Jesus in Context – April 6, 2007

Things are moving along slowly here – it is bitter cold, but we haven't had much more accumulation. I have been spending most of my time typing up these old journals; my I used to write an awful lot every day! How did I find so much time? I suppose now I just waste that same time each morning. Anyway, this next installment is missing several pages of its beginning – I've looked all over and can't figure out what I could possible have written on. Sorry! The next journal begins with a statement that I'd already been writing for 4 hours that morning, and then I still went on and on . . . well, you'll see.

April 6, 2007

[First part missing, as I had to switch to new journal]

What context was Jesus born into? If he was one of many wise souls that for whatever reason – perhaps living many lives, perhaps never having fully parted from the Source, whatever – he was born wiser than other men. But instead of being born into a context of shamanism – where he would have believed himself able to communicate with spirits – or Hinduism – where he would have believed himself at the end of many lives full of learning, or Buddhism – where he would have believed himself less attached, or Taoism – where he would have felt himself in closer harmony with the Tao, he was born into the context of Judaism. And Judaism would have – did – provide him with a history of prophets who spoke for Yahweh, who had come to be understood as the One God, one that had a special relationship with the Jews. And he would have been taught the tradition of the Messiah, one who would come and save the people.

And so when he came to understand himself as different, when he saw answers to dilemmas so clearly, when he felt his close tie to the Source, the Infinite Absolute, he would have interpreted that through the tools given him by his culture.

The compassion he felt for others was surely the loving God he'd been taught to adore. Being a wise soul, close to the Source, he knew the same things Sidhartha, Lao-tzu, Patanjali and the other Hindus knew. He had the same vision of what people were and what they needed to do, how they needed to feel. They all say the same things because they are all right. They are just seeing it through different filters, and they are only able, or they choose, to communicate that same message in culturally appropriate ways.

To bring this rambling discussion home to where it started, the text (Tao te Ching, 72) says "Therefore the Master steps back so that people won't be confused. He teaches without a teaching so that people will have nothing to learn." So there may be many other people born close to the Source, but they lived their lives and were examples to those they met, but they never collected a following, never had their sayings recorded, because they didn't say anything. They knew not to provide the people with anything to learn.

Jesus, in addition to being born into a time that sorely needed some direction (maybe – but there were other times that were worse) was born into a tradition in which those who spoke to god
said they did. Where god's talking or connecting to someone was interpreted as a lesson. There must be a reason for such a person to exist. So Jesus would "naturally" have understood his closeness to God as a reason for him to speak to people.

I also think this fits with my image of Jesus from the gospels as someone searching for his identity. Why was he so close to God? Why did God's love pour through him and out to others so easily? When he asks "Who do you say that I am?" I believe he's trying to understand himself, not teach a lesson.

So is it a bad thing to have a teaching? Looked at objectively, I think you have to conclude "yes." Look at what's happened as a result of Jesus' teaching. So much blood shed. So much hatred spewed. So much knowledge lost. Of course Christians will say that is highly regrettable, and some will say "but Jesus words must be followed!" And of course, each are referring to a different set of words. And don't forget, there will be rewards in heaven for those who were mistreated or faithful despite their spilled blood. Does the good done in Jesus' name make up for it? I kind of doubt it, because, as Lao-tzu says, if you just leave people alone, they'll mostly be good. People would have had these generous, kind and loving impulses anyway.

To be fair, Jesus may have ralized that. He didn't write a book, after all. He didn't give people verses to memorize. Or even rules to follow! Wow. No, he left a group of people that he had taght. And in fact, he tells people that others will convert because of your example, not your words. He said he left himself in the people, as they would now love one another and be close the Source themselves.

And it seems like the apostles really tried. They did live in communes, sharing equally. Their love for one another and their peaceful co-existence drew converts. They taught without a teaching.

Who was it who decided to travel around spreading the word? The very first was probably some one else, because a lot didn't want to just live quietly; it was Good News and they wanted to share it. But there is no argument that it was Paul who did most of the spreading. He is the one who wrote letters, who made it a "teaching." And his friend then wrote more of the history. Paul, who never met Jesus. Paul, who was hungry for the Truth, but perhaps never really knew it. If this is even remotely true, it is really sad.

