Why deny Jesus?

In Spiritual,  Integral and Philosophical circles Jesus is  hardly mentioned.  When he is noticed it is mostly  in a glossed over manner, almost as if we know all about him and can safely move on to more interesting subjects. It's funny, the Buddha is treated with much more respect in the same gatherings, even though the participants has as little to do with Buddhism as with Christianity.

Hmm… I wonder why? Why is it that Jesus is always treated as a has-been, not really up to date for 21'st century living? While the Buddha is still spoken of as a giant to be respected and whose teachings still carry weight.

Why, when Jesus is recognized as someone who did something the world never have seen in a short period of 3 and half years, still is sidestepped when intellectuals, spiritual aspirants, integral thinkers come together to try to make sense out of our world and of our lives?

Is it maybe our Western conditioned mind that keeps him at a safe distance? He is too much, too big, too demanding, for our small inquires, for our self serving quests?

It's strange when we consider that we claim to want to know the truth. If that is true there is no reason to avoid Jesus. Face it full on, don't compartmentalize him in a niche in your spiritual bookcase. Dare to meet him fully within his own agenda. Don't make him fit your mold, of what you think makes sense.

Do you not think it is curious to see how even Ken Wilber treats him with a distant interest? Since undeniably Jesus is one of the greatest spiritual lights the world has ever seen. How come the Buddha is invited in but not Jesus, into our nice social Integral, Spiritual club?

I have a sneaky suspicion it might have to do with the simplicity of Jesus message and that he actually carried it out for the salvation of all mankind, reaching all who would dare to believe and understand. Of course, all further exploration of religion and of an integral understanding only confirms and helps in our understanding of Jesus (as it does with our understanding of the Buddha).

Now, we all could do with a little more study in order to take it all in, but in all fairness, the message is clear and simple. Honor truth wherever it arises.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Hi Bjorn,

That is very interesting, isn’t it? Maybe it’s because Jesus gets connected to Christianity, and a lot of people have a bad feeling about what’s been done in the name of Christianity - some of the most horrific things in human history, really. Buddhism doesn’t have that stigma, as it’s never been used for those purposes (not in the same magnitude, anyway).

That has nothing to do with Jesus’ teachings of course but that to me seems a big reason why…

Frans

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Frans took the words right out of the ether.

Speaking from my personal experience as a queer person raised and marginalized in the U.S.: Many “Christians” have done a tremendous disservice to the (hopefully) enduring message of Jesus. Instead of a focus on love, forgiveness, service and a personal relationship with the divine, too many people focus(ed) on judgment, judgment, and judgment. The hypocrisy is wide-ranging, abuse of children and spouses is too prevalent, and dogmatic superiority is entrenched in the exoteric institutions.

I have scores of friends who have been so scarred by so-called Christians that they literally rage or simply sigh with a sort of detached disregard (dependent on AQAL factors) every time the subject of Christianity comes up. Jesus is often thrown out with the putrid, slime-filled bath water.

Many people turned to Eastern religion or more esoteric practice instead. There are signs of change, though, so I remain optimystic that encounters with Jesus will increase in frequency.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

It is interesting, isn't it, Bjorn?  Perhaps one of the reasons is, as Colin and Frans say, Jesus is associated so strongly in most people's minds with mythic-membership religion, as well as the checkered history of Christianity.  The deeper contemplative/mystical visions of Christ are not as accessible in our culture(s) (though they are definitely there). 

Buddha may receive more attention because he offered a much fuller teaching and practice (in terms of details, stages, etc).  The body of teachings directly associated with Jesus is miniscule compared to those associated with the Buddha.  Also, Jesus' way (according to the gospels) appears to be a mix of devotion, surrender, and a radical moral commitment to others.  There are a number of things you can say about this:  one, it may seem too simplistic for modern folks (who like the more psychologized, programmatic Eastern approach); two, it may also be too challenging to the modern ego, which really does not want to surrender or really even give up much in the service of others; three, there isn't a clear vision of the meaning of the crucifixion and the resurrection in modern consciousness, and many don't know how to relate to it (other than accept or reject the mythic versions of it, or else consider it an historical devotional “accretion” – and really, rationalization – that was attached onto the “Jesus myth” in order to make sense of his early demise, but which doesn't have the earth-shattering meaning that mythic folks attributed to it).

Perhaps there are other reasons.  I'm just thinking aloud.  Jesus as he appears in Wilber's writings (e.g., the nondual realizer from Nazareth) would not be very familiar to many Christians.

Do you have any comments you'd like to share about Who Jesus is for you?

Love,

Bruce

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Thanks guys.

Yes I agree with you on the “why” we shy away. That has been (and sadly continues to be) well documented a many number of years now. I just like to add that if we dig a little we'll find many similar stories coming out of the eastern religions and of their corruption of the institutionalized Dharma. Individuals many times do a dishonor to the robe they wear. Sad but true. I guess many of us fall short from time to time.

Having said that, I think it is high time that we (we who claim to be interested in truth) stop using that as an excuse. It doesn't need to hinder us in our pursuit of a real expression of Christianity (in all fairness Frans, Jesus should be connected to Christianity as he is the father, the seed, the foundation of his body of believers. The Church will forever be “judged” and measured according to its founding father Jesus himself). We can't really separate the founding fathers, the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, from their offspring. It's part and parcel of their teaching. The three jewels: The Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.

I for one pursued truth for many years, wanting to realize and understand the meaning of Jesus teachings, the Dharma of the Buddha independently from any sort of community engagement. I managed to unravel many mysteries to me and found enormous reassurance in my own experience of their teachings. Whatever religion had done in their name never put me off trying to understand their message, because I was and am convinced it holds enormous depth, for anyone that chooses to investigate.

For many years I had difficulty understanding when people described a “personal relationship” with Jesus or for that matter, with a deceased Guru. I opted to believe in an impersonal Absolute Dharma, uniform and general for all alike. Not something that any person, alive or dead, had anything to do with.
Then I had a personal encounter with Sri Sri Anandamayi Ma, a darshan of a kind, many years after she had already passed away. Then my eyes were opened to the real living relationship with another being who lived on after their physical death. Now I understand the personal touch or flavor a teacher bestows upon his teachings. Jesus does not teach an impersonal common flavor Dharma. He teaches through a personal relationship with each individual but with his distinct “personality”, much in the similar way your personal Guru would groom you towards deeper and fuller understanding of our own inherent freedom.

In retrospect I can recognize events in my past that was “openings”, blessings and grace that introduced me to a spirit filled experience of life. Growing up I was a determined atheist only believing in Science and its pursuit of knowledge; prove it to me and I believe it kind of attitude. I never understood Jesus but kind of knew that he was real. There is this unmistakeably about him. So my search began in earnest and I went to Asia, learning all about Hinduism and Buddhism, the Tao and sat in Vat Suan Mokkh, a Thai meditation center, like so many other Westerners on their way to the beaches of Koh Samui.

But its only when I met Andrew Cohen my search would really take off, and through joining his community a few years later I began to understand community and the resultant expression of a Sangha and its impact and evolution on this world, as a natural unfolding of spiritual revelation and meeting others in an attempt to realize our unity discovered.

So through many years of learning I have come to see how true Jesus is. I can't deny him. I have to bow down to the truth he holds up. And of the impact he continues to have among us. I just wish and hope and strive for, to educate and to dispel the mythic view of him within our own church. The Church always needs to push for a fuller understanding, and here I believe Ken can help. But what I believe Ken misses is this remarkable relationship to a person, to Jesus himself, can be like. I think, anyone of you that has an intimate relationship to a Guru can understand this deep mystery.

What's interesting though is that all the mysteries, clad in mystic robes, still does the job. They contain deep wisdom and revelation that has the power to awaken us from our sleep and ignorance. Seek and you'll find, still holds true. There is no need to change one word in the Bible, once we dip into it we will be able to make sense of it in our modern world.

Just remember it is revelatory based, not intellectually based. But our intellect serves us well when we want to interpret our revelations based on right view.

(Some of my personal story you can find on my own blog; final freedom)

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Jesus just never resonated with me. That wrathful father
figure always looming overhead. I was never indoctrinated
into religion growing up. Went to church maybe 10 times for
funerals, weddings and Xmas mass with friends who had too.
I just could never swallow that I was a sinner, I mean I was a
good kid…what the hell did I do? :-)

It was not until I found a friend who was fluent in Buddhism and
Christianity and has a non-dual take on Christianity that I became
more sympathetic to Jesus as Christ. Seeing the Passion of all
things also helped. I just never took the religion seriously.

The Buddha taught for over 45 years. If Christ was not crucified so
quickly, I think we would have a very different more fully developed
teaching. Maybe more intellectually satisfying for those of us that
need that sort of thing.

peace & love,

e

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Another factor in the “why deny Jesus” conundrum:

In part, I think it's that need to leave “home,” to strike out on one's own … the search for one's self by traveling to the frontier, to distant lands. For many (in the U.S., at least), Christianity in some form or another is the “home-town,” the provincial backwater that you can't wait to get out of, the parents that you're embarrassed to call your own. And even if one isn't raised Christian, those Judeo-Christian symbols and stories still get through via osmosis – it's difficult to avoid.

At the same time, I realize that many who have left their Christian or quasi-Christian backgrounds did so for some very good reasons: they were spiritually (and/or intellectually) starving. Christianity's contemplative vein was suppressed for hundreds of years and has re-surfaced only recently. So to find that contemplative nourishment, people had to go elsewhere. And in the process, many found a path or non-path that brought them to awakenings that mainstream Christianity could not.

Christianity cannot step fully into its own without its contemplative riches. Though these are being recovered now, it's going to be a while before more integral and philosophical folks feel more comfortable with Jesus. I certainly remember my 20-year leavetaking from Christianity, when the very words “Jesus” and “God” made my stomach turn! 

Mary

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bjorn: “So through many years of learning I have come to see how true Jesus is. I can't deny him. I have to bow down to the truth he holds up. And of the impact he continues to have among us. I just wish and hope and strive for, to educate and to dispel the mythic view of him within our own church. The Church always needs to push for a fuller understanding, and here I believe Ken can help. But what I believe Ken misses is this remarkable relationship to a person, to Jesus himself, can be like. ”

Any person named Jesus died a long time ago. Any relationship you have with a dead man is a relationship with your own mind. This is a simple, but powerful fact that must be understood in order to get beyond any mythic religion.
It is the same with the Buddha.
David was asking about the historical Buddha and something he said in a sutra, but the Buddha is nothing more than this Mind that types NOW. Anything you would call Christ consciousness would be similar.
When asked if he could prove the existence of a historical Buddha by a King, one famous monk said that he couldn't, “but just as you see a finished building you know there was an architect even though you've never seen or heard of him, so it is this way with the Dharma.”

However, I really don't see any actual methodology or anything to help even mystical Christians get up the spiral. It is really an individual thing, and because of that it is much more suseptable to personal interpretation. After all, who can question a person's experience with the divine? A good priest or Catholic monk would be good for this, but they are few and far between.
This is also why I don't think people should practice meditaiton or Buddhism on their own without a Sangha or teacher. Too many things can go wrong.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Dear Bjorn, et. Al.,

Jesus is certainly acknowledged!  How many different world religions consider his contribution to spirituality?  He is the single most broadly acknowledged spiritual being! 

