Alright this thread along with several other similar type threads were kicked around for a long time on the old-old forum.  You know the one before this, before this.

But I think that it is worth revisiting, given the new members, loss of old members and the furthering of Integral theory, (Wilber V). Part five is the latest right? I'm talking about Integral Post Metaphysics and all that fun .

So to resurect (pun intended) some previous questions.

1. Is Christianity uncompatible with integral because of the absolutist claims made by Christ? (I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me).

2. Do integral Christians need to accept that Jesus DID NOT in fact rise from the dead physically.  Does it have to be understood as a "spiritual" resurection, not a bodily resurection? Are any miracles attributed to Christ considered "real" or are all miracles to be understood as Myth.

3. This begs the question, if Christ DID NOT rise from the dead physically, does that put the validity of the four gospels in question, (since they are explicitly in support of the Truth of Jesus resurection) as well as the rise of the early christian  community. 

4. Does Jesus add anything new to the spiritual scene on the planet earth? Was he just another "enlightened being" among others? And what is the relationship between Buddhism and Chrisianity, .. does Christ add anything to Buddhism or take anything away?

Ok that's probably enough for now.  I obviously have some ideas on these topics and I am partially playing devils advocate. But there are some really sticky issues here that I think can only be understood with a post metaphyics. Since so much of Christianity is so wrapped up in its own insulated world view (Like so many relgions), its hard to tell what is necesary and what is random cultural myths.

From my highest self

Benji
The AQAL Wonder Dog

---

"Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis

bow Wow, Benji!  I'm happy you resurrected this old thread.  If anyone is interested, here is a link to the original conversation:

http://integralnaked.org/forum/tm.asp?m=46911&p=&mpage=1&tmode=1&smode=1&key=bck&language=single

I am still conversing with BChristianK from time to time.  Recently, I brought up Wilber's notion of the 1-2-3 of God with him, and he responded to it this morning.  I can post his comments here if anyone is interested, but here's the gist: he was highly suspicious of the idea that Christians could have a 1-p experience of God.  He thought the idea was altogether alien to Christian theology, which insists on an unbridgeable gap between the ontology of Creator and Creature.

Concerning this thread you've just started, I think your questions are important ones and I look forward to whatever conversation may develop.

Best wishes,

Balder

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

Hi,

I'm feeling drawn to gnosticism lately, so I have been studying that a bit, mainly in the form of reinterpretations of the early christian gnostics. I looked over the old thread a bit, but it's way too long to read in its entirety, so I could be reiterating stuff here without being aware of it.

If the recent (integral) interpretations are correct, the early gnostic texts were skilfully written so that it could be understood at multiple levels, (and from multiple levels), much like The Matrix Trilogy is today.  The texts were used both for initiates, for which they were just good stories, and for the 'elite' who could discover their true meaning. In later emerging exoteric forms of christianity, these texts were taken literaly and literaly only, which is when trouble started, to put it mildly. Ironically, this led to the prosecution of the gnostics, the descendants of the ones that originaly wrote the texts.

I'd have to add that the gnostics had a far better sense of humor than their exoteric brothers. They could really drive these guys nuts.

At the highest level, the texts were stories for the soul, and that level, the stories are still true.
From this perspective, answering the four questions above would be something like this:

  1. Is Christianity uncompatible with integral because of the absolutist claims made by Christ? (I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me).

No, it is not incompatible, especially since the texts were designed to be multi-level. If this claim is explained symbolically, then it says that the only way to enlightenment is through Christ consciousness (and not through Jesus as a person).

2. Do integral Christians need to accept that Jesus DID NOT in fact rise from the dead physically.  Does it have to be understood as a "spiritual" resurection, not a bodily resurection? Are any miracles attributed to Christ considered "real" or are all miracles to be understood as Myth.

According to The Treatise of the Resurrection: 'The cosmos is an illusion! The resurrection is the revelation of what is'. The resurrection represents Jesus' escape from the cave of the cosmos.

For the gnostics, 'dead' was their code-word for conventional, and alive means post-conventional. The sheppard is most proud of the sheep that gets away from the herd! It might be worthwile to discuss this symbolism in more detail.

