All the Dumb Questions

Once when Krishnamurti was asked by a reporter what he would think of when the same question was asked for the umpteenth time, he said "tennis." This was late in his life, he might have been ninety at the time. By this time also he felt at times at least, that for all his sixty years of teaching, and God only knows how many books, no one or nearly no one had ever truly understood him. Dr. Helen Schucman, who was the scribe of A Course in Miracles had similar feelings at the end of her life. The Thomas Gospel talks about "hidden sayings" (Logion 1). None of that is elitism, though it has often been misinterpreted in that kind of light. The simple truth is that very few people really want to be bothered with the wisdom of the ages. Too much hassle. As the Romans knew, the people want bread and games (panem et circenses). Don't bother me with the Truth. No need today.

In the Gospels the scene at the end of Mark, when Mary Magdalene tells the other apostles of the resurrection, is priceless. The arguments that followed are equally telling, including the endless disputes of whether the resurrection was of the mind or of the body. What became Christianity adopted the latter position, though some other schools toyed around fairly seriously with the notion that the resurrection was of the mind. Certainly with the advent of A Course in Miracles it could not be clearer that this is the only way that the story makes any sense at all. But again these are concepts which we don't know right away what to do with, since on the face of it we seem to be a body that has a mind, whereas in the Context of such teachings as A Course in Miracles, it is clear that we are a mind projecting a body, and watching the experience of "My life," which is one of many thousands we could have ordered from Netflix, or picked up at Blockbusters. The main thing is we get so engrossed while watching, and we identify with the hero of the story, we end up completely believing we are him or her, oblivious to any other way of looking at the story. The Course however does tell us to learn to look at things from Above the Battleground:

     Those with the strength of God in their awareness could never think of battle. What could they gain but loss of their perfection? For everything fought for on the battleground is of the body; something it seems to offer or to own. No one who knows that he has everything could seek for limitation, nor could he value the body's offerings. The senselessness of conquest is quite apparent from the quiet sphere above the battleground. What can conflict with everything? And what is there that offers less, yet could be wanted more? Who with the Love of God upholding him could find the choice of miracles or murder hard to make? (ACIM:T-23.IV.9)

In short, whenever you get sick and tired of being sick and tired, you may remember this kind of advice. In Logion 42 of the Thomas Gospel Jesus expresses the same idea with fewer words: "Be passersby." Learn to watch what you're doing, observe it, don't identify with it and lose yourself, for that leads you to the way out.

It is only when we don't really like the story any more (our own damn fault for taking out a tragedy, when we could also have picked a comedy for the same price), that we begin to look at things a different way. And then when we find a teacher, like Jesus, Krishnamurti, or the Buddha, who hangs out not where the crouds are, but "in the wilderness," or "the desert" etc. this means we're now turning away for a moment of our ego's bread and games, and we immediately start having questions. This is what I read, when I look at the stories of the apostles, when I read the transcripts from Krishnamurti workshops/lectures, when I listen to tapes of workshops of the foundation for A Course in Miracles. These people are all asking all the questions that we all want to ask. Sometimes we haven't realized it yet, but if we haven't yet, we will realize at a later point that we're asking a question we heard somebody ask at a workshop, etc. Ultimately what will answer the questions however, is if we do so through our own experience, as long as we stay stuck in answering questions, we are really throwing up roadblocks against the experience that part of us wants, and part of us is deadly afraid of. Ultimately this is the type of reasoning which Jesus offers in ACIM: if you're in doubt if this is for you or not, try it for a while, and see if you like it. The great big risk is that you might feel more peaceful. Another important clue is in Logion 108 from Thomas, "Whosoever drinks form my mouth shall become like me. I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to that person." As usual this should not be read literally but figuratively. It is about sharing his experience, and becoming one with him on an experiential level, for only the experience will tell us where words fall short. It is not about the words, it is about a willingness to have the experience, and that means giving up on the ego's next ride (because we already know to expect the same old result from the same old actions), and following him in deed, not in word, and the means for that, as they appear in the Course are the practice of his forgiveness practice, which are a way of switching from the way our ego sees the world to the way Jesus sees it. A way to get out of our bad old habits which are making us miserable. And while we are at it we can listen to all the dumb questions, or ask our own dumb questions, which will only fade away when the experience catches up to us and we finally realize what he was talking about. As I pointed out in an earlier post, in Gary Renard's books he is really asking all the dumb questions for us, AND his teachers help him to experience the answers as much as answering him in words, so vicariously through him, we get the point that it is about opening ourselves up to the experience, instead of closing our minds, thinking we have all the answers.

