Do we know whether Jesus was a historical person? If we are honest, we would have to say that we don’t know. We cannot know. The historical data is far too sparse. There is hardly any mention of Jesus as a historical person outside of the Christian sources, and whatever support is found within these Christian sources is indirect at best.

There is also  a plethora of earlier non-Christian mythologies that are closely aligned with the Jesus story. So the Jesus story may be just another in a line of similar mythological stories, all reflecting important inner truths. Or if such a person as Jesus existed, it is likely that the version we have now is highly mythologized and influenced by these earlier stories.

The evidence for Jesus as a historical person would not hold up in a court of law, nor would it be close to convincing in the “hard” sciences.

Yet, most Christians, theologians and historians seem to assume that Jesus was a historical person. Few bring it up even as a topic. Why is it so? Why does it seem to be almost a taboo? A non-topic? Why do some even try to brush it away by calling the possibility of Jesus as a non-historical person a “thoroughly dead thesis” when the historical data is so sparse?

Are they concerned about the implications for Christianity? Are they concerned about questioning assumptions that are shaky in the first place? If so, the solution seems a simple one: Develop - or find - an approach to Christianity that does not depend on Jesus being a historical person. The Jesus story is a powerful story in itself, as a basis for religion, a source for ethical guidelines, and a reflection of an inner process we each may go through in different ways. None of that is dependent on a historical Jesus.

If religion is about truth and honesty, this seems to be one of the first places we need to be honest and truthful.

(more…)

Etsy artist podkaynestudios is helping us all get into the Christmas spirit. (Via Geekologie.)

Come, Most Holy Spirit Come, Spirit of Grace. Come Our Healer. Come Risen Lord. Come our beloved teacher.

Lord, my heart is in need of You. The depths of my heart cry out to You. I wish to open myself entirely to You. I desire that you penetrate me completely, that I belong to You. That you enter into my heart, that only you dwell there. I desire to love you eternally. Fill me with your Holy Love. Strengthen me and be with me always.

May your Holy Name be Praised.

I pray for you Lord, for every person, for every heart that is beating for You. Answer their prayers. Do not allow any of them to be lost. The life passes so quickly. Allow us to become aware of what is important, to not lose ourselves, but to gain You. You are the only center of our lives. Only with you can I know what and who I am.

Come, Lord. Come, Most Holy Spirit. My heart is waiting for you. Amen

Fr. Zlatko Sudac’s Prayer of Surrender.

I am impressed with the sincerity and maturity of the young Croatian mystic Zlatko Sudac.

Here is an interview with him from a few years back, and an English language website with information about retreats and more.

His message is very much aligned with that of other mystics:

God is something which surpasses any and all thoughts about Him. He surpasses our feelings, and even the state of our souls. It is impossible to speak about Him. The only way to communicate with God is to love God. We have to sink into God so that I no longer exist but God does. When I do this I don’t lose myself, but find myself in God. This can be understood only by those people who love God with all their heart, all their soul, and all their strength. If anyone sins, the only cause for all sins is the lack of love towards God and the lack of love for mankind and ourselves, that is the cause of all evils. If this wounded humanity would discover the formula of love, unconditional love, this life would be heaven on earth.

(more…)

I listened to a talk on Esoteric and Exoteric Christianity, and noticed that the speaker left out the theology and mystics from the Eastern Church.

Books on Christian mysticism sometimes do the same. We have to put a boundary somewhere of course, but leaving out the Eastern Church is unfortunate since they have a rich and fertile mystical tradition.

(more…)

I have read a few portions of Karen Armstrong’s The Bible so far, and found the history of Christian fundamentalism especially interesting.

(Listen to an interview and read the preface at NPR, and read an interview and review in The Guardian.)

One antidote to religious fundamentalism is knowledge of the history of our religion and its scriptures. Another important antidote is knowledge of how the faithful have viewed our religion and sacred texts through the times. Both are fluid, always changing, so why assume that the views (and versions of the scriptures) we have today is the final word or somehow privileged in terms of validity?

Why, for instance, is this early Bible so different from our contemporary versions? And isn’t it interesting that Christian fundamentalism, as we know it today, is a relatively new invention - from the 1800s?