3. This begs the question, if Christ DID NOT rise from the dead physically, does that put the validity of the four gospels in question, (since they are explicitly in support of the Truth of Jesus resurection) as well as the rise of the early christian  community. 

The four gospels (as far as they are not exoteric modifications of the original texts) would indeed become invalid in a rational sense. In a transrational sense, they are very valid.

4. Does Jesus add anything new to the spiritual scene on the planet earth? Was he just another "enlightened being" among others? And what is the relationship between Buddhism and Chrisianity, .. does Christ add anything to Buddhism or take anything away?

Elements from buddhism are actually being used to interpret the gnostic texts. Interestly, in the Nag Hammadi scrolls, it is mentioned that you should 'discover your orginal face', a description you also find in buddhism (and which has the same meaning there).  Overall, the terminology in the christian texts may be more familiar to westerners. Other than that, I don't know enough about buddhist texts to be able to make a useful comparison. As far as I understand, however, the two are not in conflict.

I do not intend to offend anybody with these answers, except maybe for the dead.

Peter

---

"All nations should be like Amsterdam" -- Ken Wilber

I hope this turns to be a interesting discussion, as it's something I often wonder about.

1. Is it uncompatible? Personally, I don't believe so. There are two commonly discussed topics on the bible: Is it written in a literal sense, or a spiritual sense? I tend to believe that you have to put statements at that time into the context of what the population at that time would understand. Obviously what worked then, can cause questions now. I for one feel that things are revealed by God (Spirit, etc.) in due time. So...are the claims absolutist, or were they what the times needed to move on? IF you believe that Christ is Lord, then the absolutist claims would make sense simply because it would be Spirit making the claim.....No one can come to me, except through me.

Man, I hope that makes sense, lol.

2. I think there are Christians that see it as a literal rise from the dead whereas others, see it more as a spiritual rising. I think Christ probably did perform some miracles, simply because there are other writings that claim it. Were they truly miracles as we wold define them? Probably not.

3. I don't think so, but you have to remember that the Gospels were written by people who actually knew Christ and believed in his message. Was there an agenda to bring more people to the faith? Perhaps. I think the message Christ had is probably more important than the actual details, in many cases.

4. I think Jesus added alot to the spiritual scene on the planet. Here we are, thousands of years later and people still keep the faith. Obviously, he left his mark on the planet.

On the matter of Buddhism and Christianity.....Again, I tend to believe that people were given what they need at the time they need it. The fact that the two practices are different, and come from different cultures helps to explain that (although, not completely).

Looking forward to other perspectives, as I am still trying to sort out the same.

---

In a black and white picture....there's a lot of grey junk

Thank you all for your reply's and I will comment on the ideas ya'll brought up later but I wanted to add another question or two which I left out last time.

5. How does Integral Christianity see reincarnation.  Is it compatible at all with Christianity? .. And by the way, is reincarnation the "official" worldview of the integral community? (And I do mean official with quotation marks)

6. What is Christ's role in human salvation, individual salvation, cultural salvation, All Quad salvation?
 Was Jesus' death and "resurection" even "necassary" or were the previous Buddhist, Vedantic, etc revelations enough to "save" humanity?

Be back soon.

B

---

"Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis

Well, here goes....

5. I don't think it's compatible in a literal sense. In a spiritual sense, yes, since you have to be "re-born" in the Kingdom of God.
Personally, I'm on the 'I don't know if it's real, and if it is, then when I find out for sure, I won't be able to tell you' tract.

6. I think, for the people Christ was speaking to, it WAS necessary. Is it necessary now? I think it depends on the person. As a christian, I would say yeah, it was necessary. The whole second testament deals with WHY it was necessary. Not sure this one can be answered, at least by me.

(LOL. Not that I have answered any of the questions).

---

In a black and white picture....there's a lot of grey junk

Hi Benji --

Some of these questions are being discussed in the Integral Contemplative Christianity thread in the ISC Forums . . . but as a quick answer to:

1. Is Christianity uncompatible with integral because of the absolutist claims made by Christ? (I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me).