In all of history, the wave of his influence is undeniable!  The groove or various grooves that have evolved from this single pebble in the pond, the remarkable ripples, cannot be ignored or denied. 

The absolute truth of who he was, or what he said, is beyond our absolute, factual, verification.  But the essence of the message, the undeniable positive influence he brought to human kind, is beyond doubt. 

Maybe someday we'll learn to travel time, or the infinite never ending bands of the universe that are available in a single moment.  One of the things I would love to experience, would be his presence.  I imagine to be in his presence was a experience beyond comprehension with the wake of his influence.  No matter who or what he was, he was without a doubt a being beyond his time, as he still lives today in the hearts and minds of so many.

Has anyone read the Rosicrucian description of what he contributed to the world when he died?  When I mix that theory, with his “sphere of influence” and my 7/bodies chakra bands of the universe theory, I believe he gave one of his seven bodies when he died, and that body lives today as one of Gaia's bodies, forgiving humanity over and over and over again, each time we ask.  Rising up through the soles of our feet and exiting through the top of our heads, renewing us again and again into eternity.  Now that is a gift of life.  That is the power of an enlightened being giving of self beyond any true comprehension.  Comprehension, maybe not, experience, absolutely! 

Re: Why deny Jesus?

There ya go - it's interesting to consider how one “integrates” such things.

It's the planetary traditions issue restated.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

As I have spent time Andrew Cohen's community I can see his personal expression of a timeless teaching. He has, as the Buddha once did “rediscovered an ancient path in the djungle”. Now there is a modern evolutionary thrust added to the teachings but I don't believe that was out of sight either for the Buddha or for Jesus. They kind of knew what they set rolling. Reading the scriptures we can see this between the lines. That's why even till this day when we evolve our understanding a la Ken, we recognize and realize it fits perfectly into the Dharma of old. Wow how grand we are! Finally catching up to what they were speaking about. But that's the whole point of pushing the tent pole up, so that we all can rise to the challenge, eventually. Progress and evolution only comes after human examples suffer our ignorance. Remember Jesus lamenting how long he had to put up with us.

Rick, like I described with my encounter with Anandamayi Ma, I have come to belive in personal expressions even beyond physical death. There are many encounters of that kind, especially with many of the powerful Indian Gurus. See for example Michaels meeting with Swami Muktananda. Yes these experiences might occur in our “mind” but then what doesn't? Please leave room in your mind for these extraordinary events to occur. They in no way lessen our understanding of an absolute unborn essence or nature. Whatever is, or occurs, happens within that ever-present realm, yours and mine alike.

Mary, thank you. I very much left Sweden because of those very reasons, even though we are much less cripled by a rampant loud self-righteous Christian culture Sweden is still a very traditional Christian country even though most of my generation (born early sixties) are brought up atheist, or science/education/common sense style.
Mary, would you mind expressing a little of why Jesus speaks to you and what draws you to him?

When I returned from Asia I was interested to find out if I could find a living Christianity in Sweden and went looking for contemplative orders and found some extraordinary and beautiful people speaking very softly with genuine faith and with deep understanding. Since then I have come to appreciate and join in with a lot of evangelical community based churches that emphasizes the spiritual communion that can be experienced in heartfelt sincere gatherings where we can come to know the power and manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This is a communial expression of the sacred. And Christianity have Jesus as the centering focus for its expression. It is nothing reserved only to Christians but it takes the flavor of Christ. I have experienced communial awareness and ecstacy in Andrews community but there with Andrew's flavor, a focus on the objective view in regards to whats occuring.

I had a wonderful experience of the power of believing in Jesus a few years ago while having a late dinner with a few friends. As we passed the wine around, I felt the urge to claim that this wine was the blood of Christ. As I did, to my friends around the table, with an absolute inspired conviction, the whole room was instantly filled with a divine prescence that we all felt alike. We jumped as it was quite a shock. Me being as surprised as the others. Some of my friends were spiritually inclined but some were not, but we all shared the same jolt of recognition, the touch of the spirit, in the name of Jesus.

This has opened my heart to understand the mystery of joining another and thereby gaining access to a greater field of grace. By joining forces with a great army we gain access to its immense power and share in its victories. We jump into the river and gain access to the full force of that river, as long as we surrender to its flow and direction. This is quite wonderful news because without it we would never ever gain even a small degree of grace in comparison to that of a bigger influence.

Join the team and and gain access to its power. It's no longer an individual journey. So I guess, then what team do we join? Who runs a successful spiritual team? A new team or an old? An established club or an upstart ready to steal the title? Or is little league enough for the moment?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bjorn: ” Yes these experiences might occur in our “mind” but then what doesn't?”

Exactly, there's really no need to go past this. Jesus actually didn't express anything new for his time. There was a much more famous Rabbi that lived just prior to him that expressed much of what Jesus did, had a greater influence during his time, no doubt also upon Jesus himself, and taught for many years. You don't think of him, he's not in your mind. Jesus is, and only because of a causal chain of events that made him historically relevant beyond anything that he actually did or said in 3 years.
The Dahlia Lama is famous for political reasons, yet people seem to think he's like a Pan-Buddhist pope of sorts.

Any feelings you get about this are purely because of cultural and environmental input and the workings of your own mind. We feel that the Christmas season is special in the US, and it feels that way, yet if you were to spend X-mas in a non-Christian country you'd probably not even notice it.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

What interests me is whether Jesus' teachings are too demanding for people. “Turn the other cheek”– that's extremely demanding. Even if it is at the top of your agenda as something to do it is extremely difficult. Even on a forum like this it can be difficult: someone says something that hurts your feelings–it can be very difficult not to lash back at least subtely. But Jesus asks us not to lash back at all, to turn the other cheek. It reminds me of what a similarly demanding teacher, Andrew Cohen, once said, to “give up all negativity.” When we do this, we align ourselves with the creative force.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Ahhh, but what do you do to “integrate” the problems of the historical Yeshuah? And the textual inconsistencies? And the politics, and the incorporated paganism?

Which is much the same problem as the inconsistencies in other traditions and religions, including buddhism?

And quite similar to the problems of the negativities of Andrew Cohen?

How are all such things “integrated”?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

That's a good point David, and Bill, I think the ultimate issue here goes deeper than historical inconsistencies. This is something that we have all dealt with directly.
The issue is that a person really can't turn the other cheek or unconditionally have compassion for thier neighbors, etc… while they are locked into a dualistic worldview.
We can worship the ideas and concepts produced at the upper ends of the spiral, or we can stive to embody these truths directly. Otherwise we all all just locked into cycles of repression and explosive expression, with the absolute need for a mythological afterlife for justifying repression here and now.
Yet there is the very real issue of how one does this. How does one actually integrate and trancend, how does one see the simple truth of this moment and just shut up with nothing else needed?

As KW says, there just simply isn't a Yoga or a systematic meditative practice within the Jesus movement. I see Jesus as someone who embodied these higher truths, yet didn't leave behind a blueprint to actually follow him. I'm in agreement with KW on this.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

How would you formulate the “ultimate issue”, holden, if you could put it into a single sentence?

Your statement about “lack of a meditative tradition” is interesting. Are you saying that if there is no advanced meditative technology, there is no possibility of integration?

One of the appeals of christianity is that it's mental technology is often so simple that even the uneducated can quickly grasp it. “Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner” - the direct appeal to deity for transformation, the impassioned mental reformulation of the role of the self.

Bhakti technology.

And, I'd like to add, if Integralism can't integrate historical inconcsistency, can it really claim to integrate anything?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Edit: You guys are too quick for me! I started writing this before David recently posted (I'm at work and have to come back to it during lulls.)

Rick, from what I'm reading in Bjorn's posts combined with my own experience, I think you may be missing a critical insight here. Subjective experience of subtle energies has tremendous transformative potential. When you state that there's really no reason to go beyond mind, whose mind are you speaking of? Your mind, my mind, Big Mind? You might say, Well, they're all the same thing! True in absolute terms, not in relative terms.

I have had the distinct pleasure, which I say coming from a most humble place right now, of tapping into what I knew at the time was but a sliver of the subtle energy that is breathing beneath the veil of logic and objectivity and the gross realm right now as I type. In a blink of an eye, I felt as if all of my past wounds were healed, and I was basking in pure bliss and love. In that set of moments, my life changed forever.

Was it simply phenomena? Yes. But it cannot be said that is was only phenomena. There are degrees of phenomena. One way to look at this is to point to differences in understanding. There is a spectrum, from blind ignorance to permanent awakened awareness. This perhaps isn't the best example, though. What I trust that Bjorn is trying to point to (and, Bjorn, correct me or clarify if I'm off here) is that there exists this subtle energy which can be tapped into individually or collectively (again, in relative terms). This bliss love compassion has truly transformative potential. If surrendered to, healing in one's self and, in a ripple effect, in one's surrounds, is a very real (potential) occurrence.

To render that irrelevant with a monological gaze (whether Buddhist or some other school of thought/experience) is to settle for the booby prize. Personally, I'm trying to let go of the booby prize.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Rick said: “The issue is that a person really can't turn the other cheek or unconditionally have compassion for their neighbors, etc… while they are locked into a dualistic worldview.”
 
There's definitely truth in there, but it's definitely not the case that the nondual view alone will result in compasssionate action, turning the other cheek, etc., though it's one of the biggest myths going, even among teachers. Just look at all the nondual masters who have manipulated their students and others in various ways. To iron out the issue of compassion and turning the other cheek, we need the dual mandala, right?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

David: “There's definitely truth in there, but it's definitely not the case that the nondual view alone will result in compasssionate action, turning the other cheek, etc., though it's one of the biggest myths going, even among teachers. Just look at all the nondual masters who have manipulated their students and others in various ways. To iron out the issue of compassion and turning the other cheek, we need the dual mandala, right?”

True, but we have to look at the most direct cause of something and not ignore it for the myriad conditions that spring from these more direct causes.
As for the teacher's they are not nondual masters, as you say. Katagiri Roshi was asked once about after death experiences from people after they were brought back and he responded, “These people didn't actually die.”
Same with the teachers.

Bill, you and others have valid points and I'll see if I can address them further later. I'm not saying that all these other things aren't absolutely important. One needs an ethical base, and this is why we have the 10 commandments and the 5 precepts/8 fold path.

If I were to sell you a car and only gave you 40-60% of the actual car, would you be ok with that? Yet, yer'all saying that 40-60% of a practice is enough. Those are just made up percentages BTW to express a point. There are no actual percentages, because without both, the car don't go.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

I'm not sure I understand your “portion of a car” analogy, holden, which suggests there may be other misunderstandings occuring.

To re-state my question, I'm curious about how integralism can integrate bhakti (devotion)  technology, especially agressive diety and demigod technology like that of judaism, christianity, and islam, without negating the technology.

Perhaps negating the technology is the integral ideal?

The historicity question is kind of a side issue - but also very important. How does integralism cope with issues of historical inconsistency?

Which leads you to a similar question - how does integralism deal with inconsistency in living models like Cohen?
 

Re: Why deny Jesus?