(more…)

From New York Times today:

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

Of course, the Jesus story has parallels with not only Jewish myths, but also myths from other earlier traditions of that time and region.

Some examples are given in The Jesus Mysteries by Tim Freke and Peter Gandi where they outline the following parallels of the Osiris-Dionysus and Jesus stories:

• Osiris-Dionysus is God made flesh, the savior and “Son of God.”
• His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin.
• He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds.
• He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.
• He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony.
• He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him.
• He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
• After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory.
• His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
• His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.

Why is it so? The obvious answer is that the Jesus myth picked up elements of existing myths to make it more familiar to the people of the time.

But another answer, as Freke and Gandi points out, is that these stories are about an inner truth more than an outer - historic - truth. They reflect an inner process of growing and waking up.

And that is why similar story elements not only appear in traditions of that place and time, but around the world in many different cultures, and also in dreams and visions of people today.

None of this really touch whether Jesus was a historic figure or not. He may well have been, and the specific events of his life may or may not have followed the lines of the Jesus story as we know it today.

(more…)

The topic of Bernadette Roberts came up again, or I could say the conundrum (See the comments of that post.)

To me, it seems that her descriptions of her own path and awakenings are beautiful and clear, quite similar to what have happened here at different times, and what has been described by mystics from many traditions.

For instance, she differentiates between oneness/unity, where there is a sense of an I one with God/all, and selflessness, where there is a release of identification with a sense of I and Other. And that is awakening 101, found among mystics of each of the traditions, experienced by many today as well, and something we can investigate for ourselves using tools such as the Big Mind process, headless experiments and investigating the sense fields.

(For me, there was first a shift into realized selflessness awakening, coming out of the blue, after consuming a great deal of alcohol one time and then being “absorbed into” the witness for about a year. Then, after some months, a shift into a oneness/unity state, which lasted for several years. Then a dark night for a few years. Then a gradual emerging of the oneness state, then a realized selflessness phase for a few months, and now a oneness phase again where things are worked through some more.)

But when she talks about the different traditions, it seems that very few of the ones familiar with them would agree with how she describes them. Sometimes, it seems that her take on them are 180 degrees turned from what you would actually find there. To me at least, she seems to use a straw man argument, fighting windmills and imaginary foes - as I described in the initial post.

But that is only one possibility, and the other is that I have got it completely wrong. Which is of course true anyway. Any story such as these is just a story, more or less accurate in a conventional sense, and also having nothing to do with what it appears to refer to in another sense.

What it comes down to is its effectiveness as a teaching strategy and pointers for own investigation. How effective is her take on it as a teaching strategy? And how effective is it as a pointer for own practice?

And then finally what this is really all about: a mirror for myself. In what ways do I do exactly what I see in her? When do I overgeneralize? When do I use straw man arguments? When am I blinded by my own stories about something?

Note: See this inquiry for how I worked with one of my hangups around this.

Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow are back in Oregon, giving a string of presentations in early April.

They will be in Roseburg April 9, Eugene April 10, Portland April 12 and 13, and Salem on the 16th.

If you happen to live around here, it is well worth attending. They are both amazing speakers in the area of evolution and spirituality, and Michael often uses the aqal framework to organize his presentations.

If you live somewhere else in the US, you can find their schedule on the Thank God for Evolution website, where you will also find audio and video snippets.

Buddhism and Christianity both use a “pointing beyond itself” analogy.

In Buddhism, it is the finger pointing to the moon. The teacher, teachings and practices point beyond themselves to what we really are, this awakeness with a content which is awakeness itself. Don’t mistake the finger for the moon.

In Christianity, it is the humility to realize that it is all from God. Nothing happens here which is not from God.

This also shows where the traditional teachings sometimes don’t go quite as far as they can.

In Buddhism, it is not only the teacher/teachings that are the finger pointing to the moon. It is also this human self. When it points to itself as the final truth of what it really is, it is deluded. When it notices that it is already and always pointing to awakeness as what it really is, it is awakened.