Another thing, though sages are supposed to be silent, some in each tradition haven't been, or we wouldn't have any of their sayings. But – I think because of the tradition within which it was interpreted, not what Jesus actually said – the teachings of Jesus have inspired more hatred and diviseviness than any other holy text. That's partly because of scale – more people have read or heard the Bible than, say the texts of Zoroaster, which I haven't read but I get the impression might inspire quite a lot of division.

But think of the Pali Canon, the Tao te Ching and the I Ching. The Ramayana, the Bhagavad Gita and the other Gitas, the Upanishads. Except for the story parts, all of these texts say "See for yourself." It is only the Semitic texts that claim they represent the ONLY truth, that you must believe them on faith alone, and that if you don't, you are utterly outcast. And only the Christian interpretation says that the punishment is for everyone and will be eternal.

The teachings of all the other close-to-the-Source people say or imply that there are other paths to the center, but this one works. How do you know it works? Because you try it. This is why I believe Jesus' words have been changed. Even when I consider his context, and the fact that he, like Buddha Gotama, may have considered himself the only one close to God/It. Even so, I think Jesus believed the others could become like him. I believe that from the words we have, reputed to be his, from the texts. If he hadn't believed in them, and in the power of his message, why would he bother trying to teach them anything?

So with a verse like, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life . . . "I believe Jesus meant the above. By that point he was a bridge. But he wanted them to BE like him in the important ways, and he wasn't saying there were NO other ways. He might actually have said "there is no other way to the Father but by me," and meant there is no quick way, no short cuts, because he knew human nature, and knew we would want something easy.

The translator's notes [for the Tao te Ching] say: "Therefore the Master steps back"; he doesn't act as guru or Messiah, because he doesn't want to keep people dependent on him, and thus spiritually immature. When people start to treat him like a holy man, he nips their adoration in the bud and points them to their inner messiah.

Ha! I'm so smart! I'd have to check the gospels, but it seems to me that some of the things Jesus said might be interpreted that way, if you can strip away the interpretation in which they have been embedded which assume he's a Messiah.

I mean, if a different group of people, non-Jews, were told the exact same things and treated the exact same way by Jesus, would they have come up with the idea that he was a savior? Or would they have seen him as a teacher like the Buddha or one of the Hindu gurus? I had that feeling this summer when I was studying the gospels. But I felt like I was trying to reach through smoky glass. Like there is a really different Jesus in there, but I couldn't reach him to pull him out.

Oh brother. That sounds like I'm trying be, or think I am Jesus' savior. If that were true, would that be one of those sins against the Spirit? I just mean that as I read the gospels I get the feeling that almost no one around him gets what he's saying. And like the Buddha, he gets a little frustrated because they just don't listen, or listening, they just don't hear. And I wonder if that's because he was saying a lot of things completely out of their experience, and since he was killed so early in his teaching career, he never really had time to explain it to them in a way they could understand. They just had to do the best they could, filtering what he said through their own knowledge and experience, their Jewish tradition and context.

Back to the Journals

Happy 2009!!! May it be a better year in every way for all of us. And may I be a better blogger :)

Yes, I am back . . . at least for a little while, during Winter Break. I have a bit of time on my hands, and a very big job. I have what feels like a monumental task to accomplish. I want to take myself off of the Vicodin I have been taking for four and a half years. No, the pain has not decreased, and I am not feeling better. But my doctor left his pain practice to go back to anesthesiology, and I have been thrust into the hands of one of those doctors who believes all pain sufferers (no matter the source of their pain) are malingerers and drug seekers, and it just made me realize that I do not want to be at the mercy of these ignorant moralists any more. So I am going to try. It will be helpful to have a task, a big project, to distract me. So I'm going to go back to typing up the parts of my journal that chronicle my spiritual development. I'll try to put them in smaller pieces that can be released gradually over the semester (or at least over the next month – we'll see how long they last). I've skipped a little bit, but I thought it would be appropriate to start here, with a conversation I had in late March 2007 with my pain psychologist, whom I was still getting to know.

March 31, 2007

[After some other talk] She told me several more stories that had the point that hypnosis does work. Guess that wasn't until after I'd told her about Dr. C, and my desire to be a good patient, and the epidural and the fact that it had helped some. We talked about trust, and being honest with doctors. Somehow, though, we got on the right page, and it was like the whole atmosphere in the room shifted – the room felt different to me. Time slowed. A calm stillness came into being, and there was safety and intimacy.

