Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Was The Apostle Paul and Other Apostles...........????????
JohnC.Kimbrough
Explorer
Was The Apostle Paul a man who thought, spoke and acted under the influence of a state of mind in which The Seven Factors of Enlightenment (mindfulness, concentration, investigative nature, energy and effort, joy, equanimity, tranquility) were accessed, activated, maturing and had matured? A look at his life, his travels, his transformation, his ministry, his writings, his teachings and his work suggest that he was. What he wore (loose fitting robes) or where he lived (The Middle East) or what he carried (A cross and parchments) does not mean much or it may signify much. We can learn from those who are more enlightened then us regardless of their religion, path or belief system. We may not know that the state of mind and place in life to which they have evolved is the same one that we seek through our own focused or combination of ways (Buddhism, Jainism, Raja Yoga, Christianity, etc.) or the at times unfocused, confused and fluctuating manner until we did actively seek out, accept and practice a way or path or religion that suited us.....
2
Comments
1 Corinthians 14 34:35
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Paul was also homophobic, and agreed with slavery.
Does this sound like someone who was Enlightened?
But it's difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff and know what the real Paul was like; much of what is attributed to him may not have been written by him at all. Remember, Christianity was introduced by the Roman Emperor Constantine; for political reasons, not spiritual. He wanted a religion to help unite his Empire; control the hearts and you control minds.
And telling women to shut up, hating gays, and being pro slavery is what any right-minded Roman citizen would like.
"Nothing good dwells within me, that is my flesh... Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?" -Romans 7:24
Poor guy. If it's true, I can definitely empathize with his struggles... although, the fact that his one mention in I Corinthians has resulted in death and major struggles for homosexuals all over the world... makes it hard to feel a whole lot of sympathy.
Jesus also recognises Nathaniel as a man "with no deceit in him" which parallels exactly what Peter said of Christ, an extraordinary statement by Jesus that he said of no other man.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:43-51&version=NIV
I will be considering animals as 'people' . . . But still eating them. I will be considering future AI as a potential para-Buddha, women as more evolved and other controversial ideas. In fact I don't expect any following, in fact I might give up dharma all together, finished with the raft and all that . . .
So please look at the good in the disciples, apostles and yourself. We all hopefully have compassion for the flawed . . .
But that St. Paul was a mystic, there can be no doubt. Mystics, however, are more often seen as insane (not sanus, "healthy") than as "enlightened human beings," I think.
Evelyn Underhill, in her littler book THE MYSTICS OF THE CHURCH (pp 38-51), addresses Paul's visions, from his "apprehension" by Jesus on the road to Damascus onward. She writes (p 40), "The raw material of St. Paul's mysticism was doubtless a temperament specially sensitive towards religion, unstable, given to the alternate depression and exaltation so characteristic of the [his] type." St Paul often fell into bouts of ecstasy, we are told in Acts, while praying in the Temple at Jerusalem.
Underhill writes (p 42): "In the violent little letter of which 2 Cor. xii. forms a part, [Paul] speaks of the 'abundance of revelations' or 'wealth of revelations' (Moffatt) which he has enjoyed; and of the persistent ill-health which accompanied them and was probably, as with many of the later mystics, a direct result of the psycho-physical strain involved in his ecstasies." Underhill goes on to say that this passage (2 Corinthians, CAP 12) describes a "full ecstatic experience" with its attending special characteristics of "a narrowed and entranced consciousness" —"whether in the body or out of the body I cannot tell," —and of ineffability, "hearing unspeakable words," or, as Moffat translates, "Sacred secrets which no human lips can repeat."
(words of Paul in Bold in places to avoid confusion)
But Underhill goes on to write (p 44) that ecstatic phenomena were taken for granted in the Early Church, and Paul's distinction as a mystic lies not in having these qualities but "in the detachment with which he regarded them." (Sounds saintly to me.) "Thus in A.D. 52, when he wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, he acknowledged his continued possession of the much-prized 'gift of tongues'; those outbursts of ecstatic but unintelligible speech common in times of religious excitement. But his attitude toward such external 'manifestations of the Spirit' is marked by a cool common sense which must amaze us when we consider the period in which he wrote, [with its] universal respect for the marvellous, and the circumstances of his own conversion."
But directly next-upon comes Underhill's bodhisattva parallel, as it were: "[Paul's] rule is simple. He discounts any 'gifts' and experiences which do not help other souls [sic, the Xian paradigm**]. The mystical communion of his soul with Christ must not be a matter of personal enjoyment: it must support and not supplant the apostolic career."
Evelyn Underhill is more famous for her MYSTICISM and was an Anglican Great. However, the chapter, Mysticism in the Bible, in the book I've cited also goes into the more legalistic aspects of Paul's life and career.
-----------------
** The Greek word psyche ("soul") was often used to denote a person, rather than just some immaterial core substance that was at the same time immortal. Thus Romans 13:1 reads: "Let every soul ("psyche") be subject to the higher powers (those in authority over them)" This is usually translated as "Let every person..."
I think this signifies that Nathaniel was enlightened and that Jesus recognised him as such (before even meeting with him - it takes one to know one). The fact that Jesus said he had already seen Nathaniel "under the fig tree" (as Siddartha sat under a fig tree (ficus religiosa) for his Enlightenment) tickles my curiosity...
For example, that time he got angry at a fig tree because it bore no fruit and he was hungry (being out of season, obviously it bore no fruit), so he cursed it saying, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" The next day it had withered and Jesus and his Disciples all felt very pleased with themselves. This story is used to show the efficacy of prayer. But I cannot see the Buddha doing something like that...