In Christianity, it is not only that I as a human being give all credit to God. It is also that God is all there is. It may appear that there is a human being here, with a separate I, but there is nothing but God. There is no separate I here, only God.

In both cases, this human self becomes a finger pointing beyond itself.

And this shift has to be thorough for it to be real. For this human self to really notice what is already and always is.

(Leonardo’s beautiful painting of St. John the Baptist shows him pointing up. He has to point somewhere, so it may as well be up. But it is really in all and no directions.)

Any tool is fair game, as long as it works and seems appropriate to the situation.

Many nondual folks are familiar with contemplative prayer, visualizations, heart prayer, Christ meditation and similar forms on prayer where a receptivity to and invitation in of the soul level is the main emphasis, possibly shifting into realized selflessness in glimpses or more thoroughly.

The more common forms of prayer, those where we ask about something specific, also have their place. They are a part of any comprehensive toolbox. They can be used as in Buddhism, to ask for awakening for the benefit of all beings. This sets a clear intention, which in turn helps reorganize and align our human self with this path and may even have effects beyond that.

And of course, prayers for the health and well-being of ourselves and others have their place. Again, they help realign ourselves with that intention. And it opens our heart. It opens for a sincere well-wishing for ourselves and others. And both of those spill over into our actions.

As with visualizations, these forms of prayer may (or may not) have an effect beyond how it works on us, in how the world shows up on its own.

In either case, the effect it has on us is more than enough reason to sometimes engage in them.

They set a clear intention for ourselves. They help realign us with that intention. They open our heart. They open for sincere well-wishing for ourselves and others.

And sometimes, especially in extreme situations, they may be comforting if that is what we need.

(And if not, if we are invited into being wholeheartedly with what is coming up and we use these forms of prayers as an escape, they - and anything else we do to try to escape - are likely to not work.)

Interesting quote posted at Indistinct Union:

John Polkinghorne, a physicist and a priest, has put it this way: “God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves.” That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God’s presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ’s kingdom.

Is it only me that sees this as more creepy than attractive? If this is all there is to it, I am tempted to say count me out.

(It is also another example of someone entertaining themselves with their thinking, creating imaginations that gives some temporary comfort. Nothing wrong in that, but it is good to be honest about it.)

But as usual, we can also find it here now.

This timeless now that everything happens within is Christ’s Kingdom. And when I notice that, its content - this human self and its surroundings, or Kosmos if we want to be grand - is noticed as already and always fresh, new, stainless, pure.

So in that case, count me in.

(more…)

I thought this was cute. Why not look good for Jesus?

Seems that it would be part of any comprehensive and integral approach

And it is always interesting to explore where I find the genuine truth in this, for myself. Where do I find the genuine truth in looking good for Jesus?

For me, it has to do with inviting guests.

Any content of awareness is a guest, so if we take a visit by Jesus to happen within content of awareness, we can invite it in.

We can do certain (second person) practices, find receptivity of the three centers, and more. We can invite Jesus in as alive presence in its many forms such just alive presence, or its aspect of luminosity, or infinite love, or wisdom, or the fiery heart quality I find when I do Christian practices, or for others, maybe as a vision or a voice, or something else. Or just the good old taste of an open heart at our human level.

And if we take Jesus, or Christ, or the combination, to be a noticing of what we are (that which experiences happens within, to and as), then that is also something that can be invited in. We can prepare the situation, as best as we can. And that guest may come as well, or not.

So by inviting in Jesus as any or all of these guests, we want to look our best. We want to look good for Jesus, inviting him in for a visit.

Of course, Jesus, as anything else, lives his own life, on his own schedule. And that is also part of the game.

I am reading in a couple of books by Tim Freke and Peter Gandy on gnostic Christianity, where the basic message is that the Jesus story is a teaching story, a reflection of our own path, a reflection of who and what we really are.

On the bus this afternoon, as I was exploring this for myself, a woman in front of me turned around and asked with great sincerity are you Jesus?

I laughed and said “no” with the message that the conversation was over right there, although she continued with a few questions.

Of course, according to gnostic Christianity, I am Jesus. We all are. The Jesus story mirrors each one of us.