One way integral discusses teachers with “inconsistencies” is to posit that they develop along different lines or streams. So a person might be “enlightened” (to use the term loosely) but not well developed cognitively or ethically. So he or she might have a deep nondual state realization and perhaps even brilliant teachings for helping people to access nondual consciousness but then might go manipulating people the moment the satsang is over. Ethical development would take place on a different line or stream, a different work altogether than the meditative. Math skills, verbal skills, golf skills, etc. all take place along different lines or streams. Evolving along one doesn't mean one will evolve along another. A great mistake people have made in the past and continue to make is to think that because a person is “enlightened” state-wise, that is, has a nondual realization, everything they then do is Divine. But behaving well is a different work altogether than meditating well. There's also the question of shadow, which is kind of like saying there are two people operating there, one of whom might be very ethical, one not so ethical.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

I think your confusing a theoretical possibility with what actually commonly occurs as a person ventures up the spiral to greater understanding, David. Having a non-dual state while someone is still 1st tier or green will create a kind of cognitive dissonance and may lead to faster than normal consciousness development, but that doesn't mean they are non-dual masters in any way.
Perhaps your taking KW's Nazi doctor metaphor too far, as the cognitive line can become more developed than the moral or ethical one, such a discongruity is very rare. Most career criminals who can hurt people easily aren't very smart.
I can attest to this from personal experience. I remember having short non-dual state experiences as a kid, very vivid ones. I remember once staring at my hand during a church sermon when I was about 12 or so, and being completely in the moment, subject and object dissolved. Then it was over and I didn't even try to interpret it. This is were I think the Integral model needs work. I don't think that even interpretation is possible until a higher permanent stage awareness and the concepts available there are to be had. I was far too egocentric at the time to even be able to frame the experience, so it just happened and it was over and that was it.
At the same time, this kind of thing may help explain why I became a vegetarian at 13 on a South Texas border town, having never met or heard of a vegetarian and having a father that owned a barbecue restaurant for a period of time. There was just something about it that I knew was wrong. My mom still recalls me trying to save and take care of fire ant mounds when I was very young, even while being a very typical egocentric and selfish boy.

This is the problem with these discussions. We frame the “non-dual experience” as something special or different from our everyday experiences. We package it up into conceptual boxes and then imagine what these experiences are like, and place theories about how all this works, etc…
When a person has a non-dual awareness experience directly, this is when the practice actually starts. Until this point, you don't actually even know what your looking for, or what any of this is all about. So having this experience directly, which is actually the only experience anyone has ever had, doesn't make one a teacher or a master in any sense.
I've had this experience and can actually stop myself and place myself into a non-dual awareness more and more easily lately, but for me to say I could teach anyone or be a “master” would be beyond ridiculous and anyone who would follow me would be very disappointed. Of course, in my Zen lineage I would have to get permission to do such a thing from the Grandmaster anyway, which prevents this kind of abuse in traditional sects.
If there are people out there with the kinds of manipulative and negative personalities to do such a thing, then that is them and not the Dharma, nor any religious traditions fault.

I have been very lucky in my life having never met anyone like this, and having come across sincere, honest and enlightened teachers. Having no direct experience with this kind of teacher, perhaps I'm naive to this phenomenon.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

holden, great comment about non-dual experiences and conceptualizing about them.
anyone can experience it and doesn’t matter what religion or no religion you are practicing. some people have really big hang ups about non-dual experience.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

That's amazing you became a vegetarian at that age, Rick. I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with those experiences. Did you get support for that? When I started becoming a vegetarian at 21 there was often outright hostility for it in my family.

As for people developing along different lines, there are many examples of teachers sleeping with their students, manipulating them in various ways. In the first or second (or both) Lama Surya Das interviews on Integral Naked he talks about ethnocentricity on the part of his Tibetan enlightened “masters.” It probably is rare to get the enlightened fascist, but it seems very common to get subtle discrepancies like that. T

hese days it's very common to get some “enlightened” individual with a very relativistic, self-indulgent structure. I think a truly nondual master, vertically and horizontally enlightened, would be extremely rare. Genpo Roshi has said all the Zen masters he knew had an Amber structure; Surya Das indicates many of those he knew were Amber. It must be extremely rare.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

While I've heard that argument about the inconsistencies of living (and historical) models of “enlightenment” before, David, it contained several concepts that I don't interpret the same way that I am perceiving you as doing, so I'm not going to be able to follow you with it at this time.

(For example, I have a hard time parsing the expression “non-dual experience” and the other uses of the keyword nondual the way I think it is usually parsed here.)

Anyway, the inconsistencies of living models is a bit of a side-track.

The main track is, can integralism integrate christianity, especially devotional christianity, without negating it's psychological technology and it's programming?

Should integralism even try to do such things, or is devotional religion, deism and theism, and magical religion, outside of the scope of integralism?

Or something to be subsumed, a lower level thinking, into the higher levels?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Hi David, this might give you a new look at what “turning the other cheek” means.

John 18:22-23

22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.

 23 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

He doesn't just take it, he demands reason for the action. He asks for responsability.

At a later stage where words have no effect he just stays silent: 

12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge -to the great amazement of the governor.


Bill, I'm trying to understand what your question is. I do not see it as such a big problem. To incorporate historical events and people into an Integral map doesn't seem to be a major obstacle? But what can be difficult, and surely is for many, is our ability or want to make sense out of symbolic and archaic historic teachings.

Isn't our ability to understand an essential tool to an Integral overview? How can anyone proffess to “trancend and include” Christianity or Buddhism if they haven't understood the core teachings of those founding fathers? In my book it is impossible.

Rick, the absolute view is not personal and therefore doesn't need you or me to cling to it. You are free to find out, to widen your realm of understanding. To learn about the myriad ways of religious experience, and by doing that enrich your own grasp of the non-dual. Also, there is this communial experience that is possible within a non-dual framework. These things and more are there to be explored and dived into. It is a bit silly to stop short, and say that a giant like Jesus has nothing to add to your understanding. His impact on this world didn't just happen by chance.

My point is, in order for us to understand the teachings of Jesus and therefore be able to fully be able to incorporate it into an Integral system we have to endavor to seek it. This is definately not easy and takes a big commitment and plenty of personal surrender. No one can really understand Jesus from a point of distant observation.

Dare to put your Absolute view aside and look again. Don't worry, the Absolute won't go anywhere. It will be there even after you get to understand Jesus.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

To incorporate historical events and people into an Integral map doesn't seem to be a major obstacle?

Well, it's an interesting thing Bjorn - the jesus story is one of the most profoundly a-historic teacher stories in popular culture.

Which is one of the problems in incorporating it in integral theory.

Between you and me, the buddha story and the mohammed story, heck, most of the teacher stories, have their own a-historic issues.

How can anyone proffess to “trancend and include” Christianity or Buddhism if they haven't understood the core teachings of those founding fathers?

How would you put the “core teachings” of christianity into a few focused sentences, to use them as examples?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Sorry for getting off the subject Bill, I guess your question was beyond me, but I hope someone can answer you, because I'd like to know too. Someone answer Bills question!
Wouldn't the standard Integral answer be that all religious traditions move through preconventional, conventional and post-conventional spheres. The the kind of Christianity your talking about would include and transcend its more limited scope, but a pre or conventional wouldn't be able to accepts a more integral understanding. So a more mythic, devotional form of Christianity would be incompatible with higher level unfolding. That's the way I understand the theoretical aspect of it.

David: “That's amazing you became a vegetarian at that age, Rick. I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with those experiences. Did you get support for that? When I started becoming a vegetarian at 21 there was often outright hostility for it in my family.”

Yeah it was a very strange and hostile thing. People had never heard of a vegetarian where and when I grew up, so people would ask me with serious concern if there was something wrong with me, like, “Are you allergic to meat?”
It took about 3 years for my family to accept it. Barbecue is a hobby of my dad's, and I think he wanted to pass down that knowledge to me. My wife is actually a lot like my dad, so they really get along. Every time I visit he buys steaks or fajitas just for her and him to eat. Last time we were down there, I asked him what I was eating and he said, “There's some fuckin' yogurt in the fridge.”
There was a herd of cattle and a few horses in a pasture behind my house growing up and I used to watch them and study their behaviors. At about 12 it really started to bother me and one day I just made up my mind.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill: Or something to be subsumed, a lower level thinking, into the higher levels?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Yes, subsumation seems to be a one of the clear ways you could interpret current integral theory.

How would one explain such a thing to someone who asks, “Why Deny Jesus?”?

To get the mind to that inconceivable point. In other words, would you trade places with Christ?

I'm not sure I understand, could you explain a bit further?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Although primarily identifying with Buddhism as a form of practice, I have tried not to deny Jesus or the transformative power of the images associated with him.  Some years ago (2001), I created a Christian-Buddhist form of Tonglen (and several other practices, such as Christian Ch'od).  I shared this on Integral Naked several years ago, so some of you may have seen it, but I wanted to copy it here again as a way in which I tried to reconnect, through my Buddhist practice, with the Christ I knew and loved when I was a youth… (Some of the language of the following piece will probably reveal that I wrote it with a Christian audience in mind, since I planned to share it with a few friends who were sympathetic with Buddhism but who knew nothing about it.)

Christian Tonglen

Before beginning Tonglen, one usually first invites ‘union' in one's heart and being. Calling on the name of Jesus, imagine Him before you, radiant, encircled by a halo of light. Feel His presence, the power of his eyes on you, his hands open or outstretched. Usually, one invites purification by the nectar of the divine, which is poured over you like a waterfall, passing through every cell of your body. Here, you can perhaps imagine that from the outstretched hands of Jesus, his blood pours over you like wine, over every inch of your being, purifying you. Feel this gift, sense it with all of your feeling sense, smell it as though it enters you like the aroma of incense or flowers. Let your body as well as your mind know what it means to be so deeply purified. Offer whatever prayer is in your heart to him, and then imagine that his image in its halo of light becomes smaller and smaller, moving over the crown of your head. Then, without necessarily ‘seeing' it, feel that He enters through the crown of your head (the fontanelle, which was once soft, like a door) and passes through you till He comes to rest in your heart. When He arrives in the heart, this is ‘union.' Rest in this for a moment, without thought, but only thankfulness.

“Love is the supreme elixir
That overcomes the sovereignty of death.
It is the inexhaustible treasure
That eliminates poverty in the world.
It is the supreme medicine
That quells the world's disease.
It is the tree that shelters all beings
Wandering and tired on the path of conditioned existence.
It is the universal bridge
That leads to freedom from unhappy states of birth.
It is the dawning moon of the mind
That dispels the torment of disturbing conceptions.
It is the great sun that finally removes
The misty ignorance of the world.”
– Shantideva

Rest quietly without thinking anything in particular, feeling the effects of meditating and reflecting on Christ and love. Let one's thoughts settle, as though coming home. After you feel calm and spacious, allow yourself to reflect again on Christ's presence, on the incredible gift of his life and his suffering, on all the blessings that you have felt in your life, so that thankfulness and compassion are born in your heart.

Imagine in front of you, as vividly and as poignantly as possible, a person or persons who are suffering. Try and imagine every aspect of their pain and distress, whether it is physical, emotional, spiritual, or all of the above. Then, as you feel your heart opening in sympathy and compassion for them, imagine that all of their sufferings manifest together and gather into a great mass of hot, black, thick smoke.

Now, as you breathe in, visualize that this mass of black smoke dissolves, with your in-breath, into the very root of selfishness at your heart. Feel its heaviness enter your body. There it destroys completely all traces of self-cherishing, eliminating any obstructions that stand between you and the movement of Christic love in your heart.

