because I think they are bad, or that they are going to hell, which I don’t. They are His body. As I said in my post: none are complete until all are complete in Love in, with and through Jesus, the Messiah. I personally don’t care what anyone does with their lives, which way they follow or don’t follow, what religion they profess or whether they profess any at all. But my Lover does, and so must I. It’s a paradox. I don’t care, but I can’t help but care.

There’s probably a lot of shadow stuff in people who read this exchange coloring the message that comes through to them. I am not an American fundamentalist in my Christianity, and definitely not a biblical literalist in my reading the scriptures. My Zen students are a motley spiritual group: Buddhist, Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, agnostic, hoverers between Christianity and Buddhism, Republican right wingers and Democratic socialists, straight, gay. (Sanbo-Kyodan, the Zen lineage I belong to, even has Muslims practicing Zen). All are welcomed, to stay or to leave. I will be there. That is the kind of Love I learned is Jesus. Do I want them all to know the love of Jesus. You bet. Will I insist they accept Christianity? Absolutely not. Their own earnest spiritual practice will lead them to where they need to go. Do I talk about the Christian “vision?” Yes, but my best “preaching” is the happy life I enjoy in Jesus. And, of course, I talk about the Zen Buddhist “vision” as well, and my best “preaching” there is the freedom I enjoy in Buddha nature.

Now to deal specifically with your responses and questions.

The immediate question that arises for me is, in such a vision, what pins everything exclusively to Jesus in paradoxical identity, rather than to, say, Muhammad, or Adi Da (others who have claimed to be the 'ultimate' or 'final' revelation of God), not to mention to anything else (the Indra's net image)? ….. In other words, why is this uniquely the case, if you are describing the 'deep structure' of reality, as you say, and nothing 'causal'?

“Exclusively” is the wrong word. “Inclusively” is the right one. Maybe Adi Da is the unique 7th Stage Avatar, the final Self-Revelation of Reality Itself. How would I know? But he is that in, with and through Jesus, and he doesn’t have to know it, much less proclaim it. Why? Because God is Love. Love is God. And Jesus is the perfect manifestation of that.

If your core beliefs compel you to take this position in relation to other traditions, then I would say a non-triumphalist orientation is precluded, at least for your present understanding of the tradition.

The problem I have is with the descriptive label “triumphalism.” It is not one I would use or have used. (If I have used the word or its synonyms, I take them back). I think the words I’ve used have been: completeness, fullness, and such. There is a big difference. Let me explain by way of analogy. Barnes and Nobles has a wonderful section for recently printed classics. I can buy the Shakespeare’s Comedies, Shakespeare’s Tragedies, Shakespeare’s Sonnets, and finally the Complete Works of Shakespeare. The Complete Works of Shakespeare doesn’t take anything away from the editions of his comedies, tragedies and sonnets. It is just a more complete edition of his artistry. In the same way, I think you find the fullness of reality in, with and through Jesus. I see it as neither exclusive nor triumphant, just complete. What Buddha showed is absolutely remarkable, the highest human achievement. And Jesus is the fullness or completeness of that in a way that Buddha never claimed to be.

When I hear people talking 'foolishly' like that, I realize I'm talking to someone who is in love, and generally do not try to talk them out of it. But neither do I consider their claims to be 'objectively' true, or to have any bearing on the 'objective truth' of my own beliefs or the relative value of my own commitments.

Thank you for understanding my love life. Is this a subjective reality? Yes. Is it an objective reality? Yes. When we are talking of the “deep structures of reality” we are talking on different planes other than objective and subjective. That dichotomy dissolves into objectively subjective, or subjectively objective. It is analogous to quantum physics: subject and object can’t be separated. It is definitely not one or the other. This is where the rational level consciousness goes berserk. It can’t see the paradoxes and because it can’t see them, it denies them, or what is much worse, reduces them to what it can see. And I have no debate with you over your beliefs. A quote I recently heard on NPR is applicable here: It’s all going to work out in the end; it’s just not the end yet. I’m not trying to convince you, I’m secretly praying to convert you. (No put down intended - take it as my way of hoping for the very best for you).