My answer is no, although many Christians do interpret this passage in an absolutist way. But others view this passage as saying that Jesus's way is the Universal Way -- expressed in many forms  -- that all who seek divine life must tread. A way involving death to the separate-self sense or ego-identified self, and awakened or "resurrected" life in union/identity with God/dess or Spirit or whatever term one prefers to signify ultimacy. One way that is manifested in the many paths found in the world's various traditions: unity in diversity. 

I was going to post this in that ISC thread on Integral Contemplative Christianity but I'll post it here instead. Today I attended a Mass celebrating the ordination of Jane Via, one of several women who were ordained as Roman Catholic priests this past June in Switzerland. (We've got some bishops who have decided to just challenge the doctrine and ordain women. And by the way, 8 more women are to be ordained as Catholic priests on Monday, July 31, on a river in Pennsylvania. These ordinations usually bring on heavy warnings from the Vatican--and excommunication of the women. And lol, I know that any Protestant folks out there are probably going, geez y'all, why don't you just become Episcopalians or Lutherans or something? Why you gotta make things so hard on yourselves? I mean, the Mass had to be held at a United Methodist church--and it was packed!) Anyway, here is an updated "creed" or profession of faith that this new church community (Mary Magdalene Apostle Catholic Community) will be using -- it's an edited version of one written by Joan Chittister, a Benedictine sister. I thought I'd include it here because it explicitly takes a non-exclusivist view:

We believe in God who made us all

and whose divinity infuses life with the sacred.

We believe in the multiple revelations of God,

alive in every human heart, expressed in every culture,

found in all the wisdoms of the world.

We believe in Jesus, the Christ,

who leads us to the fullness of humanity,

to what we are meant to become.

Through Christ, we become new people,

called beyond the consequences of our brokennes,

lifted to the fullness of life.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,

the breath of God on earth,

who keeps the Christ vision present

to souls yet in darkness,

gives life to hearts now blind,

infuses energy into spirits yet weary,

isolated, searching and confused.

We believe in God who is life.

 

Amen to courage, to hope, to spirit of truth, to nature,

to happiness, to wholeness,

to the place of women in God's plan,

to the Christ who calls us

beyond the boundaries of ourselves, to forgiveness,

and to everything that stretches our hearts

to the dimensions of God.

In all of this, we can surely believe, as God does.

 

Cheers,

Mary

 

---

Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

~Rumi

is the egg compatible with the chicken?  yes!!!! and no!!!!!

---

i am my own guru. you are your own guru.
let us synergize.

 

 

Vortex,

Thank you for replying to these questions, it seems that you don't feel that you have answered them very well, however these questions are in some ways paradoxal and probably almost unanswerable. 

I'm really just trying to see if there is any sort of "consensus" on these controversial issues.  I know that many of these questions intersect with developmental lines, (SDI, Pre, Conventional, Trans) I think that I'm looking for the transrational answer, with a focus on the rational, intellectual way these things can actually string together.

I don't expect anyone (except BBG and the Christian BG ) to have any real answers to these questions.  I think that maybe we haven't made it far enough yet in tetra evolution to really come up with an "answer". However all conspiracy theories are welcome.   

Benji

---

"Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis

Mary,

Thank you for your reply, and for sending the updated profession.

When I recite the "old" one at church on sundays I sometimes feel uncomfortable or maybe ackward because of the fairly Mythic Membership level tone to it.

I totally love the new one, but it is probably pretty far off before we will see it printed up for everyones use.

I had no idea about the women's ordination, and I didn't know that Catholic rebels like you really existed in real life.

Thanks for clueing me into the ISC thread, I'll have to check it out.

Peace,

Ben

---

"Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis

Okay, I confess to you all that I have been avoiding this thread and even never even cliked it open on the old forum.

That is becasue, I think, I am probably going to have too much to say, and perhaps too much, too passionately and . . . . well, I 've just been avoiding opening up that can o' worms.

Blessings to you all however. (And, oh, I am postingthis before I even read the reast of the thread . . yes, I know, I am still trying to avoid that can 'o worms. Just yet.)

1. Is Christianity uncompatible with integral because of the absolutist claims made by Christ? (I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me).

