NON-DUAL MUSINGS ON EASTER

Image (c) Tim Langdell 2014, 2020

SOME NON-DUAL MUSINGS ON EASTER

At this time of the year I miss Marcus Borg. I dearly miss his writings and the talks he gave when he came to our Southern California city of Pasadena. But I am also deeply grateful to him for having the bravery to write about what many of us were discussing, but perhaps were too scared to write about. That is, the disconnect between what Christ actually taught and what ended up in the Christian canon, preached from pulpits on Sundays.

Borg wrote about what he called the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus. The pre-Easter Jesus is a charismatic, wise teacher in the Jewish first century Wisdom Tradition. He is human, like you and I, born probably around 4 B.C.E. and died around 30 C.E. The post-Easter Jesus, by contrast, is divine, infinite, a spiritual non-material reality, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Messiah, and becomes that Face of God as the second person of a Trinity. 

Attending Seminary was a life-changing, eye opening experience for me. I dreaded it since I had all but dismissed the Old Testament as depicting an angry God I could never connect with, and New Testament classes I presumed would be like attending a revivalist evangelical tent rally. To my immense surprise and delight, I attended classes where professors related in simple factual tones what we know about when the gospels were written, how much of it reflects what Jesus actually probably did or said, and how much was added later by scribes reinventing Jesus in their theology, not his.

So one of the first things many of us are taught at seminary is that Mark is the oldest of the NT gospels, perhaps written around 65 C.E. or so. And that the oldest writings in the NT are some of the letters of Paul. What we also learn is that originally Mark ended with the discovery of the empty tomb: no resurrection, no sightings of a risen Christ, etc. Somewhere in this period after Jesus' death around 30 C.E. and around 70-90 C.E. a movement came into being that had transformed Jesus the Wisdom Tradition teacher (the pre-Easter Jesus) into a divine being who had risen from the dead, and who suddenly was now reported to have been seen (briefly) post-death on the cross (the post-Easter Jesus). 

Now, you may say even so the original ending of Mark has the young man (man, note, not angel) in the tomb saying "He has risen!" so isn't that sufficient support of contemporaneous reporting of the resurrection? That conclusion is sadly flawed and there is general acceptance that this section containing this phrase was added to Mark 16:6 at a later date, too. If we consider what this earlier ending of Mark actually says, it makes no sense: 

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ” 

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Note "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." That none of them said anything is supported elsewhere by no text reporting they mentioned anything to Peter or the other disciples, no account of meeting up with a risen Jesus in Galilee, etc. But, the writer states they didn't mention this to anyone. If they didn't mention it to anyone, how could the writer of Mark know about it? He couldn't, of course. And this is a common device use by writers of this time period where they are adding to a story 'facts' they know are not actual facts, but what the scribe would like the reader to believe happened. There is evidence, then, that not only is Mark 16:9-20 a fiction added many years after Mark was first written, but that the rest of Mark 16 was probably either all later added fiction, or at least heavily amended and added to long after the first version of the text was written closer to the time of Jesus' death.

One of the most unfortunate consequences of the invention of the post-Easter Jesus by those writing decades after his death is that it sidelines what Jesus actually taught. Worse, it pedestalizes Jesus making him "non-human," "other," renders what he was "unobtainable" to mere humans, and so on. There's a meme that was going around the Internet not too long ago:  "It's not difficult to imitate Jesus. First, you need to get yourself born of a virgin. Second, you need to die and come back to life three days later..."

And, yes, the same solid scholarship that proves the new invented ending to Mark, also shows that the stories of virgin birth, being born in Bethlehem with wise men finding the child by following a star, etc, were all also later inventions added to the original gospels decades after the death of Jesus. Again, all part of a reinvention of Jesus as his post-Easter self, pedestalizing him.