Role Play, Empathy

I talked about role play in my last post, but there are many ways that we can engage in this, and you don't always have to act it out. One of the simple ways is empathy, truly allowing yourself to be in someone else's shoes, which I assure you will change your outlook on other people, and make you a lot less judgmental. And simply, we also enrich our experience. For one thing I had this strong feeling with Plato, in the times when I was actively reading him, it was as if I was at times transported to Athens to his academy, and of course many themes that are discussed in the dialogues are truly perennial questions of human life.

One of the fascinating exercises in this regard for me has always been to empathize in this fashion with the twelve apostles, being around Jesus. Once you break the mold of the dominant Christian interpretation of the New Testament, and bypass the judgment of many of the apocryphal materials as somehow irrelevant, and you just begin to read for yourself, I think the one issue that stands out the most is how the apostles were attracted to Jesus and his teachings, but in truth none of them understood him completely. This makes complete sense also with the comments that Gary Renard's teachers make in his books, namely the apostles mostly experienced another twenty or so lifetimes prior to enlightenment. And look at the stories, these guys are stumbling around, mostly not getting what Jesus is saying, yet listen again and again and again, and somehow in  their own way after he dies, they seem to know that their time with him was their greatest time ever, and it changed their lives.

These stories are no different from e.g. the relationship of Krishnamurti with the people around him. Nobody got him either. And of course it is always like that, which is why it's true as so many people have said that if Jesus just showed up one day, he would not be recognized, and possibly locked up in an asylum. And mentally we lock him up all the time. As long as we make the crucifixion the main event, in lieu of the resurrection, we in effect confine him to the historical role of the body that played him two thousand years ago in Palestine. If however the resurrection is the main event, then he is still with us now, (and we're still not getting what he says). We want most of all for this world to be good and real, and we don't really have ears for his Kingdom not of this world, that is, not until we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And maybe just maybe, then we tune in to him, and like the apostles, we may not know what to make of him, but we know something sounds damned good and convincing.

A Course in Miracles makes it clear why we eventually listen. The point it makes is that even at the worst of times we are never quite one hundred percent crazy, for the mind that was in him is also in us, and one day we'll start paying attention to that little spark. Jesus' teaching of forgiveness is the method to allow that little spark to grow, until it can shine away the dark. When first we recognize it, a little child is born in us, and the more we can refrain from telling it who it is, but listen to it as it is teaching us, the better off we will be. And so we will humbly empathize with the apostles, who were only dimly getting who Jesus was, but they hung in there, for they did not doubt he spoke the truth. Now it is also no longer a problem that there are so many versions and stories about him, which contradict each other on many points. Not one of them has the whole story, they all merely reported it as best they could. Logion 13 in the Thomas gospel is very cute on this point, for it raises the issue loud and clear that the world is not ready to hear what Jesus really has to say. That is as true now as it was then. The only one who maybe got what Jesus was saying, Mary Magdalene, his wife, seems to disappear from the scene after playing her role as "the apostle to the apostles." The boys ignore her, and start founding religions, and schools, while she, the only one who maybe did get it, seems to wander off and not leave much of a trail. And as always the religions accomplish only one thing, namely we stop listening to the teacher, since we end up thinking we already know, so now we're telling him what he told us, instead of listening to him. Buddhist tradition has a wise saying about this: "What's known as the teachings of the Buddha are not the teachings of the Buddha." Realizing this, you leave yourself a chance to actually listen when you finally do meet the Buddha. By the same token, if we identify with the apostles in their failure to understand Jesus fully, perhaps we would keep our ears open as well. It might inspire some humility to actually listen. To me, that's the value of those stories. In short, this was not "50 way to leave your lover," but "12 ways to misunderstand Jesus," and, if we empathize with the characters, we may understand our own resistance to understanding what Jesus is talking about, and that is surely the beginning of wisdom.