What happened is also another example of living the dream. In this case, the dream of having people showing up at my door expecting me to be able to help them, and me just brushing them off and wanting them to go away.

In the case of the woman on the bus, I could have mentioned that whatever you see in Jesus are qualities you can find in yourself. It would be true, and maybe invited her to explore it for herself. In any case, it would be more friendly than a simple “no” followed by nothing.

I am living that dream in other situations too. What happened on the bus is far from the only time a stranger comes up to me expecting me to have some special insights, and I tend to respond the same way as in the dream, brushing them off.

I started reading The Laughing Jesus today, and have also placed a hold at the library on a few other books by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. (Thanks to Peter at the excellent The Seer blog for introducing me to them!)

The book helps differentiate inner and outer truths of Christianty, first going through the outer truths about Jesus and early Christianity, and then the inner truth of the early gnostics and gnostics, or mystics, anywhere. The basics of both is familiar to me, but it is presented in a very clear and insightful way, have some angles that are new to me, and is a joy to read.

In terms of the outer truths of Christianity, it shows the parallels between the early gnostic stories of the God man and the life story of Jesus, the lack of historical evidence for Jesus ever having existed in flesh and blood, and examples of the literalist interpretation of Christianity came into being through the usual politics.

(From the little I know of mainstream scholarship on this subject, it seems that their basic thesis is not too far off, but I am sure there are different takes on many of the details. This is not a book for those interested in exact and nuanced scholarship, and that is not the point of the book either.)

The inner truths of Christianity is that of mystics anywhere and any time, and I am reminded of Douglas Harding and the headless experiments in the simple and elegant ways Freke and Gandy write about it.

Finally, the book is a reminder of looking for the inner truth of any spiritual or religious story, independent of its outer or historical truth (or, most often, lack thereof). The historical truth has historical interest, which is well and fine. But the inner truth is about who and what we are, here and now.

It is better if they differentiate history and teaching stories. (From a dinner conversation with friends yesterday, where they got into talking about some of the non-Biblical scriptures such as the gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene.)

(more…)

Another, briefer, one with some of the same main points.

I just discovered Timothy Freke, a modern gnostic. He reminds me quite a bit about Douglas Harding (the headless guy) and not just because they both are British.

In Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God, an opinion piece in New York Times, two books on that topic are reviewed. They seem to share a conventional Christian theological approach to the topic, the view that there is no good solution to the question of why a good God allows evil in the world, and they also share not going much further.

Within the conventional Christian views on this topic, we end up beating our heads against the wall. So the reasonable course of action would then be to go outside of this context and see what we can find there.

Why not look at why the Christian mystics have to say about the topic? What about other philosophies and religions? And maybe most importantly, why not explore it in your own experience?

Even a superficial inquiry into our own experience would tell us that (a) good and evil are human-made and culturally dependent concepts, and (b) suffering comes when our stories about what is and should be clash.

In a way, it is so obvious and so simple that it is easy to dismiss. We may notice it, explore it to some extent, and then tell ourselves that there has to be more to it than that. It cannot be that simple. And there may also be a fear that embracing this fully would lead to a breakdown of any shared norms into anarchy, nihilism, the worst forms of value relativism.

Exploring it a little further for ourselves, we find a freedom from identification with particular views, which is also a freedom to apply any view as seem appropriate to the situation. With this release of identification with views, the appearance of substance and inherent truth in views goes out, there is no need to defend or attack the truth of views anymore, and they appear as tools of limited and practical value only. We can allow ourselves to be guided by our experience and the natural empathy that arises when there is this release from identification with views, and freely and fluidly use any view that has practical value in a particular situation.

