What do you personally think that Jesus taught and why does it matter now?

[otherbrother]

as for why this wanderer taught what he taught:



as for "does it matter, and how?"

I liked the fourth reason which emphasizes the difference between mind, consciousness, and regular sense perception. Mind/consciousness does seem to be another dimension embedded within the physical dimension, and perhaps is like the tip of an iceberg whose largest unseen part is non-individual and eternal, though it may have mental projections (“thoughts” and “dreams”) that are individual and amount to “eternal individual life” relative to our fleeting physical existence but probably not forever, ideas that linger for eons before no longer adding value to Mind Itself, projections eventually reclaimed but way on down the illusory “road.”

 

[otherbrother]

That is where he faltered. He or his follower (Paul, who crafted the story) should have been humble enough not to project him as a model for every one. People have their own models.

You may have a good point there. The masses whom he was trying to teach took his example too literally. They could not grasp it metaphorically, and thus projected onto him their own desire for a certain kind of rescuer (Warrior King) that was not spiritual, not of the “way” he was trying to teach.
Perhaps a kind of open esotericism in which relatively enlightened students with room to grow would have been more effective in the long run? Were the disciples supposed to be those vetted students? Why did the message go so quickly to the unprepared masses? It was like putting a child on a bulldozer turned on and in gear. If vetted students only, those few could understand the metaphor/analogy of his individual life as an example of each of their own spiritual/connectiveness POTENTIAL that they could actualize in order to be more like Him. Then they could vet other students over time as understanding rippled out through cultural cognitions and habits.
Perhaps crucifixion could have been avoided. I don’t think the Buddha was crucified was he? Less dramatic but maybe just as effective or even more so in the long run? In terms of advancing spiritual understanding, enlightenment.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I liked the fourth reason which emphasizes the difference between mind, consciousness, and regular sense perception. Mind/consciousness does seem to be another dimension embedded within the physical dimension, and perhaps is like the tip of an iceberg whose largest unseen part is non-individual and eternal, though it may have mental projections (“thoughts” and “dreams”) that are individual and amount to “eternal individual life” relative to our fleeting physical existence but probably not forever, ideas that linger for eons before no longer adding value to Mind Itself, projections eventually reclaimed but way on down the illusory “road.”

There is no eternal (anicca - Anitya), so said the Buddha. Even the Milky way galaxy is not eternal. Does it matter that you like the fourth reason?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why did the message go so quickly to the unprepared masses?

Why did Islam expanded so quickly? Because of political conditions. Same with Christianity. Thank Constantine.

 

[Thomas]

Perhaps crucifixion could have been avoided.

Paul saw it for what it was.

Without the Resurrection, if it's all just metaphor, or analogy, then it's nothing.

1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Thomas]

With Resurrection in mind, I offer this from Roland in Moonlight, by David Bentley Hart.
(Roland was DBH's sadly now departed dog, but in the above book, DBH was Roland's disciple ... )

"Roland asks (rhetorically) of his human disciple:
I mean, is there truly a gulf of difference between Buddhism’s sambhogakaya and St. Paul’s absolutely fleshless soma pneumatikon? Or between the transfigured, radiant body of the risen Christ, or at least the resplendent bodies of the hesychasts, and the radiant flesh of Swami Premananda walking through the marketplace in an ecstasy of love for God’s beauty? And who’s to say Swami Ramalingam didn’t in fact experience full bodily transfiguration and divinization in this life, growing constantly physically more luminous and translucent as his fleshly body changed first into the suddha deha, the pure body, and then into the pranava deha, the body of the primordial OM, and then into the jnana deha, the body of perfect divine grace, or that he didn’t finally vanish away one day in 1874 into pure, immaterial, spiritual corporeality, and didn’t thereafter appear to his disciples in this … resurrected form? (p324-325).