Imagine, now, that the selfish knot in your heart has been destroyed, so that the presence of the Christ in you is fully revealed. As you breathe out, then, imagine that you are sending out His brilliant, cooling light of peace, joy, happiness and ultimate well-being to the persons in pain, and that its rays are purifying all of their negativity and pain. You might imagine that your whole body has been made transparent and radiant, so that it is truly a vehicle for love in the world.

At the moment the light of love and compassion streams out to touch the people in pain, it is essential to feel a firm conviction that all of their suffering and negativity HAVE been purified, and to feel a deep, lasting joy that they have been totally freed of suffering and pain.

As you go on breathing normally in and out, continue with this practice, breathing into your body the black smoke of suffering and sin, breathing out well-being and blessing through Christ in you.

After some time, you may imagine that the subjects of your prayer become transparent and radiant as well, completely purified from within. Let this image grow brighter and brighter, until you feel immersed in a field of light. Whatever thought or feeling arises, let it be a piece of tinder that ignites and also becomes light, until all sense of inside and outside has vanished, and there is only the Light of the World. Rest in this spaciousness.

Traditionally, at the close of prayer, one ‘offers' as a gift all the merit, all the good, all the blessings one feels, for the benefit of all beings. You may do this very simply, with words such as, “Lord, this blessing here with me now, I dedicate for the welfare of beings everywhere. May they all know Your peace.” In Buddhism, this usually includes non-human beings; that's up to you!

Finally, I offer this closing prayer on love:

As a mother, at the risk of her life,
Watches over her only child,
Let us cherish an unbounded mind
For all living beings.
Let us have love for the whole world,
And develop an unbounded mind,
Above, below and all around,
Boundless heart of goodwill, free of hatred,
Standing, walking, sitting or lying down,
So long as we are awake,
Let us cherish this thought.
This is called Divine Abiding Here.
– Karaniyametta Sutta

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bjorn said: “ 23 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

He doesn't just take it, he demands reason for the action. He asks for responsability.”

Yes, I think that's right. And he gave a really cool demonstration of that right there.
 
It's interesting, though–what if the high priest and the rest couldn't reason, hadn't yet developed the ability to rationalize?

Bjorn sai: “At a later stage where words have no effect he just stays silent: 

12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge -to the great amazement of the governor.”

I imagine he saw by that time that they couldn't rationalize or at least were choosing not to, the latter of which would probably have been a mistake.

Turning the other cheek and demanding that responsibility does seem to require that we bear the suffering of others to some degree (at least the personal self will feel this way about it). This is what I think is so demanding about it. A part of Jesus would have liked to slap him back or at least to say some insulting things, but he didn't. His response was totally authentic and without victimization or negativity. It reminds me of something Archimandrite Dionysios once said in a WIE interview:

  “It's love. Love is more than conscience. Conscience is something that says to you, “You do this, you do this, you do this.” It's like we're under our own personal court. But love is something much more. Love makes us ready to pay for the sins of others. It's a much higher step. Not only to recognize our sins but also to be able to pay for sins for which we are not responsible, as Christ did. This is love.”

Rick said : David: “That's amazing you became a vegetarian at that age, Rick. I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with those experiences. Did you get support for that? When I started becoming a vegetarian at 21 there was often outright hostility for it in my family.”

Yeah it was a very strange and hostile thing. …  Last time we were down there, I asked him what I was eating and he said, “There's some fuckin' yogurt in the fridge.”

That's pretty harsh. It's not so pleasant eating with that kind of hostility, is it? When I first became a vegetarian, one night my mother was preparing tacos. I asked her if she could prepare mine with beans. She said yes. I returned home at dinner time, went out in the backyard where we were having dinner, and saw an empty placemat in front of my chair. “Where's mine?” I asked. “It's in the kitchen,” my mother answered. I went in the kitchen, and on the counter there was a can of beans, unopened, a head of lettuce, a pint of cherry tomatos, a block of cheese … I knew then I would be cooking for myself from then on. But there was a lot of open hostility and arguement about it as well, usually during dinner.

It also reminds me of Monty Roberts. This guy, to make a long story short, devised a way to break horses without hurting them, in a really gentle way. When he showed this to his father, who had been a horse breaker all his life, his father took him in the barn and whipped him with something. This is what tends to happen whenever something new comes along–the old guard will fight it or at least be hostile to it.
 

Bill said: “Should integralism even try to do such things, or is devotional religion, deism and theism, and magical religion, outside of the scope of integralism?”

In terms of spiritual practice, devotional religion very much has a place in Ken Wilber's thinking. You might be interested in his talks with Father Thomas Keating on Integral Naked. You might also be interested in this collection of articles on contemplative Christianity.

Integralism does have a hierarchy, however. There is the mythic God of Amber (the white bearded guy in the sky who has control over everything), and there are impersonal, evolutionary Gods going all the way up to Indigo, Violet, Ultra Violet, and a kind of devotion is required for each. Magical religion is on one of the early stages that people pass through in AQAL, but no matter how high a person goes they will still get magic thoughts from time to time. They just won't believe them anymore.
 

Re: Why deny Jesus?

In terms of spiritual practice, devotional religion very much has a place in Ken Wilber's thinking.

This might seem odd, but I'm not that interested in what Ken has to say about it, that kind of information is, as you point out, publicly available.

I'm interested in it as a set of principles, or, I could say, as integralists practice it. Which means I'm more interested in how ordinary folks like us, like you and everyone here, interpret it, than in what the distant voices of authority have said about it.

I gather you are voting for subsumation too? Kind of a linear model of development - once a stage is completed, it's results are incorporated, and to return to the stage indicates that the stage was not completed?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill,
 
I do believe we understand each-other. To subsume (had to look it up) Jesus teaching means to understand it, no? Include and transcend?

To me, to grasp the core teaching of Jesus means to discover what surrender means, what the sacrifice on the cross means, what the resurrection means, and what the gift of the Holy Spirit means. This is both easy and difficult to do, because it's not really possible to do these things unless we're personally ready to go through with it. Which is a great challenge.
We can try to fit the Jesus mysteries into a Buddhist mold, and get some clarity of it, but it won't disclose his personal touch. This is where I think Bruce has a good point of saying we can't really separate Jesus, from Christianity, from its culture, from its history.
We can experience the non-dual, realize surrender, taste the the timeless eternal nature, be touched by extraordinary energy, be bathed in bliss and ecstasy independent from a Christian perspective but then never really understanding the relationship with one mans sacrifice.

But any true realizer will be able to make sense out of Jesus and be able to explain all the mysteries in modern language. My original intent with this thread was to highlight much of the conscious or unconscious denial of Jesus among Western would-be truth seekers. And exploring why that is. And once having dealt with our reservations dive head in first to taste the enormous riches and intellectual stimuli his teachings, his life and death offers, truly to anyone that makes the effort to find out.

I do not mean to endorse a mystic belief, a blind adherence, to a cult figure, worshiped by fanatics and fundamentalists. I truly wish not. I think Jesus deserves better. Don't you?

(Bill, what do you mean with a-historical?)

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Me: Yeah it was a very strange and hostile thing. …  Last time we were down there, I asked him what I was eating and he said, “There's some fuckin' yogurt in the fridge.”

David: That's pretty harsh. I

Your story is worse I think, that's just my dad. He was mostly joking, it was actually kind of funny. I never got that kind of open hostility from my family, they just didn't buy into me actually being a vegetarian for about 3 years.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bjorn, I understand. I think you know that already. There are volumes to be spoken about the revelations that come with falling in love with… See, I can't even say the name. Grace is shy. She withdraws when I try to drag her out to the frontal world. Maybe her secrets can be told only to the lovers whom she has chosen herself for this night.

.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

(Bill, what do you mean with a-historical?)

Bjorn, the convention is, when you put an “a-” in front of a word, it means “the opposite of”(word), or, a bit more simply “not”(word).

So, a-historical means “the opposite of historical” or “not historical”.

The jesus story, both internally and externally, is the opposite of historical.

What does that mean? Internally, it means in the historical record we don't see examples of people born from virgins, performing miracles, and especially rising from the dead. Externally, I'm talking about the problem of the historical Yeshuah, the inconsistencies in the texts, and the mysterious lack of evidence of the existence of the man Yeshuah.

As a mystery story, you expect it to be a-historical, because mystery stories usually are. Their are mystery stories about the birth of buddha, for instance, or the beginnings of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill said: “ Kind of a linear model of development - once a stage is completed, it's results are incorporated, and to return to the stage indicates that the stage was not completed?”

I don't think it's always going to the case that “to return to the stage indicates that the stage was not completed.” For example, at one stage we learn to differentiate ourselves from other people. Before that, as we're sucking our mother's breast, for example, we're not thinking “I am here, and my mother is over there, and I am sucking her breast.” It's all undifferentiated. But at some point we learn to think, “I am here, and Mom is there.” We never give up that ability to differentiate, even if we are enlightened, and returning to it doesn't mean we haven't yet completed that stage. If we didn't return to that understanding we wouldn't be able to drive a car, have a conversation, and practically everything else we do. The whole thing will unfold in a different way at higher stages, but we still return to the essence of that understanding to interact in the world.

With spiritual practice, like prayer and devotion, it gets a little trickier, but I think the same would hold true to one degree or another. But sometimes it is a matter of a stage not being completed, I think. We have an experience of a higher stage, then we fall back to the previous stage that we have stabilized. Then we hold the higher stage for a period of time, then fall back again to the previous stage. It can take a while to stablize a stage, and we drift back and forth.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

David wrote: then we hold the higher stage for a period of time, then fall back again to the previous stage. It can take a while to stablize a stage, and we drift back and forth.

I've thought about this for many years, and I've come to prefer what I think of as a “volume access development model” over the more common linear development model.

They have similarities, and you could argue that the linear development model is just a form of volume access development.

Volume access could be keyworded with the sentence “where in my psyche can I freely come and go” - the idea is that while an individual might not have explored every point in a stage, and might have to go back to complete unfinished business, it's to ability to move around within the stages at will that is the goal of development.

You could also keyword it with the sentence, “It's not where you are, but where you can go, that indicates your level of development”.

You could reasonably say to me, “that's a moot point - mystery stories aren't that useful in the modern world.”. Which is arguably true.

But only a few humans actually live in the modern world. Most humans are spread out thru history, and only their bodies are in the modern (current) world.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Hi Bill, all,

Am I being too simplistic when I answer Bill’s question:

“The main track is, can integralism integrate christianity, especially devotional christianity, without negating it’s psychological technology and it’s programming?”

Simply as:

of course it can, as long as integralism emphasises the “do not identify with” clause; anything can be integrated as long as you don’t identify with it, or it’s opposite (which is the same thing of course).

Frans

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Wow, it is no surprise, this has really become a really hot topic!!

Much going on, but a couple of quick comments: 

Bill:  The historicity question is kind of a side issue - but also very important. How does integralism cope with issues of historical inconsistency?

Historical inconsistency is the direct result of man's recording!  There are no “historical inconsistencies”, only inconsistencies in the recording of history by man.  We always add our prejudices, our preconceived notions to everything we do!  Sometimes the “editing” of reality is conscious, sometimes not!  Integration of the theory and/or methodology behind a belief system can be done like picking roses!  Take the beautiful flower, but be careful not to get pricked by the thorns!  Why should we let man's inability to record history accurately interfere with our ability to get great value and learning from a thought, value or believe system?