Ten questions about Buddhism from christiananswers.net, and what comes up for me around it…

1. If there is no personal God, and if one can attain nirvana only as a result of the destruction of thirst (tanha) / desire, therefore the destruction of attachment, therefore the destruction of existence–from whence, do you suppose, did personality (or even the sense of personality) ever come? Exactly what is it, and where does it go when one ceases to exist?
   • All of these questions is something we each have to explore for ourselves, in what is here now.
   • What I find for myself is that a sense of I and Other comes from beliefs (rigid identification with stories and identities, and a disowning of the truth of their reversals), and this is what creates a sense of a separate self, and of separation, which - for all its juiciness and wonderful gifts - in turn brings a sense of something missing and of dissatisfaction.
   • The human self and its personality does not really have much to do with all of this, apart from being something that we conveniently anchor this sense of a separate self in. It is an intrinsic part of the world of form, as long as it is around, inherently and already absent of an I with an Other.
   • Of course, we can also talk about a soul level, often experienced as an alive presence, which can pass from human form to human form through death and birth, and while the first part of it (ourselves as alive presence) is something we can notice here and now, the second part is more speculative and comes from a story.
2. Without a personal God, on what basis can there ever exist any human moral standard or ethic–and therefore, in what sense do you mean for us to understand the terms noble and truth, i.e. The Four Noble Truths, or the term right in the eight-fold path of right views, resolve, speech, conduct, occupation, efforts, awareness, and meditation?
   • Good question! It is one that has many layers to it, and probably continues to unfold as we explore it through life.
   • No story has an absolute truth to it. It is always limited, and have a temporary, practical and pragmatic value only. It is a tool for our human self to function and operate in the world.
   • At the same time, when we bring in the heart, we naturally want to support life. This human self is part of life, and as it matures our circles of care, concern and compassion tends to widen to include more and more of life, until nothing and no-one is left out. And this heart is our guidance, telling us which stories and which actions in the world are most likely to support life, based on whatever experience and practical wisdom we may have gained through our life so far.
   • Since our heart is not always so open or available, it is good to have some more formal guidelines as well, such as the golden rule, the ten commandment, the various Buddhist precepts, and so on. There is no absolute truth in any of them, but they do have an important practical function in reducing suffering and increasing the likelihood of happiness for ourselves and others.
   • The four noble truths are also relative truths, since they are expressed in the form of stories, and they are noble because they reflect a direct insight that comes through awakening, and can also guide us towards that awakening. (When this awakeness here now awakens to itself, and thoughts are seen as just thoughts.)
   • The eight paths of the eightfold path are similarly right in a limited and practical sense. If you want to awaken, then they are useful guidelines to follow. If not, then they are not right for you. It all depends on your goals and motivation.
3. If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation–what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching? Why do you suppose that you, of all humankind, were the one to come on this insight when you did?
   • I don’t see Buddhism as alone representing truth and liberation. On the contrary, people from a wide range of traditions and cultures have expressed similar insights as those expressed in Buddhism, including many Christian saints and mystics. If Buddhism points to anything that is real and available to be discovered, then it is available to anyone independent of tradition or culture. There is no need to adhere to Buddhism to notice these things, Buddhism is just one of many collections of pointers and practices that can help you notice it for yourself.
4. If, as you are reported to have said, nirvana is “beyond…good and evil”, then, in the ultimate sense, there is really no difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa, or between helping an old lady across the street and running her down–correct?
   • One answer is: yes, that is true. It is all expressions of life, of existence, of the world of form, which is inherently free from stories of good and bad, right and wrong, and so on.
   • The other, more practical, answer is: wrong, that is a misconception. In our daily life, it makes a big difference if you support or take life. It makes a big practical difference. One leads to suffering for yourself and others, and the other leads to alleviation of suffering and maybe even some happiness.
   • When the ultimate answer is realized in immediate awareness, it is liberation. But if it is merely believed in at the story level and used to justify actions, it becomes poison. That’s why ethics are so strongly emphasized in Buddhism, to prevent those confusions.
   • The ultimate answer is something we each can discover for ourselves, and it then becomes a new context for the more practical answer. And the practical answer stays the same whether we have realized the ultimate answer or not.
5. Thich Nhat Hanh, bodhisattva (holy man) and author of Living Buddha, Living Christ © 1995 by Riverhead Books, attempts to homogenize Buddhism and Christianity. Though you never knew of Jesus Christ, it would seem that you too might suggest that one could conceivably be a “Christian Buddhist”. Yet how could that ever be possible given Christianity’s categorical differences with Buddhism on matters like the nature of sin, reincarnation, and salvation–to name just a few. Jesus claimed to be the Truth. The Christian Scripture says that “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
   