+++

The above, from an essay
Roland, Rebirth, and Resurrection: A Comparative Eschatology of Paramahansa Yogananda and Origen of Alexandria

 

[otherbrother]

With Resurrection in mind, I offer this from Roland in Moonlight, by David Bentley Hart.
(Roland was DBH's sadly now departed dog, but in the above book, DBH was Roland's disciple ... )

"Roland asks (rhetorically) of his human disciple:
I mean, is there truly a gulf of difference between Buddhism’s sambhogakaya and St. Paul’s absolutely fleshless soma pneumatikon? Or between the transfigured, radiant body of the risen Christ, or at least the resplendent bodies of the hesychasts, and the radiant flesh of Swami Premananda walking through the marketplace in an ecstasy of love for God’s beauty? And who’s to say Swami Ramalingam didn’t in fact experience full bodily transfiguration and divinization in this life, growing constantly physically more luminous and translucent as his fleshly body changed first into the suddha deha, the pure body, and then into the pranava deha, the body of the primordial OM, and then into the jnana deha, the body of perfect divine grace, or that he didn’t finally vanish away one day in 1874 into pure, immaterial, spiritual corporeality, and didn’t thereafter appear to his disciples in this … resurrected form? (p324-325).

+++

The above, from an essay
Roland, Rebirth, and Resurrection: A Comparative Eschatology of Paramahansa Yogananda and Origen of Alexandria

I’m looking forward to opening that link and delving into it, or at least dabbling (which is generally as far as I get!)

 

[otherbrother]

Paul saw it for what it was.

Without the Resurrection, if it's all just metaphor, or analogy, then it's nothing.

1 Corinthians 15.

No doubt we all have to be willing to pay the price for authentic being, which also means being spiritual since we, our True Selves are connected to the Ground of Being. But Jesus and us could mitigate the cost. Whenever you are authentic or speak truth you will likely be persecuted, but we can often diplomatically navigate past the more severe forms and live to fight another day. I want to die doing something heroic, but I can’t be throwing myself in front of cars to protect people from getting mud splashed on them. Paul was a salesman, so of course he would play up the nobility of Jesus’s sacrifice. But other “models” (vehicles and examples) such as Buddha’s gradual teaching of enlightenment might be worth buying as well. Oppressed Jews were looking for salvation. Buddha students are probably okay with gradual growth. I see no reason we can’t gradually grow spiritually using Christian metaphors and themes, as long as we avoid the temptation to be miraculously “saved.” One of my major concerns regarding giving into that temptation is the creeping in of authoritarianism.
But you emphasized resurrection, not crucifixion. I think I’m okay with resurrection because love and faith leads to all sorts of resurrections. Cold hearted people’s hearts are sometimes transformed by love. Their love is resurrected. Hopeless situations turn into better outcomes than we could have imagined.
I have a problem with crucifixion. I myself am tempted to die a heroic death to end my heavenly mission here on earth. But if I do so too intentionally it is a contrivance and excuse to escape the struggle and strain of my spirit’s earthly assignment. A disguised version of “Take this job and shove it!”

 

[otherbrother]

There is no eternal (anicca - Anitya), so said the Buddha. Even the Milky way galaxy is not eternal. Does it matter that you like the fourth reason?

Only matters in terms of clarifying (or attempting to clarify) where I’m coming from, with my lean towards mind as both a process and a metaphysical something or other (Mind Itself).

 

[Thomas]

No doubt we all have to be willing to pay the price for authentic being, which also means being spiritual since we, our True Selves are connected to the Ground of Being.

How does one classify 'spiritual'? Or 'authentic being'? How does one categorise it? How does one measure how spiritual someone/something is?

If a person is "chopping wood, carrying water" – is that 'spiritual'? Is it 'authentic'?

+++

But Jesus and us could mitigate the cost.

In light of the above, I have no idea what that means. Mitigate what cost?

Whenever you are authentic or speak truth you will likely be persecuted ...

Again, I think that needs contextualising. I would suggest it's more likely an anonymous and unrecognised gesture. You have to recognise it to persecute it.