But there are many parallels between the stories of Jesus and that of the Buddha (enough for people to sometimes wonder if some of the Buddha stories passed along the trade routes inspired Jesus stories).
Another interesting thing about Jesus is that he encouraged his followers to leave their families. Saying, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) (The word 'hate' is indeed particularly interesting. Especially because it is very consistent regardless of the Bible version.)
Obviously, we all know Siddhartha left his family (although he did not leave them in ruin as he was very wealthy), but I'm curious if he ever encouraged his followers to do the same as Jesus does?
I don't think Jesus meant to encourage people to hate their families but he meant to emphasise the importance of renouncing anything that would stand in the way of a righteous life, something Shakyamuni also emphasised and demonstrated. Shakyamuni even named his son 'fetter', illustrating the restrictions he felt of the family life..
I think the relgion in its current form should be called Paulinism, not Christianity. Especially that nonsensical part about "belief" being enough to get you to some promised land. That was not a primary teaching of Jesus, in my understanding.
I saw an interesting documentary on the History channel once that had evidence that Hell was not the mythological land of fire and brimstone that we now think of, but rather, an actual valley outside of Jerusalem. So, when they're talking about banishment to Hell, they're actually referring to a real place... which makes more sense, of course.
It was really a place called Gehenna, a physical place outside of Jerusalm where rubbish was dumped; and also the bodies of the dead criminals who'd been executed. Fires burnt there. Mummies would frighten their children into behaving by threatening them with, "If you don't behave, you'll end up in Gehenna" and over time we have ended up with a place where we'll burn of all eternity if we don't believe 13 impossible things before breakfast.
Not all Christian sects believe Hell is a physical place where we spend eternity if we masturbate.
True enough!!! :screwy:
I think seriously inquiring into whether Jesus was enlightened is on the same plane as inquiring about the possibility that The Lord Buddha was not himself enlightened. However, I do not think that the Christian tradition has heretofore provided its followers an enlightenment avenue, as it were. Therefore, I would not look into that tradition for signs of enlightened beings: nor would I expect any such parallels. For the classical Christian, "carrying ones cross" and following Jesus was the most one was expected to hope for. Grounded in dogma about Jesus and the Trinity, one was not really let go to "seek the truth" on his or her or its or their own --any injunctions of Jesus to the contrary notwithstanding.
So what do they believe then? Do they still believe in Heaven? The idea of 'being good to get into Heaven' really doesn't work without the alternative 'Hell'.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090220014545AAq4zfA
They believe that the faithful will live on a Paradise Earth and a ruling class of speshul individuals, 144,000 of them will go to Heaven to help God rule the Earth; or something like that anyway.
Those not 'faithful' (mostly non JWs I presume) will just be 'switched off' kinda thing.
I'm not sure what Gnostic Christians believe, but I'd be surprised if they believed in a Hell either.
but after four hundred years of not writing anything down, everyone thinks the Buddha was akin to 'my little pony', perfect in every way . . .
Christ, Buddha, you and me . . . human (apologies to Christians). Fantasy Buddhas, rainbow lamas, masterful roshis, perfect partners, gods aunty and other relatives, all have one thing in common:
Fantasy.
Might be time to wake up for figs sake :wave:
NB. tree withering is not skilful
A very good book, which isn't heavy at all, it's irreverent, and funny is:
The Gospel of the Second Coming by Freke and Gandy:
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Second-Coming-Long-Awaited-Sequel/dp/1401918395
It explains, using much humour, how the Gnostic Church was put down and we've ended up with this literal church we have today. The early Gnostic Church sounds more than a little 'Buddhist', and it gives a portrayal of what the early church founders were like. Also, if you're interested, take a look at what secular scholars have to say about what Paul wrote and what has been falsely attributed to Paul.
I also like Elaine Pagels's stuff; she's a professor of religious studies at Harvard (or something like that) and became interested in religion after a friend of hers committed suicide and other church members said she would burn in Hell for that.
A good starting point would be The Gnostic Gospels by Pagels:
http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532
The sense that I get from reading books like these is that Christianity would be more like Buddhism (knowledge within kind of thing) if people hadn't changed it into the paternal literalist religion we have today.
I remember the 1977 movie, "Fun with Dick and Jane," with George Segal and Jane Fonda. The film, at one point, showed Jane sitting on the commode doing her business. That was the first time that was portrayed in film. Not the usual picture show...
Back to the topic of early Christians being enlightened or not: I still say no. It is a different, much narrower story. I don't believe that the Eastern concept of liberation or enlightenment is tied up with a single eternal identity as is that of the West. Even the gnostics (antimaterialists who saw pure thought as the sum of who we were) were not fully able to be liberated in the Eastern sense. Anyhow, just my thoughts, which at present I am finding hard to flesh out.
Evelyn Underhill's comments are interesting but I do not believe she understood what she was talking about. Her book on mysticism misses the mark rather obviously and Christian scholarship has come a long way since her time.
The Gnostics found the world to be evil, but this is not much different to finding it to be Maya or suffering. At any rate it is unsatisfactory in both cases.
At any rate, I think we're speaking of apples as opposed to oranges in this thread. Jesus was obviously an enlightened being, but those who followed him changed his message about how to live into one of "it's ALL about Jesus."
In other words, one can be a mystic and still be on a circular path with no destination, whereas in the East, a radically different kind of otherworldly vision was not only fostered but inculcated. Unfortunately, the West even with its saints and their mystic vision is still held down under the Law --the Law of having to believe a great hoax or not being a true Christian or Muslim.