Lemme 'splain

Today I was in a social situation, where my book came up, as part of introductions, and I got to practice (again) just how to explain simply where it fits. I had to be exact, for there was an evangelical theologian in the company. I'm finding that it is becoming easier and easier to do as I go along, and the notion is simple, Jesus was not a Christian, since that faith was invented after his time.

Jesus and the Buddha were spiritual teachers in their day and age, just like Krishnamurti was one in our day, and they were not founders of religions. Krishnamurti was very specific about that. Those religions were founded afterwards, by followers - Krishnamurti has been spared that fate sofar.

The fact that those followers did not necessarily teach the same thing as the people in whose name they built these religious systems has become blatantly clear from the Thomas gospel because it is the oldest of the Gospels, predating St. Paul by some 20 years, and it contains nothing at all of the theological ideas that made Christianity what it is. Moreover the dating of the Thomas gospel prior to the canonical Gospels, which reflect the editorial influence of Paul, is clear. Besides the absence of key (Christian) theological ideas, there is the fact that in the case of many sayings which later do appear in the Canonical Gospels, the form of those sayings is invariably more primitive in Thomas, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Thomas had to come first.

So the rest is a matter of personal preference. If Christianity works for you, fine. If you're interested in the teachings of Jesus in their own right, the Thomas gospel should be one of your primary sources, and you should clear your head of the cobwebs of Christianity. That's all there is to it. The biggest reason that people have had problems understanding the Thomas gospel, is because they cannot mentally sort out that the Jesus who speaks in Thomas is not a Christian. It is absolutely necessary that you're clear about that, otherwise you're bound to keep on misreading him.

On Choosing the Crucifixion

Each day, each hour and minute, even each second, you are deciding between the crucifixion and the resurrection; between the ego and the Holy Spirit. The ego is the choice for guilt; the Holy Spirit the choice for guiltlessness. The power of decision is all that is yours. What you can decide between is fixed, because there are no alternatives except truth and illusion. And there is no overlap between them, because they are opposites which cannot be reconciled and cannot both be true. You are guilty or guiltless, bound or free, unhappy or happy. (ACIM:T-14.III.4)

This book about Krishnamurti is without a doubt the definitive biography on him and it makes worthwhile reading. His story continues to amaze, and it is extremely instructive, especially because of the way K emphasized that he was not exceptional, that the path was open to all of us. There can be no question that Charles Leadbeater saw something, when he identified K's aura as being exceptional when he was a little child, but then Leadbeater got increasingly stuck in ritual and bombast which makes the world very real, while K grew up to know the awakening, which he realized was a path that is open to us all. His descriptions of what that means are certainly classic, like when he speaks of the river emptying in the ocean, and that at that point it's no longer meaningful to speak of the river, and he ends up referring to he own persona as merely K and in the 3rd person from then on.

He also saw through the whole cult that was being created around him and what a sham it was, because it persistently chose form over content, and almost unbelievably he ended up dismantling it at the very moment that the mantle was being passed to him, in his famous speech "Truth is a pathless land," in 1929.