   • See another post on this topic.
   • It all depends on what aspects of the different traditions we emphasize.
   • If we take the typical theology of Christianity as our base, then we cannot combine the two, apart from maybe using some insights and practices from Buddhism as practical tools within a mainly Christian life. (Which can be very helpful for some people.)
   • If we take the Buddhist philosophy as our base, then Christ is seen as an awakened one, a Buddha, and we look beyond the theology to find shared insights and expressions of awakening. As in the previous example, we can also find insights and practices from Christianity very helpful within a mainly Buddhist context.
   • And we can also look at the insights of the mystics of Christianity, and find a close alignment between what they describe and express and what Buddhist teachers describe and express. At the mystical level, there is a difference in flavor, but a description of what looks like the same.
6. How do you feel about the many variations of your teaching that have evolved down through the years? Please comment on Theravada (38%), Mahayana (56%), Tantrism or Vajranaya, Tibetan (6%; Dalai Lama), and Zen Buddhism?
   • I find it to be a beautiful diversity, formed by time and culture and what is appropriate to people in different cultures and different times. Buddhism is often described as similar to water: it can be poured into any vessel (culture, circumstances), and take the form of the vessel.
   • I have personally benefited greatly from insights and practices from Varjayana, Zen and Theravada traditions.
7. Chuck Stanford says: “Like cloudy water, our minds are basically pure and clear, but sometimes they become cloudy from the storms of discursive thoughts. Just like water, if we let our minds sit undisturbed the mud and muck will eventually settle to the bottom. Once this happens we can begin to get in touch with our basic goodness. It is through this basic goodness that the Buddha discovered that we can lead sane lives.” But, Mr. Gautama, what if you are wrong about our being basically good? The Bible says that we’re conceived in sin. What if there is a personal God to whom we will all one day answer? What if your enlightenment (awakening) was really only a dream?
   • There are many possible answers to this.
   • One that made sense to me in my childhood (long before I got interested in Buddhism), and still does, is that to me, the main part is to live a life that supports life. If God has any problem with that, then too bad
   • Another answer, which only makes sense within a certain context, is that an awakening is to our timeless nature, which contains space & time and the world of form, and this world of form is no other than our timeless nature. Here, sin is seen as just an idea overlaid on this field of awakeness and form. But, as I said, this only makes sense when it is realized, and it is not meant as an argument at the level of stories.
8. In the film Beyond Rangoon Laura’s guide says that the (Buddhist) Burmese expect suffering, not happiness. When happiness comes, it is to be enjoyed as a gift, but with the awareness that it will soon certainly pass. If the ultimate Buddhist hope is to just leave the present wheel of birth and rebirth and enter into the ineffable bliss of Nirvana, where is the motivation to do good, and to actively oppose injustice, in this present life?
   • Well, these days the Burmese monks certainly demonstrate a strong motivation to oppose injustice, in an active and engaged way, even to the point of sacrificing ones life for it.
   • The two are not opposed, and are, in a sense, intimately linked. The “escape” is only an escape from blind and unquestioned beliefs and identities, and actually allows for a more full and juicy embrace of our life, including opposing injustice when the situation calls for it. (See other posts for more on this topic.)
9. How do we reconcile the Dalai Lama’s observation that “Every human being has the potential to create happiness”, with your own teaching that suffering is caused by desire? If one sets out to resist desire, why would one ever then entertain the desire for happiness, and thus work to create it?
   • Good question, again!
   • Teachings are aimed at different levels, and sometimes seem contradictory.
   • Also, Buddhism talks about the desire for awakening, and happiness and release from suffering, as the golden chain. It is still a chain (a desire coming from a mistaken identification), but it is a chain that can lead to a release from this chain.
10. Personal Trivia: Did you really sit under that bo tree for seven full days–without ever eating any figs? Did your remarkably sensitive, compassionate, nature come more from your mother or father? How did your son, left to grow up without a father, feel about your “Great Renunciation”?
    • Well, I didn’t. But I can imagine into his situation.
    • One thing I imagine is that his family probably didn’t like it very much, and that Gautama Buddha felt a great deal of tenderness for his family because of it. It may even have been one of his motivations for deepen into his practice, and later his teaching. He would probably, I imagine, have been very open about this and not tried to explain it away. Sometimes we have to make hard decisions, and others would have chosen differently.
    • Btw: There seems to be a parallel with Jesus here. Didn’t he even encourage his disciples to leave his families behind? (Fortunately, this is not a requirement for neither Buddhist nor Christians today, unless we commit to a lengthy solitary practice.)