Bill:  Should integralism even try to do such things, or is devotional religion, deism and theism, and magical religion, outside of the scope of integralism?

Nothing is outside the scope of true integralism.  It would defeat the entire value of an integrated world view to leave anything out.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

One good question to ask yourself:

If the originator of my patricular lineage turned out to be mythological and not literally existent in any historical context other than the mythic,

am I disturbed by that? Does it destroy my practice?

If not, you stand in good and gooder gnostic company. You stand with Saint Paul and Yogananda. The gnostics who understood Christ thoroughly and whose collective mystical view could be considered second or third tier….the gnostic stand with you in ecxtatic embrace. :)

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Dear Camelot,

If the originator of my particular lineage turned out to be mythological and not literally existent in any historical context other than the mythic,

am I disturbed by that? Does it destroy my practice?

For sure, no difference to me, mythological or historically real, all the same to me.  Actually I take the bible as a great “astral” story.  The truth of it to be figured by others who care for facts or history.  Some of the best “spiritual” and ethical lessons I've gleaned from sci-fi!  The source of one's spiritual understanding is immaterial to me, the resulting application to life is the critical factor.

As a matter of fact, I once dated a wonderful man who claimed to be an atheist.  He was a biochemist.  He was one of the most ethical, caring individuals I've had the pleasure to know.  He played the banjo.  When he played his connection to the “spirit” was so clear to me, so pure and beautiful.  It did not matter that he did not believe.  He embodied all the critical attributes a spiritually evolved individual aspires towards. 

Reminds me of the comment, “don't worry, you don't have to believe in god, he believes in you!”  And although I do not believe in god in the traditional sense, I do believe the 'spirit” is part of everything, or better still, we are part of the spirit.  It guides us with or without our knowing. 

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill:
Yes, subsumation seems to be a one of the clear ways you could interpret current integral theory.


How would one explain such a thing to someone who asks, “Why Deny Jesus?”?


*You* and the father are one.

—

e:
To get the mind to that inconceivable point. In other words, would you trade places with Christ?

B:
I'm not sure I understand, could you explain a bit further?

Sorry, it should have read. “Would you trade places with Jesus.” So, the cross is a symbol showing the meeting point of 'I' and 'Not I'. On that cross Jesus (Bill & e) dies and Christ lives.


love

e

PS Rannah, nice post!

Re: Why deny Jesus?

*You* and the father are one.

That's “subsumation”?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subsume

sub·sume(sb-sm) tr.v. sub·sumed, sub·sum·ing, sub·sumes To classify, include, or incorporate in a more comprehensive category or under a general principle: “The evolutionarily later always subsumes and includes the evolutionarily earlier” Frederick Turner.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Hi Bill – you asked:

So, then, death by torture is the primary mystery message of the jesus story?

– No. I see the primary mystery message of the Jesus story as:  Love.

Love that continues to stand courageously and vulnerably as love – even when it's in the midst of torturous pain and suffering and profound disillusionment.

Authentic divine Love, St. Francis said, “suffers as a bird sings.”

Of the Christ story, Andrew Harvey writes these contemporary musings:

“of all the mystic pioneers of humanity, Christ is [among] the most daring and demanding and the most concerned with the brutal facts of this world. His living out of his enlightenment and his realization of his fundamental unity with God has a unique urgency, a poignantly wild passion, and a hunger for justice that make him the hero of love in the human race. Christ came not to found a new religion or to inaugurate a new set of dogmas but to open up a fierce and shattering new path of love-in-action …

“To a world obsessed by power, he offered a vision of the radiance of powerlessness and the powerful vulnerability of love; to a culture riddled with authoritarianism, false pomp, and greed he gave a vision of the holiness of inner and outer poverty and a critique of the vanity and horror of all forms of worldly achievement so scalding that  most of his own followers have contrived every means imaginable to ignore it. To a society arranged at every level into oppressive hierarchies – sexual, religious, racial, and political – he presented in his own life, a vision of a radical and all-embracing egalitarianism designed to end forever those dogmas and institutions that keep women enslaved, the poor starving, and the rich rotting in a prison of selfish luxury. In his own life, he showed what new life this path would open up to everyone who risked its rigors would be like – how free and tender and brave and charged with healing ecstatic power. Faithful always to the humble egalitarianism of his understanding of divine love, he refused the glamour of sagedom, constantly undermining the fantasies that others tried to project onto him, and he finally embraced horrible and humiliating suffering on the Cross to break through into that dimension of Resurrection and cosmic life from which he continues to guide, enflame, and inspire all who turn to him.”

How does that relate to the tradition of blood sacrifice and the scapegoat?

Blood sacrifice and scapegoats were central features of several religions of 2000 years ago, including Jesus' own tradition, Judaism. Thus, those who were working to evangelize the Jews of 2000 years ago into this new Jesus sect focused on the concept of Jesus being the new, and the most valuable, “sacrificial lamb” needed to appease an angry and bloodthirsty Yahweh. And this of course became a central feature of Christian myth and ritual. However, not all Christians adhere to a literal “sacrificial atonement” notion of salvation – I could not, and that's why I abandoned Christianity for 2 decades of my life … I mean really, what kind of a god requires cruel sacrifice of his own son to “save” humanity?
–but then I eventually came to see that there were other ways of interpreting the Jesus story, the death and resurrection. For one thing, it is not only Jesus's death, but what we hear about his life (not his biography, but what others have said and passed on about Jesus's teachings, parables, actions, etc.) that have healing and transformative potential … Crucifixion can also seen as a profound dying to self, a journey that all must take in some form or another to awaken, transform, and “rise” into Life, or capital S Self, as it's often termed 'round here …

It's we who are the sons and daughters of God, we who are Jesus … not just some lone mythologized rabbi who died 2000 years ago …

I think that the way to “subsume” the tradition of blood sacrifice and scapegoat is to recognize it as a feature of a certain (and necessary) developmental level of Christianity that yields to different interpretations – and takes on a different kind of significance – as one matures on this particular spiritual path.

Peace,
Mary

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Mary said - No. I see the primary mystery message of the Jesus story as:  Love.

A lot of people say that, but I have a slightly different take on it.

I would say something like this - the core mystery of the jesus story is - forgiveness.

To forgive, to receive forgiveness, to forgive the other, to forgive god, and hardest of all, one of the hardest things in the world - to forgive oneself.

But, the nature of mystery storys is that the impact of the mystery isn't fixed. The mystery can be love for you, forgiveness for me, and who-knows-what for some third entity.

…

It's interesting to think how actual sacrifice was subsumed into the symbolic sacrifice of the image of the crucifixtion - it's makes one wonder how the symbolic sacrifice of that now-ancient image would be subsumed into the stories of the future?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

e said: “*You* and the father are one.”

I think the complete quote is “I and the Father are One, but my Father is greater than me.” At least that's what Bjorn usually writes, though I can't recall what his preferred capitalization is. It's a great line. If we put it that way, it covers this whole model (which I believe is Ken's; I originally got it from Hokai):



 

Bill said: “You could also keyword it with the sentence, “It's not where you are, but where you can go, that indicates your level of development.”

I like this as an addition. Sometimes people can get pidgeonholed for one action or a series of actions in a way that doesn't really characterize their whole being very truthfully. At the same time, we need to put some value on consistency and being an expression of our highest self. But I also like the way Bill put it because it reminds me of something in Genpo Roshi's Big Mind system, “One Heart-Mind, and the Integrated Free-Functioning Self.” I don't know if he is talking about one voice there or two on the same audio. Does anyone know?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Regarding the blood sacrifice.

One way of relating to it personally can be in the way we understand “I am sorry”.

If and when we have done something we are sorry over or regret doing and feel remorse over, we can then proceed to apologize, make amends, and maybe bring a gift as to show our sincerity. We “repent” from a clear understanding that our action brought harm or pain and we regret hurting our brother or sister.

Only the best of our stock, the first born, will be good enough to show our good will. Can you forgive me? But then, no thing will ever make up for a lost life. How do we make up for lost lives? An eye for an eye? Life imprisonment?

Did Jesus demonstrate the ultimate sacrifice? The sacrifice that demands all of ourselves. Things cannot redeem us, but our own surrender can. Heartfelt regret. Deep remorse. True amends.

Isn't this what we mean when we say “I am sorry” and mean it?

Isn't this the way we heal relationships? and are resurrected in the process? Restored into love, our true being.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

John 14:7-11

7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

John 14:28

28 You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Mary, we would be sons and daughters of the most high. You would be Mary and I Bjorn but hardly Jesus? We might strive to be like him, to “be perfect as our father in Heaven” but there is no need for me to identify with him. Even though He is more me than I will ever be. I am me, no more no less. Created in His image.

Luke 6:34-36

34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill – I also agree that the mystery is multifaceted, and that forgiveness and reconciliation are central to the story told in the gospels – although I feel that they would not be possible without Love.

Bjorn, when I say “we are Jesus,” I don't mean to suggest that we lose our identity as ourselves. (And some may find it more accurate to say “we are Christ”). In Matthew 25, we hear how Jesus metaphorically identified with “the least” – “for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me …. truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” Jesus identifies with us in our poverties and vulnerabilities, in our tender humanity – but this does not mean that he, nor we, lose our individuality…

This poem attributed to Teresa of Avila suggests that we do more than imitate Christ/Jesus: we actually become his body on earth:

Christ has no body now on earth but yours,
no hands but yours,
no feet but yours;
Yours are the eyes through which to look out
Christ's compassion on the world;
Yours are the feet with which he is
to go about doing good;
Yours are the hands with which he grants blessing.

This is also implied in the Christian Eucharistic ritual – we take the body and blood of Christ into our bodies, as sacramental nourishment – and in turn we are transformed, we  become Eucharist, nourishment for others …

Peace,
Mary

P.S. – Bjorn, you wrote that He is more me than I will ever be. Perhaps so – but in at least one of the gospels, we hear Jesus saying that we will go on to do greater things than he …

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Mary said - although I feel that they would not be possible without Love.

So, you're saying that one can only forgive that which one loves?

And the unloved are unforgivable?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill –

No – the human affective feeling of love is not required for forgiveness – or at least to begin the process of forgiveness. By “Love” with a capital L, I mean Divine Love, the ground of being, the unboundaried ultimacy, the source of infinite potentiality and actualization, Eros and Agape …. this is the Love that enables forgiveness to emerge even where “no love” seems to exist …

My sense is that from Love's perspective, there are no “unloved.”

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Mary said - By “Love” with a capital L, I mean Divine Love

Do you have any thoughts on why the vast majority of the christians that one meets seem like the most unloving, unforgiving, agressive, warlike, and intentionally cruel people imaginable?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

e:
*You* and the father are one.

Bill
That's “subsumation”?

I (Jesus, Bill, e) and the father (Not I) are (subsumed into Christ) one.

—

e: Sorry, it should have read. “Would you trade places with Jesus.” So, the cross is a symbol showing the meeting point of 'I' and 'Not I'. On that cross Jesus (Bill & e) dies and Christ lives.

B: So, then, death by torture is the primary mystery message of the jesus story?