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect... Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organise a belief... If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountaintop to the valley. If you would attain the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. You must climb towards the Truth, it cannot be 'stepped down' or organised for you... (as quoted in Roland Vernon, Star in the East, p. 181, spoken by JK on August 3rd 1929)

All the issues are here. In Course terminology we have to bring the illusion to the truth, and not drag the truth down to the illusion, realizing that is the great reversal. Ultimately that means to stop choosing form over content, which is the choice for the Crucifixion we all make all the time, and stopping our addiction to that choice means learning to follow the spirit and wake up from the stupor we are in as long as we insist on mistaking form for content. Learning to see Jesus in this light means to drop all the falderal that the world has created around him, to realize that he is present to anyone if we only learn to put the trash out properly (cleaning the Augias stables of our old beliefs and values, etc.). Hence the emphasis of the Course is on undoing, not on doing, on unlearning our bad habits of making the wrong decision, for we need not even make the right decision, we need do nothing, since the truth is what remains if we stop lying. In short, with tongue firmly in cheek, the only sacrifice that is asked of us, is to stop chosing the crucifixion. One of the best ways of putting that is still Logion 42, Be passersby, meaning to take nothing of the world of form seriously at all, don't take it personally, don't identify with it.

To learn this course requires willingness to question every value that you hold. Not one can be kept hidden and obscure but it will jeopardize your learning. No belief is neutral. Every one has the power to dictate each decision you make. For a decision is a conclusion based on everything that you believe. It is the outcome of belief, and follows it as surely as does suffering follow guilt and freedom sinlessness. There is no substitute for peace. What God creates has no alternative. The truth arises from what He knows. And your decisions come from your beliefs as certainly as all creation rose in His Mind because of what He knows. (ACIM:T-24.in.2)

P.S. Something more about this book. Not only is it the best Krishnamurti biography, I would argue that it is the best introduction to his thought. The Mary Luytens biography was good, but in all fairness falls in the category of hagiography, not biography, she was clearly an early follower and an admirer. The book by Radha Rajagopal Sloss, the daughter of the wife of his longtime business manager, with whom (the mother), K had a 25 year relationship, while her marriage was completely dysfunctional, and it was the product of resentment, appealing to negativity. This book is marvelously balanced, but also truly renders a great picture of the intellectual landscapes where K traveled, and thus it provides a very helpful introduction to his thinking against the background of his life story.

That Was the Week that Was

I admit it, I borrowed that title from a song by Tom Lehrer. Just for contrast, we might remember his hilarious, sarcastic song, National Brotherhood Week. We've come a long way, baby.

In the last 10 days, I've been having flashbacks to how as a 12 year old I would devour the newspapers, and followed the Civil Rights movement blow by blow, while eating up whatever books of MLK that were available in Dutch. I'd lay sprawled on the floor in our living room, always the first to grab the papers (we had no TV when I grew up). So many years later, I just watched MLK's I had a dream speech for the umpteenth time, on the website of ACIM monk, who adds to it a wonderful quote from Ken Wapnick on the meaning of Jesus' teaching. And then I realize that back while I was sprawled on the floor reading about all this, somewhere in Rotterdam, Holland, Ken Wapnick, who was later to become my principal teacher of A Course in Miracles, was there, for he too recognized the greatness and truth which radiated from MLK, and he was able to join in. So somewhere in idea space, paths crossed even then, which later were to cross again in the physical world, long before I had any clue at all that I would be living in the USA at this time, when Barack Obama became the 44th president. And ACIM monk provided us with a brilliant reflection on the inaugural address too, to which I could hardly add anything, so I won't try.

As I've shared here before, MLK led me to Gandhi, and a deeper understanding of non-violence, so that ultimately I became a conscientious objector when the draft came calling. Subsequently my reading wandered on to Krishnamurti, who in retrospect seems to have been a perfect preparation of the Course, just as much as Johan Willem Kaiser pointed me the way towards understanding that Jesus' teaching was about living his truth, and learning by experience what it was he stood for. His look at Jesus was almost exactly the same thing as the quote from Ken Wapnick which ACIM monk put next to the I had a dream video.  Looking back at this now I see the threads running through that carpet of time, which I call my life, in a way that tells me you can't miss it. No wonder then that I should get involved with the Thomas gospel, for from its pages speaks the living Jesus, and if you take your time with it, it is as if he's speaking to you, the reader, directly, leading us to that inner understanding of the experience of truth which he represents, and wants to share with us. And our relationship with him becomes real when we realize it's in the present tense, and not about some figure in history. In that realization lies the resurrection.