To speak or not to speak......THAT is the question!

To speak or not to speak......THAT is the question!

To speak is to reveal.  To speak is to be misunderstood.  To speak is to be perceived.  To speak is to show the underbelly.  To speak is to love.  To speak is to lie and tell the truth at the same time. To speak is a request to be seen, accepted, loved.  To speak is to impact others.  To speak is to be human.  Speech is divine.  "In the beginning was the word..." ---  Matrika Shakti - "AUM"   To speak is to be divine.  Speaking is God.

Day before yesterday, one of the presenters here asked "What is your life mission statement?"  and immediately an inner voice popped up and declared ...."To unreservedly love all that is before me, one moment at a time."

Then a little bit later on, as part of this continuing presentation, we were asked to think of who we most identified with in the bible, and immediately, that same pesky inner voice piped up with, "Jesus"

Eventually folks shared the bible characters they most identified with and at the end, the presenter stated that in their experience, no one ever identified with Jesus.  "WHOOPS!"   Megalomaniac here?  Messianic delusion?   :)   *BLUSH*   Sat with this a bit and decided, no, I do identify with the "divine humanness" of Jesus.

 I know what it is like to feel    betrayal,   despair,   trust,  surrender,   anger,   sadness,   compassion,   love,   anguish,   and so on.  

Here comes the embarrassing part (and why am I embarrassed?)

I also think/feel/know that I know just a little bit of what it is to feel/know/be:

John 15:13King James Version (KJV)

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Five years ago I began to stand still with others in community.  As a result - a vault of immense love was quickly opened wide and I had an experience (romantic self idealization?) which changed everything while leaving everything just the same (perspective shift?)  Anyway - I went back into my journal to find the entry about that day:

The other day I found myself writing the totally unexpected words “Slash my veins – not to die – but to give ” and quickly the image of vampire arose. “Here, drink, I give you life eternal”. Then Jesus showed up with, “Drink, this is my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

And the tender feeling of giving all, the utterly pure desire to give even unto the point of death and even cross that threshold to enter into death through giving, was so real, so happy, so thus, - I was blown away. What was that?

What is this indeed?  And while I do not today, in this moment,  experience the high drama of that fleshed out moment, I do love,  and do aspire to always embody this love/being/divinity.  It is my highest good!

"What's that you say?  There are some men outside wanting to give me a white jacket with extra long sleeves?"

More of a Question ........

I have been experiencing another bit of a hiccup as I read more CAC assigned texts.  The most recent of which have been:

(which has been difficult to plough through at times due to Panikkar's use of Christian language/concepts in ways I am not familiar with).

and.............

Both texts are interesting and put forward engaging points of view,  explanations and/or arguments...... and as a result,  I find myself wondering, why do we need to explain anything?  Wilbur states: 

The Great Nest, involution and evolution, levels of being and knowing: those were some of the profound contributions of the great saints and sages of the premodern world, and can indeed be found in everything from the Enneads of Plotinus to the Lankavatara Sutra to The Life Divine of Aurobindo, all expressions of the great metaphysical systems. But there is one item we should perhaps keep in mind as we moderns attempt to assess those ideas: the great metaphysical systems were, in the last analysis, interpretive frameworks that the sages gave to their spiritual experiences. These schemes, such as the Great Chain, were interpretations of living experiences—they were not some sort of fixed, rigid, ontological grids that are true for all eternity. If, in the following, I question the adequacy of some of these interpretations, I am not at all questioning the authenticity of the experiences or realizations of these great sages. I am simply suggesting that, as evolution itself continues to move forward, new horizons can be used to recontextualize and reframe these experiences in interpretive meshworks that are more adequate in the light of modern and postmodern contributions, so that the net result is something of an integration of the very best of premodern, modern, and postmodern forms of Spirit’s own unfolding.

Wilber, Ken. Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World (p. 218). Shambhala. Kindle Edition. 

.....and the question arises: Why must "experience" be built upon in any way?  Why must it be codified?  Why must experience/being be explained?  In this question I see the attraction of traditional zen, where masters eschewed speech as conveyor of "meaning" and pointed others to "pure" experience/being unmediated by concepts by using verbal "nonsense" and physical actions (and non-actions :)

The trap of all the above Whys? for me is a retreat into "arhat-ship" Once that is recognized, both the Zen Master's slap and the Theologian and/or Philosopher's treatise take on the same function - to share, to help others. (Of course this supposes the method has not become a stage for "ego")  :D

My enneagram (I'm a 9) says that sloth is a "problem" area for me and perhaps this reaction is just another example of this slothful being.  It has been my experience though, that "IS" takes a lot less energy than "WHY IS"

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL

Haven't posted anything the past couple of months as there has been nothing I wanted or needed to say, nothing to question, nor anything to wriggle upon   :)  My Christian studies progress in an unremarkable manner.  It all has just been what it is. (Readings are just words on a page grouped in intelligible ways. The process is of taking in new information in through the eyes.   Then there are my reactions to this process, etc.)  It is always interesting, but I must confess, still annoys me at times.  Yet the whole process has proved itself to be slightly satisfying in many ways, one of which is in having self-imposed obligations (homework, deadlines, etc.)   Goal completion is always this way with me  :)   (Interestingly enough,  understanding concepts and new ideas does not have that same sense - (visceral )- of "satisfaction", "wholeness", or "completion")

However, on a "deeper" level, much of this process has been very helpful in clarifying foggy areas, pointing out stuck spots - reminding me of my,  and everyone else's humanity, - divinely egoistic (hee hee).

I become comfortable in this new area being what I am. (A Buddhist - primarily zen in flavor with a smattering of Pure Land, Dzoghen, Tendai and Shin.  A feeling based creature.  A centrality of viewpoint around which this personality coalesces, etc.)  I guess I had somehow separated Christian karen from Buddhist karen without even knowing that had occurred ,,,,as if I feared some kind of unresolvable conflict which would prove deadly?  LOL - there is no conflict here.  Same flows into not same and back again ceaselessly, effortlessly....... and isn't Life GRAND?

As a detour from assigned readings (or as an accompaniment to?) I have been sitting with Matthew Fox's Meditations with Meister Eckhart for the past 6 weeks or so.  (LOVE THE BOOK!)  Reading this type of short, pithy allegorical - metaphorical - poetical writings speaks volumes to me.  Much more so than the more "intellectual"? "rigorous"? writings of many of the authors I have been reading for this CAC course of study. This is even true when compared to the more extensive writings of Eckhart himself found in his sermons. ( I tend to think it is the thickness of language that gets between me and the author's meaning, but perhaps it is just laziness on my part).

Happy New Year All!