Do you still maintain that this self-described 'offensive' statement does not contain propositional truth claims or assertions? How is it not a propositional statement? What is the relationship between this sort of assertion and the more direct, intuitive form of knowing you say is necessary to grasp what Mumon is saying, or what you are saying about paradoxical identity with Christ?

That’s the damn thing about Christianity, it is just like relationships, as soon as you pin it down, you’ve lost it. It is like nailing down mercury. I have an image of you and me moving into a new apartment. You are insisting that this particular piece of furniture belongs in that particular corner, and I am insisting that it is way too big for that corner. You’re pushing on one end, and I on the opposite. We are destined to wear each other out on this particular issue. Show me how to prove a negative and I’ll prove it is not a propositional statement.

A guy walks into a gas station in the back woods of Maine and says: I’m lost. Can you tell me how to get to Boston? Nope, says the attendant. Well, can you tell me how to get to Portland? Nope, say the attendant again. Well, says the stranger, you sure are a dumb ass. Yep, says the attendant, but I’m not lost. Being smart ain’t one of the conditions for Christianity. Nor need it be a hindrance. Intellectual, poetic or common statements are mere shadows of the shadow of the reality. To really know Christianity you must know it with yourself, by means of yourself, blessed by grace. Mumon is not using intuition. He actually sees what he says in his verse. He sees clearly, but at a plane very few see. So does Paul. And Clement of Alexandria …and the Cappadocian Fathers, etc.

If I missed something or grossly misrepresented something you’ve written, please correct my mistakes.

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.

I Am

Posted October 15th, 2009 by camfree

Hi,

It’s great to read another series of passionate, insightful and illuminating posts. This is an important discussion to be having so let me begin to unpack what I see to be the paradoxical nature of the claim that “Jesus is Lord”.

As we all know, the New Testament claims that in the Incarnation a specific finite human being (Jesus of Nazareth) becomes exhaustively identified with the expressed personality (Logos) of God himself, and that the whole of his human life is the direct effect of God's action working in him at every moment.

Now, apart from the fact that no other faith tradition makes this claim, many people dismiss the “uniqueness” of Jesus or the distinctive truth-claims of Christianity - God became a man - by saying that “we are all sons of God” – that all of us are ‘always already’ enlightened and at one with God - right now and forever… And while this is indeed true in some respects, it is also where Christianity is different, scandalous and even offensive to the upright spiritual self-image of many of us.

What I mean by this is that there is kind of truth – “I am the son of God”, which - when it is said, becomes the power fantasy of an imbecile… a claim that takes on the coloring of the world’s insanity… another bid for the worldly power/knowledge... another identification with the unaccountable tyrannies that decide how things shall be.

But if we turn to the earliest Gospel account (Mark), we see that when Jesus is on trial and asked by the high priest if he is the long awaited Messiah - the One who is to come, he finally comes out in the open and says “I Am” only after a long silence – and the key difference is that he does this only because he is now certain that he is about to die... The uniqueness and radicality of Jesus is that he is NOT a massive projection of what ‘we’ mean by greatness…. That is, the sheer unimaginable differentness of God in Christ can be put into words only by emptying out all we thought we knew about power and greatness...

The point is that God’s “I Am” can only be heard for what it really is when it has no trace of human power left to it, when it appears as something utterly different from human authority, when it is spoken by a prisoner under sentence of death... There is nothing comforting, edifying or reassuring, nothing that secures our picture of ourselves and our hopes for ourselves in the silent prisoner destined for a most brutal form of execution...

So Jesus breaks his silence at this moment because there is little or no danger that we shall now mistake what he means... or that we shall confidently describe him in words that reflect our own aspirations... or even that we will misunderstand him as a great man who might compete successfully with other sorts of power in the world... Not now.

But without this moment God becomes identified with what is highest or strongest in us, with seems to us wisest or holiest, most spiritually impressive... Jesus’ “I Am” directly subverts this crude identification of God with a higher level of knowledge or success or power or mastery - and the resulting belief that failure in the world’s terms somehow indicates God’s absence...