No. there is indeed many ways this passage can be interpreted as well as with many, many, many added perspectives. Oh and contexts. It does require releasing the Bible from absolutes such as word for word the unabated and infallible Word of God, etc. So in that sense, it is not compatible with mythic, but how can mythic truly lay claim to the wholesale ownership of Christianity?(depsite the fact that they do. My kids also think that the bank just gives me money . . . doesn't mean it's true.) Here we go, far more to say, but I will just laslty add that there is absolutely NO WAY of in any reliable fashion varifying that Jesus Christ, man on earth, even really said that. (But, again, even if he did, contexts and availbale views are extremely important . . . . It's all just a mtter of opening up yer mind past mythic.)

2. Do integral Christians need to accept that Jesus DID NOT in fact rise from the dead physically.  Does it have to be understood as a "spiritual" resurection, not a bodily resurection? Are any miracles attributed to Christ considered "real" or are all miracles to be understood as Myth.

I am just going to quickly say that, of course and indeed, the miracles may be real. (And miracles associated with Christ happen ever day and I do mean what has hertofore been understood as supernatural phenomenon. And I also beleive this may be oneof his seriosuly significant evolutionary and spiritual contributions to our entire world! i.e. realities not recognized in the east! (maybe) But, okay, here we go, I need to stop talking about this now or it's going to go on forever . . . .)

But what I was really interested in posting here today was with regard to The Resurrection.

Is anybody here familiar with the phenomenon recognized in Tibetan Buddhism (and een to some extent in Hinduism) know to Tibetans as The Rainbow Body?

This may be one incredible way to explain the reality of The Resurrection.

And also to change the meaning and life of and explanation of Jesus for all mankind to some seriously historical neve before understood proportions . . . .

Integral gives us this opportunity.

Anybody?

 

 

I Love you Jesus. Jesus, I Love you.

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

timelody:

Is anybody here familiar with the phenomenon recognized in Tibetan Buddhism (and een to some extent in Hinduism) know to Tibetans as The Rainbow Body?

Hi Melodious Tim -- Yes, I was introduced to this phenomenon by an article ol' reliable Balder posted on an ol' Integral Naked forum. And apparently one of ISC's own teachers, Brother David Steindl-Rast, is investigating it. I think this (or some similar phenomenon) is certainly possible in Jesus's case. From the article by Gail Holland in the Snow Lion Newsletter:

When David Steindl-Rast, a Benedictine monk, proposed investigating the 'rainbow body,' a phenomenon in which the corpses of highly developed spiritual individuals reputedly vanish within days of death, he received an enthusiastic response from Marilyn Schlitz, ION's director of research...

"[Gelugpa monk] Khenpo A-chos was a very interesting man," observes [researcher Father Francis] Tiso. "Everyone mentioned his faithfulness to his vows, his purity of life, and how he often spoke of the importance of cultivating compassion. He had the ability to teach even the roughest and toughest of types how to be a little gentler, a little more mindful. To be in the man's presence changed people." ....

A few days before Khenpo A-chos died, a rainbow appeared directly above his hut. After he died, there were dozens of rainbows in the sky. Khenpo A-chos died lying on his right side. He wasn't sick; there appeared to be nothing wrong with him, and he was reciting the mantra OM MANI PADME HUM over and over. According to the eyewitnesses, after his breath stopped his flesh became a kind of pinkish. One person said it turned brilliant white. All said it started to shine.

Lama A-chos suggested wrapping his friend's body in a yellow robe, the type Gelug monks wear. As the days passed, they maintained they could see, through the robe, that his bones and his body were shrinking. They also heard beautiful, mysterious music coming from the sky, and they smelled perfume.

After seven days, they removed the yellow cloth, and no body remained. Lama Norta and a few other individuals claimed that after his death Khenpo A-chos appeared to them in visions and dreams.