Many combine Christianity and Buddhism in different ways these days, and it is interesting to explore some of the ways this happens.

It is of course possible to combine the two in a superficial way, without looking too much at the clashes between the philosophy of Buddhism and the mainstream theology of Christianity. But if we take it more seriously, we need at some point to reconcile the two in a more thorough way, and this usually happens through giving priority to one or the other.

We can give priority to the mainstream theology of Christianity, with its assumptions of the reality of a separate self and soul, and use whatever is useful in Buddhism within this context. Often, this means using some of the Buddhist practices for clarity of mind or for opening the heart.

We can give priority to Buddhism, with its emphasis on the inherent absence of a separate self anywhere, and use Christianity within this context. For instance, we can use Christian forms of prayer and meditation emphasizing the heart and embodiment. (In my own experience, the quality of heart awakening through Christian practices have a flavor quite distinct from that of Buddhism.)

Or we can give priority to the mystic’s view of Christianity, which already is pretty much aligned with the philosophy of Buddhism. Some Christian mystics describe oneness, a separate self one with God and all there is, but there are certainly many others who describe realized selflessness, as in Buddhism. In this case, there is a nice alignment of the philosophy and descriptions in both traditions, and we are free to use practices from both as well.

A documentary which shows the journey of Christianity from flavored by amber (fundamentalist, authoritarian, ethnocentric) and earlier to orange (science, rationality, early worldcentric) and beyond.

For someone like me who grew up in a culture that is heavily orange, green and beyond, and where the church is mostly the same, there is nothing new in the approach of this documentary. We learned mostly about the historical aspects of the Bible and Christianity in school, including the authoring of the various parts of the Bible, the politics of selecting the final books, translation issues, and so on.

And since the culture is at orange/green+, this approach was taken for granted… maybe too much so, since there is now an influx of people there who has more of an amber minus background, which creates conflicts and problems they were - and are - not prepared to deal with.

It is still interesting to watch, and maybe especially because it is also a personal journey for the presenter, from amber to orange+ Christianity.

Thanks to Educational Television for finding and posting it!

Purgatory is a fiery purification, and have elements of both heaven and hell.

And that is an accurate description, at least in my experience, of the practice of being with experiences, as we do in Shikantaza (sitting practice) or by asking ourselves in daily life can I be with what I am experiencing right now?

It is especially accurate when the content of our experiences are intense, such as strong pain or emotions. The content of our experiences, including any resistance to experiences, are allowed to arise as they are, without or with less identification, and this allows a habitual pattern of identification with them to burn through.

The fiery hellish elements is the fire of the intensity of the content, and the blissful heavenly elements is the bliss of fully allowing any experience, independent of its content. Together, there is the purification of purgatory.

When we worked with the Hebrew letters on Sunday, sounding and visualizing them above the head and at the three soul centers, we used letters with tongues of fire above them.

It reminded me of one of the most surprising experiences in my life. In the years following my initial awakening, I did did the heart prayer and Christ meditations and visualizations along with a more Buddhist practice, and along with everything else happening, I noticed an unusually intense activity on the crown on my head. The awakening also allowed me to see energies, and as I happened to walk past a mirror following an especially alive Christ meditation, I saw a flame on top of my head.

It was hugely surprising to me as it seemed to reflect the descriptions in Acts, which I up until then had taken as purely metaphorical. Now, it seemed that it was far more than metaphorical. The tongues of fire is a literal description of what happens when we connect with the Christ consciousness and energy. There are literally tongues of fire, energetically, activated at the top of our heads, and visible in our energy systems.