Jesus showed on the cross what he was not in a symbolic and literal way. By disidentifying with the dying Jesus (I), he 'became' Christ.

B: How is that to be subsumed? What would it mean to subsume that?

See above.

B: How does that relate to the tradition of blood sacrifice and the scapegoat? And how do you subsume those things?

He ended the need for blood sacrifice and scapegoating by being the ultimate scapegoat. And so he subsumed those things in being Christ. You can do the same if you can willingly trade places with him.

love

e

Re: Why deny Jesus?

e said - You can do the same if you can willingly trade places with him.

How do you personally do that? How do you believe it should be done?

And how should that be integrated into integral culture?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill asked: Do you have any thoughts on why the vast majority of the christians that one meets seem like the most unloving, unforgiving, agressive, warlike, and intentionally cruel people imaginable?

Well, you know, it's like Gandhi said: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Identifying as a “Christian” does not necessarily mean that one actually is a follower of Christ.

Perhaps I've been lucky. While I have encountered cruel, narrowminded, and unloving “Christians,” I've also gotten to know some humble, compassionate, radiant ones – they tend to be those who do not call attention to themselves (or their religious identity) that much …

For more on why “religiosity,” particularly institutional Christianity, does not necessarily translate into compassionate spirituality, check out Richard Rohr's My Problem With Religion, which I posted in my blog.

Mary

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill asked: Do you have any thoughts on why the vast majority of the christians that one meets seem like the most unloving, unforgiving, agressive, warlike, and intentionally cruel people imaginable?

It seems to me that this is a matter of perspective. I have rarely encountered this type of Christian F2F in my life. My family is Lutheran, and they are all “live and let live” people. I have encountered many other Christians that are the same way. The MSM certainly does its share in focusing on the version painted above, so I tend to think that this is a case of exaggeration and showing the worst. When I encounter this type of person online, I chalk it up to the fact that those with this type of worldview are more likely to engage in online rhetoric because their shadows propel them into the public sphere. So, a few bad apples spoil the crop. Though I am feeling rather optimistic today; I could be deluding myself. Or, again, it's a matter of perspective.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bjorn,

What an excellent question and inquiry!

My thoughts on this subject has a great deal with cultural interpretations through history as well as the branching out of Christianity into many different “schools” of teachings and practices. such as presbyterian vs. baptist etc.
(Personally, I have nothing against Jesus’s teachings nor the value of them)
Also politics has made it a religion that distorts spirituality via mass media.

Also, I find that there’s very little education about Jesus and his teachings.
I mean having attended several sunday schools, I didn’t read St. Augustine until much later in life. I had to wait in my college years for my philosophy degree. I was rather disappointed that such writings were not accessible to me earlier on as well as other philosophers who were spiritually connected to Christianity.

It’s also really upsetting to me Christianity is stereotyped as the religion that has caused so much war and conflict in the world, when other religions are also causes of conflict even Buddhism. There were sects fighting amongst each other, although we may not know of any violence as such. etc.

I agree with Balder in that the breadth of teachings of Jesus is limited to the Bible and his students. Buddhism does cover much more territory.
Again, I think there’s a lack of education since after Jesus there were many writings etc. Maybe they are lost to us now. don’t know. my own ignorance is limiting my response obviously.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

In my own experience, seeking for and exploring truth never had any limitations. Having said that I am totally convinced that what we find in the standard Bible contain all we'll ever need to discover the mystery of Jesus. It does not lack in profound teachings. The gospel according to Thomas does not add anything but can be used to detract from a full and complete understanding of Jesus mission. An Absolute understanding helps us to give us clarity and a broad view and helps us in understanding the unfolding of a organic living expression of his few years on Earth, that is the Church.

Once we begin to understand Jesus, we can venture to try disclose the mystery of a growing community that became the Church.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

e: You can do the same if you can willingly trade places with him.

Bill : How do you personally do that?

I look at a cross and contemplate it as the meeting point of ‘I & Not I'. I call to mind the occasions where I experienced others pain directly i.e. it hurt me too! I then realize that we all hurt. I try to muster up the feeling or desire to trade places with those beings. To want to assuage their pain. I then think of what Jesus went thru, the torture and pain endured. I then ask myself if I could willingly trade places with him. If I could say to him standing before me, “it is OK, go with your family and friends, give me your crown of thorns and let me take your cross”. I imagine myself carrying the cross up to Golgotha and I simply ask myself, could I really do that? Am I truly capable of that? If the answer is yes, the contemplation ends in what I would be giving up to help him. I would be giving up everything that is me, mine and myself… ‘I'. If the answer is no, I delve into why I can't do that. What am I afraid of…pain, death, loss, separation? Why am I afraid of those things? Are they escapable in the first place? Why don't I care enough to willingly trade places with another who is suffering? What is preventing me from wanting to help, in whatever way I can, another who is suffering? Why am I incapable of self-sacrifice? Why don't I love unconditionally? If there is honesty and clarity, the answers will show where I am stuck and where I need to ‘work'.

How do you believe it should be done?

I don't really know. Again, I am not a Christian. There are others here much more qualified than me to state that. The above contemplation is done as an ‘outsider'. I maybe once read the Bible cover to cover and I have never been in a Christian community of worship.



And how should that be integrated into integral culture?

I feel that whatever tradition you are from will easily be integrated

into a culture that is capable of accepting you & your tradition.


love

e

Re: Why deny Jesus?

e said - I look at a cross and contemplate it as the meeting point of ‘I & Not I'. I call to mind the occasions where I experienced others pain directly

Ahhh, visualization and simulation technology. Yes, that's both traditional and effective. Safe, too, in that you are using “trading places with Yeshuah” as a metaphor.

I feel that whatever tradition you are from will easily be integrated into a culture that is capable of accepting you & your tradition.

That seems to be basically saying you integrate it by integrating it.

I do appreciate your mention of “culture”.

So, does “integrating” mean accepting? Something like a “melting pot” theory? Mix it all together? Christ, Bhudda, Mohammed, Jain, Krishna, Confucious, Joe Smith, and all the others honored and offered devotions equally?

How do you integrate the “One True and Only Path” elements of, say, christian culture? The parts of many religious systems that are actively hostile to competing religious cultures and ideas?

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Dear Bill,

My two cents: 

“Integrating” means accepting, that for some individuals, it is valid and of value. 

For instance, I would never “integrate” the death penality.  I do not  believe it is valid (or of value). 

So, does “integrating” mean accepting? Something like a “melting pot” theory? Mix it all together? Christ, Bhudda, Mohammed, Jain, Krishna, Confucious, Joe Smith, and all the others honored and offered devotions equally?

I also do not believe “integrating” is necessarily a “melting pot”, although for some it may be, and that is fine.  I mean only that a “melting pot” response is not a requirement. 

How do you integrate the “One True and Only Path” elements of, say, christian culture? The parts of many religious systems that are actively hostile to competing religious cultures and ideas?

To integrate the “One True and Only Path” of any culture, is to accept that that is valid and of value for some.  Never to integrate or accept that the “actively hostile” response is valid or of value!  Similar to the death penalty, this is intolerance on a major scale and must end for world peace, and/or world government, and/or a valid world culture to evolve. 

Re: Why deny Jesus?

e said - I look at a cross and contemplate it as the meeting point of ‘I & Not I'. I call to mind the occasions where I experienced others pain directly

Bill said:
Ahhh, visualization and simulation technology. Yes, that's both traditional and effective. Safe, too, in that you are using “trading places with Yeshuah” as a metaphor.


You go with what you know. I guess I played 
a lot of video games when I was a kid. :-)

I feel that whatever tradition you are from will easily be integrated into a culture that is capable of accepting you & your tradition.

That seems to be basically saying you integrate it by integrating it.

I do appreciate your mention of “culture”.

So, does “integrating” mean accepting? Something like a “melting pot” theory? Mix it all together? Christ, Bhudda, Mohammed, Jain, Krishna, Confucious, Joe Smith, and all the others honored and offered devotions equally?


Yeah, I like stews. But it seems the good ones have the right proportion of ingredients and the ingredients are prepared correctly. But if you are really hungry, that does not much matter. Current AQAL has been stewed by chopping much of the ingredients. Folks who dont like stews, probably dont like their ingredients chopped up stew like. This seems to be where AQAL has faced the most criticism from the ones being integrated. Resistance is futile comes to mind.



How do you integrate the “One True and Only Path” elements of, say, christian culture? The parts of many religious systems that are actively hostile to competing religious cultures and ideas?

Everyone is entitled to their view. If I was in charge of the mixing board at a large choir concert, I would let them sing but turn down the volume of their voice over the PA.

love

e

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill said:   ”How do you integrate the “One True and Only Path” elements of, say, christian culture? The parts of many religious systems that are actively hostile to competing religious cultures and ideas?”

Two necessary parts of evolutionary development, according to AQAL, are “transcend and exclude” and “transcend and include.” Generally, the “transcend and exclude” part comes first, though perhaps they can be done simultaneously to an extent, once one becomes conscious of the process. Ken Wilber discusses this with Andrew Cohen in this dialogue. Here is an excerpt:

COHEN: Even though, as we agreed before, the complete picture of evolutionary development includes both transcending and including and transcending and excluding–including is going to have a slightly different emphasis than excluding. For example, when Jesus said, “Let the dead bury the dead,” that to me was a clear expression of “transcend and exclude” that was passionate, ferocious, uncompromising–an unrestrained expression of the evolutionary impulse that cares not for the past but is only interested in creating the unknown future right now and in every moment.

WILBER: Yes, to me it's like saying, let this old worldview die; let ethnocentric die. It's supposed to die. The exclusivity is supposed to die.

COHEN: And it's significant that for many of us twenty-first-century, postmodern, extreme narcissists, our ego–or our highly developed sensitive self-sense–is far more threatened by the notion of exclusion than it would be by the notion of inclusion.

WILBER: Yes, I agree.

COHEN: Because it implies that we have to be ready and willing to die now for the future to be born in all its glory.

WILBER: Indeed, and it also implies that there are things that in a strong sense are not to be included. And the things that are not to be included are those things that exclude in the bad sense of restricting and attaching. That's sort of the paradox. When you're exclusively identified with chakra one, then you're really at moral stage one, which is “what's right is what I feel, so f– you.” That's supposed to die when you move to moral stage two. That's what's excluded. That's what's supposed to be negated and let that dead bury that dead. Because you can't get more inclusive structures without excluding less inclusive structures.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Two necessary parts of evolutionary development, according to AQAL, are “transcend and exclude” and “transcend and include.” Generally, the “transcend and exclude” part comes first, though perhaps they can be done simultaneously to an extent, once one becomes conscious of the process.

David, I'm interpreting this as you saying something like, “Well, in theory we “transcend and include”, but we don't really know what “transcend and include” means yet, so we can't really do it yet.”.

Am I totally off on that interpretation?

My personal experience has been that every religious story can be internalized and perfected by a person, to the point at which he or she “transcends” the story. That person in a sense frees themself from the story by learning it's lessons. And often at that point the person switches from exclusion thinking and behavior to inclusion (or at least partially inclusive) thinking.

But, that's something that people do, that happens in individual development. It would be tricky to try to turn that into a philosophical principle, a tool to reduce the conflicts that occur between stories with exclusion claims, stories which get people fighting.  