I don't have time or space to relate all the stories she told, but they were to introduce me to the idea of doing a kind of hypnosis that doesn't use guided imagery as much, because that imposes her ideas of what my subconscious looks like and acts like. Instead, she wants to do one that will help me find and meet my "inner healer." She described a few cases to me – what patients saw and how they were helped. I was very keen, but also scared.

I said that: "I'm frightened that we'll do this and I'll wander around lost in my psyche, and there won't be an inner healer in me." She laughed, gently. Said it is a matter of trusting yourself, being open to whatever you see. People have had mythological creatures, butterflies, giraffes, a rock! So be open.

I said that was the other thing I was afraid of, that I'd keep questioning myself, over-analyzing, trying to "do it right" but also trying not to be hurt by buying into a fraud, a fake. She agreed this is a challenge for intelligent, rational people who control their minds, or their conclusions, more. She looked very serious as she said I was going to have to release control. To let go – not to give her control, but hand it over to a part of myself. Maybe a part I don't know yet.

But even the parts I do know, I don't consider very trustworthy. In writing that sentence, I realized what a lie it is. I do trust many parts of myself. I trust my intellect, I trust my anthropological instincts, my social instincts . . . there are lots of parts of me I like and trust. It's more truthful to say there are parts of me I don't trust. And overall, I don't think I trust myself to take care of myself.

She recognized instantly the kind of control and trust issues I have. I felt she did remember me and some of the struggles I've shared. She can see I don't let go of control easily. And I don't know when this came up, but we also talked about how few are really brave enough to ask for and receive real, spiritual healing. How many people run when it looks like they might be fundamenteally changed inside? The promise of Christianity, remember. She told me of a prayer group she belonged to that sounded great. There was a phrase she/they used – something like "I ask to be transformed in my deepest places." It was better than that – really powerful, and I repeated it, trying to remember it, dang it!

Well, I began to cry, I want that so much! I'm terrified, but I want it. She said when those in the group started to get that deep change, they left the group. Too scary. So I'm also afraid I'll be a chicken and not let the big changes happen. But I so want to try. It's like meditation – I know how important it is. Why am I not doing it? Chicken! Also feel like I don't know how, but I took that excuse away from myself and bought 2 books last night through Amazon.

April 1, 2007

It's 9:30 now, and J and I've been having an incredible discussion, one that lead both of us to epiphanies at different points, and mine was a huge breakthrough, complete with sobbing. I realized I hadn't told J about that experience with Phyllis, in which I began crying because I so want to be changed, deep inside, but am afraid, and afraid I'll be chicken. Si I told him about that, and how I'm in a place where I'm really willing to be changed, willing to do whatever work needs to be done. That I want to be healed such that I begin taking care of myself, do what I need to do to be able to trunst myself to talke care of me, meaning I want to change so much that I give up smoking and eating junk, that I exercise and provide the healthful experiences my body needs. I'm willing and desirous of having my life change.

Talked about my work with the Tao te Ching, and taking that farther, the books I ordered for myself to help even more. How I'm trying to learn to live in the moment, be fully present, give each task my full self, full effort and attention, and to let go of my beliefs, concepts, desires and things. Just tried to bring him up to date on where I am and were I'd like to be going.

He shared where he is – which as that is his story, I will leave for him to blog about some day.

Eventually we got to a more general discussion of spiritual paths, and the teaching of religion. We both have made it a practice to advise our students (when asked) that it is better to devote onself to a single path, rather than attempting to devise one's own hodge-podge spiritual practice from a variety of religions (for a thorough reason, see previous entries, but the short answer is because it develops discipline and avoids the habit of just picking out the easy bits that are not challenging). J said now that he felt that intellectually and spiritually we had both done enough work that we could do that skipping. That the journey is cyclical, spiral. He said one devotes oneself to one, but can get to the place where one realizes again that they are all One, and then one can pick and choose again, which might mean searching and feeling lost again, wandering for a time. Then one may devote to one again, or not.

He said he feels that his answer is not going to be already written down and developed. He doesn't believe joining a Zen monastery or something like that would take him all the way, just to a point. And he acknowledged that Zen, of all branches, realizes itself. This might sound arrogant, like he was saying he was better or wiser than all the wisdom traditions of the world. But actually, I think he is right, for all of us.

[I've misplaced the rest of this entry - this journal ends and I had no more journals. I must have written on something for five days, but what? And where did I put it?)