I would have thought only when power is threatened is there persecution.

+++

I want to die doing something heroic...

LOL. Then the lesson for the day is John 18 – St Peter had the same idea when he drew his knife on a company of soldiers who came to arrest Jesus. But then, later, warming his hands by the fire, he betrayed Christ and himself three times – undone not by strength, but by weakness – therein lies the lesson.

(Later, John 21, when Jesus asked him three times, "Do you love me?" Peter said yes, Christ said "Feed my sheep" to which Peter's most honest response would have been "Please! Anything but that!")

+++

Paul was a salesman, so of course he would play up the nobility of Jesus’s sacrifice.

Ah ... here we part company ...

But other “models” (vehicles and examples) such as Buddha’s gradual teaching of enlightenment might be worth buying as well.

Welcome to the worlds of the religious boutique.

But you emphasized resurrection, not crucifixion. I think I’m okay with resurrection because love and faith leads to all sorts of resurrections.

All sorts of rationalisations, which is what contemporary spirituality tends towards, which is why its essentially self-serving.

I have a problem with crucifixion.

Then might I suggest it's your reading of the event that which prevents you from seeing the crucifixion for what it actually is?

 

[otherbrother]

How does one classify 'spiritual'? Or 'authentic being'? How does one categorise it? How does one measure how spiritual someone/something is?

The author of the book you recommended me to read sometime ago, Paths to Transcendence claimed that Meister Eckart thought of spirituality as inclusive and moving towards unity, as contrasted with matter that tends towards separation. Paraphrased (I used the author’s own words in a recent post here or on another thread recently).

 

[otherbrother]

How does one classify 'spiritual'? Or 'authentic being'? How does one categorise it? How does one measure how spiritual someone/something is?

If a person is "chopping wood, carrying water" – is that 'spiritual'? Is it 'authentic'?

+++


In light of the above, I have no idea what that means. Mitigate what cost?


Again, I think that needs contextualising. I would suggest it's more likely an anonymous and unrecognised gesture. You have to recognise it to persecute it.

I would have thought only when power is threatened is there persecution.

+++


LOL. Then the lesson for the day is John 18 – St Peter had the same idea when he drew his knife on a company of soldiers who came to arrest Jesus. But then, later, warming his hands by the fire, he betrayed Christ and himself three times – undone not by strength, but by weakness – therein lies the lesson.

(Later, John 21, when Jesus asked him three times, "Do you love me?" Peter said yes, Christ said "Feed my sheep" to which Peter's most honest response would have been "Please! Anything but that!")

+++


Ah ... here we part company ...


Welcome to the worlds of the religious boutique.


All sorts of rationalisations, which is what contemporary spirituality tends towards, which is why its essentially self-serving.


Then might I suggest it's your reading of the event that which prevents you from seeing the crucifixion for what it actually is?

Could well be. Reporting from where my finger is pointing at the moon at this time in my thinking about spirituality and Ultimate Reality (The Divine).

 

[otherbrother]

Could well be. Reporting from where my finger is pointing at the moon at this time in my thinking about spirituality and Ultimate Reality (The Divine).

You: “If a person is "chopping wood, carrying water" – is that 'spiritual'? Is it 'authentic'?”
If in a state of wholeness, close to God. I felt God close to me yesterday while interacting with loved ones. Could have happened while chopping wood from a pile in my yard as well (I do feed a fireplace in my home, and it does seem heavenly!)

 

[Thomas]

This all seems in terms of the experiential. 'If one is experiencing God, then one is spiritual' kind of thing.

This is not what Eckhart was talking about.

The key to Eckhartian method is detachment.

 

[otherbrother]

This all seems in terms of the experiential. 'If one is experiencing God, then one is spiritual' kind of thing.

This is not what Eckhart was talking about.

The key to Eckhartian method is detachment.