Thinking about this brings me to a question which seems so obvious that it has to have been asked here before. I'm asking myself the question, “How would you integrate religions?”, which leads to the question “Does “Integralism” need to integrate religions?”.

So the question is, “Does, or should,  Integralism try to integrate religions?”.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

e wrote - Yeah, I like stews.

Yep, I'm a stew guy too.

If there's a high enough percentage of stew people in a group, they'll tend to buffer the “one and only one type of vegetable please” people - but it's tough to rely on that as an organizational principle - because, on that fateful day when the balance of numbers shifts, the group will have a tendency to jump to “one vegetable” state, and explode off a batch of splinter sects.

(Visualization and simulation technology is good stuff, some of my all time favorites, pretty much universally effective. It probably sounds reductionistic the way I write it, but I was just being technically descriptive, basically saying “yeah, I get that.”.)

Re: Why deny Jesus?

To give another example, imagine a child who is learning to walk. At first, it must say to itself, “No more crawling! Time to walk! Get up off your hands and knees! No more crawling! Walk!” And so it negates or excludes the crawling and learns to walk. But it will still retain the capacity to crawl and will crawl when crawling makes more sense than walking, for example when it wants something on the other side of the bed. But some things are negated or excluded forever, hopefully, like throwing one's food on the floor when one doesn't like it, which was apparently my MO. :)

Re: Why deny Jesus?

The riddle of the one and only way.

There is so much misunderstanding of this statement. It says (to me) that when Jesus announces this he is only stating a fact in that moment, or for that matter any moment when we encounter Jesus. When we encounter the truth we have to decide to either to ask for clarification (if we do not understand) or accept it (if we see it's true) or we will decide to reject it and deny it (based on our own wisdom or lack thereof).

10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

So we are left with the difficult task to dicern if he is true. This might demand some study and enquiry. If we're not sure, we can just suspend judgement until we manage to solve our questions. But I still believe in what he said; seek and you shall find. So there's no need for despair.

If we approach all spiritual giants in the same manner we will probably be able to learn an enormous amount and enrich our understanding what the one and only way is about.

How do we seek? Well, the way I went about it was to ponder these question trying to understand. I did not settle for rational explanations or logical answers. Intellectual grasp was not enough. I realized all Jesus spoke about is revelatory based, and can be experienced in our own being if we push hard enough. Suddenly all mysteries came to light and revealed their hidden profound truths, all relating to a life on earth here and now.

Also, no need to try to read and study Jesus in isolation. Read it also as a vital part in our historical understanding of the evolution of consciousness. The whole Bible is a journey of us as mankind learning to walk with God (Truth). And Jesus being very much a major player in the unfolding of the scheme, of God's plan. To wake us up!

Re: Why deny Jesus?

In my own personal experience, I grew up in the Bible Belt in Tennessee and in a very small United Methodist Church.

I remember always arguing in Sunday school with the teacher, but not bad arguments just discussions. When I was young why those who were not Christians were going to hell, because I knew there were millions of Buddhists and other religous adherents as well as those who were not Christian. I still always asked this question, often where I shouldnt have. IT didnt set right with me.

Neither did several other narrow-minded views taught in contemporary Christian fundamentalist churches.

What sticks out in my mind is always looking at the figure of Jesus as separate somehow from the religion I was being taught, it was like I inherently knew that. I mean if you really think deeply how often did you think of Jesus as the originator of all of these judgemental teachings, I felt almost more like it was the patriarchal God we believed in, Jesus was a more innocent and loving figure than God himself for me at a young age.

The “What would Jesus Do” and “Do you love Jesus” always bothered me, I suppose because I saw how these same people treated those who did not follow Jesus or were different . If people were Christians why did they not teach their children to not pick on kids in school, or act the way they did? Why did they seem to care more about their kids playing basketball or doing some sport more than their spiritual growth?

I think we have to look at Jesus from an Integral perspective in that beyond the man who was Jesus, Jesus is an archetype almost, an concept. And Jesus can be looked at in an AQAL manner, in several different levels. People of all different levels are looking at Jesus differently, and draw differently from who he was.

By the age of 15 I was looking more at the mystical side of Jesus, having started studying Buddhism and mysticism. Though still In did not have a personal feeling toward Jesus, because I wanted to have a relationship more with God though a non-patriarchal God.

When I met my spirtiual teacher Amma, a Hindu Guru, I began to revere and acknowledge Jesus again. I even got Jesus posters, and a picture. I felt a connection to Jesus more than before. Perhaps it is because their teachings are so aligned? And Amma does indeed acknowledge Jesus.

I thought how funny it was I rediscovered Jesus through an Hindu guru.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Isn't that great? We're looking for truth and then find that that makes us understand Jesus. I must thank my Guru, Andrew Cohen, for opening my eyes to much of his mystery.

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Thanks, all for these sharings and insights here. David, I especially appreciate that transcription about the “transcending and excluding” and “transcending and including” aspects of integrating … And Advait, I love your story about re-finding Jesus through Amma … I stumbled back to Jesus via Marie LaVeau, a New Orleans voodoo queen ….  :-)

I thought I would share with y'all these related ideas on “integrating” and “history” from my daily contemplative reader – the “thoughts for the day” for both Aug. 10 and Aug. 11. They're from Father Thomas Keating's book, The Heart of the World:

There are those who know Christ beyond time as “the true light that enlightens everyone” (John 1:9). We must bring them the good news of Christ inside of time, so that all true seekers of God may experience his full embrace. However, we Christians must not cling too closely to the Christ inside of time. Rather, we must allow him to bring us to the knowledge of himself beyond time. We must know Jesus, not only in his beginning, but in his end, not only in his crib, but in his ascension. For we too have come from the bosom of the Father and must find our home there. Christ in his divine being is present in your heart, in mine, and in that of everyone, waiting to be resurrected there, so that he can share with us the divine life and love that circulates eternally in the Trinity …

Paul says, “While we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (2 Cor. 4:11). Thus, according to his view, the passion and resurrection of Christ are going on all the time. They are always present and not limited to an historical moment. It was rather an historical moment which introduced the eternal values of the cross and resurrection into the whole of time. We participate in Christ's divine life through baptism and the other sacraments. As a consequence, we must learn how to express the risen life of Jesus rather than our false selves in our conduct and relationships. To attain this union involves the transformation of our inmost being and all our faculties into the mind of Christ. This is the very fullness of salvation. The chief expression of the mind of Christ is found in the classical text of Philippians 2:5, 7-8: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus … emptied … humbled … obedient ….”

Salud,
Mary

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Bill: If there's a high enough percentage of stew people in a group, they'll tend to buffer the “one and only one type of vegetable please” people - but it's tough to rely on that as an organizational principle - because, on that fateful day when the balance of numbers shifts, the group will have a tendency to jump to “one vegetable” state, and explode off a batch of splinter sects.

Right, the stew folks are OK with openendedness, of all the pieces not fitting into the puzzle or pieces missing. OK with the current context dictating what is to be done next and not any fixed 'organizing principle' dictating the next action.

Re: the fateful day. All us stew guys can do is enjoy it while it lasts and realize how cool it is while it is happening.

(Visualization and simulation technology is good stuff, some of my all time favorites, pretty much universally effective. It probably sounds reductionistic the way I write it, but I was just being technically descriptive, basically saying “yeah, I get that.”.)

No problem, I quite enjoy your direct evenness. I have a BSEE so any tech talk is OK.

Currently integral is integrating religious insights that are expressable in words. Integrating religious practice seems a bit more difficult. Folks can't shake their grip off their favorite icons. I am sure there are small niches accomplishing it though. I have been to a few Unitarian gatherings but it seems more fluff than substance.

Here is a guy that is super versed in Buddhism and Advaita and even he treats them as two different languages.


love

e

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Jesus is waiting

love

Re: Why deny Jesus?

Thanks E,

Now I can rest

Re: Why deny Jesus?

I wanted to share this from friend Darren. He speaks with beautiful insights.

To think of the Bible's events as historical, and the characters recorded there as persons such as you and I, is to see truth tempered to the weakness of the human form, unable to stand the strong light of revelation. But I tell you: it is in us, as persons, that the nature of God is revealed. 

Paul tells us his conversion came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. It did not come through a man, thereby causing him to change religions. No. Paul never forsook Judaism, but interpreted the meaning of the Old Testament through revelation. But was Paul a person, an individual being such as you are, as I am; or is he, too, one of these eternal characters? That is the question I am asking tonight. 

I tell you: all of the characters of scripture, including Paul, are eternal states. One day, whether you be male or female, you will reach the state of Paul, and your journey in the world of death will come to its end. 

A friend of mine - a lady with two children and expecting her third - wrote, saying: “In vision I saw the Bible opened to the New Testament and heard the words: `You are Paul.' I was so startled I broke the vision and awoke questioning the words, `I am Paul? I am Paul? I am Paul?' The idea seemed too much for me to grasp, so I returned to sleep and the dream continued. I saw the entire New Testament opened at the Book of Matthew, then an invisible hand moved the pages through the Book of Revelation as I heard the words: `It's all about Paul,' So I ask you: Who is Paul?” 

Paul is a state you enter when, having been introduced to Christianity or Judaism, the secret behind the words is revealed. In the state of Paul, you discover you are the Lord Jesus Christ who is God the Father. It is Paul who says: “When it pleased God to reveal his son in me, I conferred not with flesh and blood.” When the vision is yours, to whom could you turn to ask what they thought of it? They would tell you that you were insane, so you would turn to no man; rather you would abide in the vision and dwell upon it. 

Paul's conversion did not change his religion, for he never forsook Judaism. His one disappointment was that he could not convince his fellow religionists of the truth of what had taken place in him. Paul represents every individual - be he male or female - who arrives at that point in time when he awakens to discover that the characters of scripture did not exist in time and space, but are eternal spiritual states, which the individual moves through toward the climax, which is Jesus Christ. 

The fundamental story of scripture is a metamorphosis - a complete change of form. Like the grub worm is transformed into the butterfly, so man - as we understand him - is turned into Jesus Christ. And when it happens in you, there is no one to whom you can turn. It is a fact you cannot deny. I could no more deny my experiences of Christ unfolding within me, than I can deny the fact that I am standing before you now. And I am not unique. Christ will unfold in every child born of woman. He must, for God cannot and will not fail to fulfill his promise in all. 

The word “Saul” means “to inquire; to ask.” Entering the state of Saul, you are questioning life - its purpose and plan. Is there a God? Why am I here? Saul's is a questing mind, one which is seeking an answer to the phenomena of life. 

Today is the wonderful Day of Atonement which came to its end at sundown with the singing of a great psalm in every synagogue which begins, “Awake O Sleeper who forgot eternity in the pursuit of the moment.” Having forgotten that we are all one in eternity, we are called upon to awaken, but awaken from what? From the pursuit of the moment. Then, in the eternal state called Paul, the story of Jesus will unfold in you, and you, too, will say: “From now on I regard no one from the human point of view; even though I once regarded Christ from the human point of view, I regard him thus no longer.” 

Like every Jew, Paul was looking for an external messiah, one who would come to be the anointed king and save Israel from the enemy. Then he discovered the messiah was within him and would never appear on the outside. Paul's thirteen letters were written twenty years before the Book of Mark, which was the first gospel; so Paul could not have quoted the New Testament, only the Old. 