I am also surprised by drawings and paintings such as the one above. It is just about exactly what I saw, and see whenever I immerse myself in Christ practices. Have these artists seen it for themselves? Do they intuit or sense it? Do they base it one representations made by others who have seen it? It is probably a combination, and different for each artist. But it is still surprising, and beautiful.

The Gospel of Thomas is known to be more esoteric (in the sense of reflecting a mystic’s approach) and closer to Eastern philosophies than many of the other gospels, both those included in the New Testament and not.

One of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas is…

What you do not have within you will kill you.

This seems closely related to the being eaten by time vs. eating time topic. And it is another topic that can be explored with the Big Mind process, even if what is (Big Mind, Buddha Mind, Spirit) has not yet completely awakened to its own nature.

Identification as a fragment

If there is an identification as a fragment of what is, then whatever is “other” can (and eventually will) harm me - at least in my own experience.

Identification as Witness

If there is a belief in the thought I, now referring to Witness, to pure awareness, then I find myself as a mirror for the world of phenomena. The world of phenomena, including this human self and anything else, is arising within me and I am not touched by it, I am stainless. The world of phenomena is a seamless whole, including this human self and anything else. It is absent of I and Other. There is nothing outside of me to harm me.

But there is still a belief in the thought I, which does create a sense of Other. I am pure awareness, the world of phenomena is Other. There is a subtle sense of subject and object. There is still an identification with a fragment, even if this fragment is timeless and pure awareness. There may be an experience of oneness, intimacy and no separation with all there is, yet within a context of a(n apparently) subtle I and Other. So there is still something outside of me which can harm me, and it will so I can have an opportunity to see this.

If there is stuckness here, there can be a fall from grace allowing the remaining belief in the thought I to wear down and off (the dark night of the soul). Immediate experience is out of alignment with the belief in the thought I, so existence shakes things up to allow even this belief to erode and fall away.

Absent of beliefs

When there is an absence of belief in thoughts, including the thought I, there is really no inside or outside, no subtle I remaining to create a sense of a subtle Other. It all is, as it is. Or we can say that the whole field is I, beyond any sense of subject or object. There is nothing outside to harm, and no “me” to be harmed. It is all just emptiness dancing.

Projections

Another way to look at this is in terms of projections. Whenever something is perceived as only or mostly “out there”, there is a blind projection going on, and this can and will (apparently) harm me.

There is a belief in a set of thoughts, creating an identity, and whatever does not fit into this identity is experienced as “Other”. As long as these are seen as Other, there will be a sense of struggle, a sense of war with what is, an experience of stress and even suffering.

As what is seen as Other is gradually included in I or me, there is a gradual and progressive sense of wholeness, of being at home, of being at peace with what is.

I used to focus on heart centered practices - mainly the heart prayer, Christ meditation (visualizing Christ in the heart and about 5 feet away in all six directions), and gratitude (for everything happening, through for instance repeating the word “thanks” as a mantra) - and it seems that they are slowly coming back. There is a quite different embodiment that comes from heart-centered practices, a different sense of engagement in the world.

There are many ways of talking about this, and I am only scratching the surface here as with everything else (and am obviously far behind many others who have explored this).

Where inquiry and basic sitting practice gives insight and clarity, heart-centeredness gives engagement. The first is a zero/first person relationship with God, and the second a second person relationship with God. One gives the context, the other the content. One gives clarity and space, the other fullness and richness. One gives equanimity, the other joy, gratitude and compassion.

And both seem needed, at least in my case.

There is a continuing deepening into the heart and living from the heart possible, before and after a nondual awakening.

The mystical (practical spiritual) movements within all of the world’s major religions all seem to be able to lead people into an awakening into Big Mind. But there are some differences in emphasis. For instance, it seems that the Buddhist awakening emphasizes clarity and wisdom, although the compassionate aspect is strong. And it seems that the awakening through Christianity and Islam (Sufism) emphasizes the fullness and richness of love and compassion. Buddhism may be more head-centered, and Christianity and Islam more heart-centered. Within Big Mind/Heart, Buddhism may emphasize Big Mind, and Christianity and Islam Big Heart. Buddhism may be more yang, Christianity and Islam more yin. And together, there is an even richer experience.