I get the detachment from things and even individual concepts of God emphasis, but that would still lead to experiences of inclusion and oneness, experiences that even masters of transcending attachment would have because they are human. “Holy humanism” as opposed to secular humanism would embrace and fully utilize the spiritual experiences that are stepping stones and side effects of Eckhartian detachment? Otherwise, it smacks of Gnosticism and lack of fully accepting the earthly mission each of our spirits agreed to help us fulfill. Detachment is the “not of the world” part, but acceptance and appreciation is the “in the world” part of that useful formula.
Please correct me if and how I’m wrong.

 

[Thomas]

... but that would still lead to experiences of inclusion and oneness ...

Those 'experiences' of 'inclusion' and 'oneness' speak of attachment to those concepts.

... experiences that even masters of transcending attachment would have because they are human.

I'm not sure that's so.

“Holy humanism” as opposed to secular humanism would embrace and fully utilize the spiritual experiences that are stepping stones and side effects of Eckhartian detachment?

I would suggest 'experiences' and 'stepping stones' are also, essentially, signs of attachment.

Otherwise, it smacks of Gnosticism and lack of fully accepting the earthly mission each of our spirits agreed to help us fulfill.

What mission? Who are these 'our spirits' – are you assuming a 3rd party involved here?

Detachment is the “not of the world” part, but acceptance and appreciation is the “in the world” part of that useful formula.
Please correct me if and how I’m wrong.

I think you run the risk of refining 'attachment' to mask the fact that they remain 'attachments' – you're trying to present conditions in which attachments are OK.

This is Eckhart on detachment
The trick for all of us is to put aside our a priori assumptions – to try and understand what Eckhart is saying, rather than filter it through the lends of our own ideas.

 

[otherbrother]

The trick for all of us is to put aside our a priori assumptions – to try and understand what Eckhart is saying, rather than filter it through the lends of our own ideas.

Yes, I agree that we must free our minds (the deepest parts that may well be “spirit” rather than mind as we think of it) to sense even beyond space and time. But then to be in space and time, thinking like it as a frame of reference but not ultimate reality, so we can live more meaningful and fulfilling lives individually and collectively (making the world more like heaven). “Metaphrame” (neologism) physical reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The trick for all of us is to put aside our a priori assumptions – to try and understand what Eckhart is saying, rather than filter it through the lends of our own ideas.

Non-attachment is the most important teaching in Hinduism (Anasakti) and in Buddhism (Nih+karma, without getting in in the karmic cycle - Nekkhamma, or Nih+vindati, not finding, therefore turning away, renunciation - Nibbida).

"Perform your duty with equanimiy, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment to success for failure. Such equanimity is called yoga." BhagawadGita 2.48

"One who is not disturbed in mind even amidst the threefold miseries* or elated when there is happiness, and who is free from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage of steady mind." BhagawadGita 2.56

"In the material world, one who is unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain, neither praising it nor despising it, is firmly fixed in perfect knowledge." BhagawadGita 2.57

* Three fold miseries - By chance (Adhidaivic), Confused thinking (Adhyatmic), Physical (Adhibhautic).

a priori assumptions will include insistence on existence of any God.

 

[Thomas]

"In the material world, one who is unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain, neither praising it nor despising it, is firmly fixed in perfect knowledge." BhagawadGita 2.57
But what of the spiritual world?

"But persons who possess neither faith nor knowledge, and who are of a doubting nature, suffer a downfall. For the skeptical souls, there is no happiness either in this world or the next." BhagawadGita 4.40

I'm not lecturing the BhagawadGita to you! I would not presume, nor do I know anywhere near enough, but like my own Scriptures, one can be selective with quotes ... and the text of 2.57 does say 'material world', which suggests a qualified world?

It may well be emphasis, in which case 'the material world' is all there is ... but it seems to suggest not ... at least my conviction is otherwise.

 

[Thomas]

But then ...

I rather think all that follows this is part of the stuff to be free of. It's all stuff that stands in the way.