Here's the entire article: http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/N59_9.html

Fascinated,

Mary

---

Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

~Rumi

I have communicated with Brother David on this as well, and also the Fr. Tiso. One of the main reasons for that was because I had come to this astonishing conclusion myself, was looking for more information and found that exact article . . . . then found Br. David HERE and knew I had to contact. this was when I was considering a book. Who knows, doesn't seem a destiny to be fulfilled presently, but ya never know. What I do know is that, when I was driving to the bank one day (while exploring all this) and thought of a book titled "An Integral Jesus" I turned the car steering wheel, turned the corner and looked up . . . . an there on a wall before me was the most perfectly (and dramatically) shaped cross made from a shadow. (It was like an image from Gibson's Passion.) Yeah, I hit the breaks . . . . and just stared.

The thing about the Rainbow body -and I will get into it more later, it that it matches up with all the available evidence.

Perhaps one of the more striking pieces, presently agreed upon by all scholars, based on all of the available evidence, is that -there was no body. All of the sources, no matter how much they disagree (and would) are all in agreement about this. No body. And, of course, no record anywhere of any body ever being found.

What happened to it? (And how would you interpret that if you were there? . . .. Oh, and then saw him?)

More later.

But from there, there is a real astonishing line of deductive reasoning based on not only all of the available evidence but all of the available cross cultural and historical evidence in a lot of different regards.

All for now.

Tim

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

Fascinating questions!

1. Is Christianity uncompatible with integral because of the absolutist claims made by Christ?

One must distinguish between "claims made by Christ" and "words put in Christ's mouth by his followers."  Few New Testament scholars actually believe Jesus claimed to be God, or the messiah, or "the bread of life," or anything like that.  Those claims are almost exclusively found in the latest of the four gospels (John), which has a very different portrayal of Jesus than the other gospels.  His message was not about himself.

2. Do integral Christians need to accept that Jesus DID NOT in fact rise from the dead physically.  Does it have to be understood as a "spiritual" resurection, not a bodily resurection? Are any miracles attributed to Christ considered "real" or are all miracles to be understood as Myth.

I don't think an Integral Christianity would require beliefs about anything, certainly not myths.  What difference does it make whether you believe that Jesus walked on water or not?  Some of Jesus's "miracles" -- healings, in particular -- can be considered historical on the grounds that faith healing is an empirically proven phenomenon (as Ken mentions in the "Trinity/Trikaya" audio thing).  But I don't see what difference it makes whether you believe it or not.

3. This begs the question, if Christ DID NOT rise from the dead physically, does that put the validity of the four gospels in question, (since they are explicitly in support of the Truth of Jesus resurection) as well as the rise of the early christian  community. 

What is validity?  I don't think Integral Christianity is overly concerned with the historical truth of the gospels.  They're valid if they help us on the path to liberation.  They don't have to be historically true to do that.

4. Does Jesus add anything new to the spiritual scene on the planet earth? Was he just another "enlightened being" among others? And what is the relationship between Buddhism and Chrisianity, .. does Christ add anything to Buddhism or take anything away?

The central theme of Jesus's teaching was the "Reign of God" (Gr. basileia tou theou, more commonly translated as "kingdom of God," which is not altogether accurate).  This is what I focused on as an undergrad, and I've written about this at length on one of my blogs (check it out here).  It brings a sense of meaning to history -- something Buddhism, and Eastern religions generally, show no real interest in.  But I think it's vitally important.  (It's actually similar to the Kabbalist notion of tikkun ha-olam, if you know what that is.)

5. How does Integral Christianity see reincarnation.  Is it compatible at all with Christianity? .. And by the way, is reincarnation the "official" worldview of the integral community? (And I do mean official with quotation marks)

I think any specific ideas about the afterlife are inevitably speculative.  I think the notion of reincarnation is more coherent than resurrection or heaven/hell, but I don't see how we can know one way or the other.

6. What is Christ's role in human salvation, individual salvation, cultural salvation, All Quad salvation?  Was Jesus' death and "resurection" even "necassary" or were the previous Buddhist, Vedantic, etc revelations enough to "save" humanity?

The notion that Jesus's death and resurrection effected some kind of ontological change in the relationship between humanity and the divine is a myth.  So, "no."  But I think his teaching of the "kingdom of God" provides the most compelling answer to the question of what this thing called "life" is all about.  (Again, as I explain here.)

---

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.