For a Christian, the one who says “I Am” is neither wise nor holy nor admirable or impressive... He is about to die for the Kingdom... He has “no looks to attract our eyes” (Isaiah 53:2) and this is God’s own self standing before the court... We are silenced, and we have our careful and exact expectations overturned...

Cameron

"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Re: I Am

Posted October 15th, 2009 by Greg Mayers in response to I Am

Cam:

Pure poetry!!! Better than I put it. Such a pleasure to read your writing.

Greg Mayers

Zen taught me everything I can do.

Christianity taught me everything I can't do.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

"Thou sayest it" / "So say you"

Posted October 16th, 2009 by Balder in response to I Am

Hi, Cameron, I agree with Greg that your letter is beautifully written. I have a question about your comment that Jesus finally came out in the open in Mark and said, "I am." I have looked at Chapter 15 in several versions of Mark (King James, New American English, World English, etc), and in none of them does he directly answer the question. First he says, "So say you," and then he remains silent, causing Pilate to marvel. I don't see any direct admission of "I am." What version are you referring to?

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Mark 14

Posted October 16th, 2009 by camfree in response to "Thou sayest it" / "So say you"

53: And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. 54: And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire. 55: Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56: For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. 57: And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58: "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" 59: Yet not even so did their testimony agree.

60: And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" 61: But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62: And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 63: And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? 64: You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. 65: And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows.

Hi Bruce here it is... Chapter 14 not 15... Hope this clears things up for you... Cam

"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

3 things (or thereabouts :)

Posted October 16th, 2009 by Brendan LaChance

1. First of all, I just want to say thank you! I really like this post even though of course we have our disagreements. The passion is beautiful and I think you are a demonstration of what living by your beliefs can do. Though I may not agree with the specific positions (possibly just due to a different set of life experience) I must admit I appreciate the commitment in your posts. This is something decidely lacking in myself and in my peers.

2. To be honest, I am still not 100% clear how this is different from other non-dual teachings but I will take your word that there is something there. At this point, at least in the way I relate to you, this is where I would just let the theorizing float away. I still love you. Hugs from China.

3. Okay, back to theory I guess lol. But a different direction. I am interested in what you think about this offering from Oleg Linetsky. He suggests a slightly different map that I am curious what you might have to say about how it could possibly address Christianity in a way you say Wilber's version can't do. The main point from his article that I am interested in at this point is this: he suggests that each quadrant is actually a different holon. The consequence of this according to him is that non-dual "enlightenment" (if that is what we want to call it) basically only refers to the upper left quadrant. He suggests that there are versions of "enlightenment" corresponding to the other quadrants. The curiousity here for me is that I think it is possible that part of what you might be feeling isn't being included is because Wilber's theory might be at times emphasizing UL type "enlightenment" (in Linetsky's model) at the cost of some other aspects. Well if you have the time, give it a looksee daisy.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted October 16th, 2009 by admin in response to 3 things (or thereabouts :)

This comment has been deleted by the author.

3 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Time...

Posted October 16th, 2009 by Greg Mayers in response to 3 things (or thereabouts :)

Brendan:

Thanks as always for your response. I'm a bit busy now, but I will read your link and get back to you.

Greg Mayers

Zen taught me everything I can do.

Christianity taught me everything I can't do.

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Jesus Is Not Your Usual Lord.

How Sad

Re: How Sad

Apology

WOW

Thank You

and what about this?

[Comment Deleted]

Transcending and Including

But this is happening to all traditions!

Just in case..

Integralizing or Assimilation?

Non-duality as last step

God becoming Man becoming God

Re: God becoming Man becoming God

Theosis

Theosis

Is Tibetan Buddhism in your "first century" list?

"First Century"

Wilber I is almost obsolete :(

Integral Spirituality

Multiple Wilbers

Seeking to understand

Re: Seeking to understand

please!! pleaaaaaseeeeeeeeee!!

RE: Please...

Ah well...

Re: Jesus Is Not Your Usual Lord

Your Response...

Re: Response

For Bruce

Re: For Bruce

I Am

Re: I Am

"Thou sayest it" / "So say you"

Mark 14

Thanks

3 things (or thereabouts :)

[Comment Deleted]

Hello!

[Comment Deleted]

Haha so cool!

Time...

Otay