He never converted in the sense of converting from Judaism to Christianity, or Catholicism to Protestantism. After the revelation, Paul understood that which was revealed to the prophets; for he discovered that the messiah which was to come, was himself, saying: “When it pleased God to reveal his son in me, I conferred not with flesh and blood.” 
There is a poem by Browning called “Saul,” in which David tells of the coming of the messiah, saying: 

” O Saul, it shall be a face like my face
That shall receive thee. A man like unto me thou shalt love,
And be loved by, forever. A hand like this hand shall open the door
To a new life for thee. See the Christ stand.” 

Standing before the demented king, David is telling Saul that when he sees Christ, he will wear the face of David. That he will love and be loved by him forever. Extending his hand, David tells Saul that this knowledge will open the gate to a new life; for David is the only Christ Saul will ever see. 

When Christ stands before you, he will wear the face of David and reveal you as the Lord God Jehovah. Then you will say: “Thou art my son, today I have begotten thee.” This will be the experience of every child born of woman; for awareness - although limited by a garment of flesh and blood, restricted and weak - is God, the father of all life, and there is no other God. 

Now, when Paul spoke of sin he wasn't speaking of a little misdemeanor, or even a big one. To Paul, if you are not radiating the glory of God and are not now the express image of his person, you are sinning and falling short of that glory. Only when you enter into the state called Paul, will you radiate God's glory and express his image; for it is in that state that David reveals you to yourself. 

Paul confessed to the Galatians that God sent his son into his heart crying “Father!” And now I tell you that when David stood before me and called me father, I saw him more vividly then I have ever seen anyone here. I can still see his heavenly beauty. I saw David in the year 1959, yet history claims he lived in 1000 B.C. But David is not my flesh and blood son; he is part of the unfolding picture of an eternal story in which man is involved. The story, as recorded in the Old Testament, was not understood until it unfolded within one who said: “I am a child of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee of the Pharisees.” Paul never forsook Judaism, but tried to interpret it to those who would listen, but they could not understand. They were - as they still are today - looking for a physical, external messiah to destroy their enemies and establish his kingdom in this world; but that is not the story. 

This eternal truth is housed in every being who walks the earth. One day you will find Christ as your very being. You who say “I am” before you state your name, will experience all of the eternal, spiritual states spoken of and named in scripture, to arrive at the final state called Paul. 

My friend knows she is Paul, for she heard the depth of her soul tell her so. To her the idea seemed incredulous; yet I tell her she heard correctly, for she has been called. She has been chosen and elected to be an incurrent eyewitness to the great truth which will unfold within her. 

The Paul of the Bible is a state everyone will attain. And while in that state, David will reveal your true identity. Enter any state and you become that state. While in the state of wealth, everything you touch turns to gold. In the state of success, you could turn a failing business into a successful one, for in the state of success you cannot fail. 

You are not a success or a failure, but the occupant of a state. Although you remain untouched by any state, when you enter one, you express it. Put yourself into the state of health, and you must express health. Enter the state of fame, and no power can stop you from expressing it. 

And when you enter the state of Paul, David will stand before you and say: “A face like my face shall receive you. A man like unto me thou shalt love and be loved by forever. A hand like this hand shall open the gate of a new life for you. See the Christ stand.” 

You will be looking into the face of David, the Lord's anointed; and when he calls you father, you know who you are, for “No one knows who the Father is except the son, and no one knows who the son is except the Father.” David, your son, sets you free; for he is the son of Jesse, the Bethlehemite, whose revealed name is I AM. Everyone who says, “I am,” is the Father of that eternal youth called David. Awake, O sleeper, and remember eternity, the son of Jesse, for only he can reveal you as God the Father. 

This is the greatest story ever told. It is an incredible story of a transformation, a metamorphosis. “Meta” means “change” and “morphos” means “form,” so metamorphosis means a radical change of form. This is true, for the being you are destined to be, could not function in a body of flesh and blood. 

You will move into an entirely new age. It is a new world, and in it you need a new form. The form is spirit, yet you have a human face, a human voice, and human hands. That is the form I saw when I stood in the presence of the Risen Lord and answered his question: “What is the greatest thing in the world?” in the words of Paul, as “Faith, hope and love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” 

At that moment he embraced me and I assumed his incredible form. Since that time we have not been separated or divorced, although while I wear the body of flesh and blood I must be subject to all of its weaknesses and limitations. But when I take it off this time, I will be one with that one body, who is gathering all. 

Everyone will be saved, because everyone is God and God is saving himself. At the present time you do not know you are God; but you will know it when you enter the state called Paul, for in that state the revelations unfold and you, too, will say: “I did not get it from a man. It came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. He unveiled himself in me as my very being. Now I know there is no other.” 

So I say to my friend: your revelation is true. You have been called and elected. You have been chosen - not by men, but by God, which is the definition of a saint in scripture. How could any man make another man a saint? The idea is stupid. When you are called, you are sainted. When you are elected, you are sainted. When you are chosen, you are sainted, and no man, looking at you, could ever see you as a saint. You are still capable of losing your temper and being violent. That means nothing. Be everything that you are, for you are already redeemed by reason of your experiences. 

If all things are possible to your imagination, then all things are possible to imagine! How would you act if God imagined you as you want to be? How would you feel? What would you do? Then do it. Feeling its reality, have faith in your imaginal act. Desire is your hope. Your imaginal act is your subjective appropriation of the hope you want to objectify. Now, faith is the link between God's power and your desire. He doesn't question your desire. He who is all creative power and know-how, simply gives it to you. That is Christ, he who is defined as the power of God and the wisdom of God. 

Now, if you test God and prove to yourself that imagination does create reality, tell others. If they try it and it works for them, does it really matter what the world thinks? If they think the idea is insane, it won't be the first time. They thought Einstein was insane. There are those who think I am. That's perfectly all right, for the day will come when God will reveal himself in each individual, and then that one will move from the state of Saul to Paul. 

There is no other God, for God became Man by assuming all of his human weaknesses and limitations. God is not pretending he is you. When he became your breath, he had to take your unique qualities upon himself. That was his crucifixion. Your body is the cross Christ wears. He is buried in you and will rise in you. His tomb is the human skull where he lays dreaming. So awake, you sleeper, who forgot eternity in the pursuit of the moment. Although this moment seems so real, you are its reality and the central being of scripture. 

The fundamental purpose of scripture is metamorphosis - the radical transformation of Man into God. And God has a son, formed by his experiences as the human imagination and personified as David of Biblical fame. David is he who is “A man after my own heart who will do all my will.” He is not a historical character, but an eternal state which appears at the end of your journey into the world of death. 

These characters of scripture,  they are all spiritual states personified. You will pass through these states to discover - through revelation - that you are the author of the Bible. Just imagine, Paul's letters came first. He called them “My gospel.” They are Paul's good news of salvation which came through revelation. Paul's thirteen letters were written first, and all the other books were based upon them; but who is

Paul? Everyone who enters the state of fulfillment. 
One day you will enter the state known as Paul; but right now you are Saul, seeking the cause of life, not knowing it is your very self. In the Books of Samuel and Kings, we are told that Saul tried to kill the very one who could reveal him to himself; but the revelation could not come until his name was changed to Paul. Even though, today you are very much a lady, you will eventually become the Paul of scripture. But in that realm, you are above the organization of sex, as Paul tells us: “In Christ there is no bond, no free, no male, no female, no Jew, no Greek, for all are one in Christ.” Your true identity is not male or female, but Man, and Man is God and God is Man, as Blake so beautifully put it: “Thou art a Man, God is no more, thine own Humanity learn to adore.” 

Tonight, set your hope fully upon this grace that is coming to you; for Christ in you is your hope of glory! Do you not realise that Jesus Christ is in you? Test yourself and see, for all things are possible to him. Think of something you would like that reason says you cannot have. Now, assume it's yours. 

Your assumption, though false in the sense that it is denied by your reasonable mind, if persisted in will harden into fact. You do not need to know the means that will be employed to bring your assumption to pass; all you are required to do is persist in your assumption and allow your own wonderful human imagination to give it to you. 

All things are possible to your imagination. It's up to you to provide the necessary link between your assumption and its fulfillment. That link is faith. Having assumed your desire is fulfilled, your faith in that assumption will cause it to harden into fact. That is the law. 

Test this law, and if you prove it in performance, it will not matter to you if it seems irrational to others. Tonight, leave Zaadz in the assumption that you are what you would like to be; and if tomorrow your assumption can be seen as fact by the world round about you, then you have found Christ, he who is within you as your hope of glory. 

Man is forever coming up with fantastic ideas like going to the moon. At the time, the idea seemed impossible, yet in time man does go to the moon. So you see, nothing is impossible to God - but nothing! 

Simply name that which seems so impossible to you, then assume that you have it. Walk in the assumption it is now an objective fact and see how God works. I tell you, in a way that you do not know, and you could not possibly devise, you will be led across a bridge of incident to the fulfillment of that state. All you have to do is ignore the evidence of your outer senses and go about your own wonderful business assuming the feeling of the wish fulfilled. Your assumption, instead of receding into the past, will advance into the future and you will walk right into its fulfillment. 

Accept what I am telling you tonight, and you will be on your way towards the state called Paul. He tried his best to persuade his own friends to believe what happened to him in the synagogue. Christianity is not a new religion, but the fulfillment of Judaism. It's as old as the faith of Abraham, older even than the synagogue. The promise was fulfilled in the state of Judaism, interpreted to Jews, who then organised it into a separate religion; but there could be no Christianity without Judaism. Many a Christian would like to divorce the two books and put the Old Testament aside; but there could be no New Testament without the Old, for the New is only the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. 

You are destined to be told - as the lady was - that you are Paul; and the chances are you will be just as shocked as she is, when she looks into the mirror and sees a mother and a mother-to-be, and a wife who may argue with her husband and be short of money once in a while. These weaknesses are part of your garment of flesh and blood; but at the end of time, your new body of love - woven without seams - will be ready for occupancy. Then you will take off this body of limitation and opacity and assume your new body of life. 

If, however, you have not reached the state of Paul, when you leave this body, you will find yourself in another one just like this one, in a section of time best suited for the work yet to be done in you. Don't think you are going to move chronologically from one year to the next, for it can be any year, be it the year 1000, or 3000. 

Whatever year you find yourself in, you will feel perfectly normal there, and things will seem quite natural. These bodies of death belong to this age; and regardless of what year you find yourself in, you will wear the same body of slavery, where you must perform all of its functions. No matter how powerful you may be, you cannot command anyone to perform your body's functions for you; therefore you are its slave while you remain in the state of Saul. Only when you move into the state of Paul, can the drama unfold and set you free. 

Don't think that you have to be the perfect specimen of a man, judged by human standards, to arrive in state of Paul. Although weak and limited as you are now, strive to know the truth of scripture; and one day, when you least expect it, you will find yourself cast in the central role, as everything said of Jesus Christ will unfold within you, and you will know who you are. 

If there is any Christ other than he who is in us, who rose and continues to rise in the individual, he is false; for the true Christ is within you. The universal, cosmic Christ became humanity. He rose and continues to rise in individuals. One day he will rise within you to reveal you as God the Father. The relationship of Father/Son was established before that the world was - only we forgot. This is simply the return of the memory of God, all within the individual