Christ's teachings were deeply non-dual, or as non-dual as they could be being rooted in a monotheistic society and culture. During his lifetime--and thank goodness large parts of the gospels came through to us relatively unscathed--he taught that by adopting a state of consciousness that is beyond thought (metanoia) you can enter what he called heaven within. Like most Jews of the time (indeed even still of this current day), Jesus did not believe in a life after death, a place called 'heaven' that one goes to in an afterlife. He spoke of how the death and resurrection you need to experience is right here, right now, in this moment. He described it as being born again of water and the Spirit. He teased the benefits of following his teaching as including the fact that if you are born again in this way you gain eternal life. This eternal life, he says, is realization of your true self that is not (like God) subject to life and death, but rather is eternal. This is your Christ-Nature, essentially the same as what we call your Buddha-Nature in Zen. 

But more about that in future writings. My book on the parallels between the teachings of Christ and Buddha will be released soon. Stay tuned.

REFLECTION ON A KOAN BY CHRIST

(excerpt from my upcoming book on the parallels between the teachings of Christ and Buddha)

Seed Sown in Four Types of Ground

This is a seminal parable, often retold (Matt 13:3-23). It is notable for the fact that it is one of the times Christ is asked “Why do you teach in parables?” He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

How wonderfully Zen, and how koan-like: “Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.”

Not surprisingly, over the millennia Christian scholars have debated the meaning of this teaching. Indeed, it is often simply labelled as a “difficult saying” with suggestions that perhaps we are not meant to understand what it means. Yet other scholars note that whereas Matthew and Mark (4:25) both have this phrase “even what he has will be taken from him,” Luke has a variant, “whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him” (Luke 8:18).

These scholars argue that Mark and Matthew got confused, or simply failed at accurate translations, and that Luke’s revised wording is merely a clarification of what Jesus actually said. They base their argument on what they see as the obviously nonsensical nature of the version that appears in both Mark and Matthew: the logic goes, if the earlier two versions don’t make sense then Luke was just adding sense where sense was needed. The trouble is, there is no actual evidence for this, nor does it explain why both Mark and Matthew have the same phrase – why, in these scholar’s view of things, would Mark and Matthew both make the same ‘mistake?’

Of course, it’s a nice side-step to the teaching to say, “well what Jesus obviously really meant is that to those who have nothing even what he thinks he has will be taken away.” After all, now the teaching makes sense, and refocuses the message on people believing they have something when they in fact do not. And because they only thought they had it, therefore of course it is taken away (because they don’t actually really have it …). Which when we unpack the Luke version like this helps us to realize that this was not what Jesus was teaching. Luke was not merely ‘clarifying’ what Mark and Matthew should have written.

A further blow to these scholar’s theory that Luke was clarifying what Jesus ‘really’ said when he write 8:18, the problem for them is that at 19:26 Luke then goes on to put in the mount of Jesus the following: “but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” So much for the simplistic theory Luke was clarifying by adding in the “what he thinks he has.”

Christ has thus tag-line of to those with nothing even that will be taken away in a total of 3-4 parables and sayings: The Ten Servants and the Ten Minas, and The Three Servants given Talents are two notable others. Indeed, given how often this core teaching appears in his parables, we can assume he saw it as an important message. 

One who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away

 So, what does this phrase mean? Again, this seems to be one of the most koan-like statements Jesus is reported to have said, and he is reported as saying it several times. Some insight into the first century Jewish meaning behind this phrase may be gained from considering Talmud writings. As KJ Went has observed, the following is a well-known Talmudic writing:

“A mortal can put something into an empty vessel but not into a full one, but the Holy One, blessed be He, is not so, He puts more into a full vessel but not into an empty one." (Babylonian Talmud, Berakôth, 40a; Sukkah 46a)[1]

Instantly, the Zen “Cup of Tea” koan comes to mind:

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868–1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!” “Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

Two different cultures and traditions, two almost opposite metaphorical images. In one we have the image of God giving most to someone who’s cup is already overflowing, and in the other a master teacher who cannot teach someone who is already too full of ideas, concepts and preconceptions.

The Jewish way of thinking, though, gives rise to what some have dubbed the “Matthew effect” (otherwise known as the Matthew principle or the Matthew effect of accumulated advantage). Stated simply, the effect says that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. To those who perform well more tasks and merit are given, to those who under-perform fewer new tasks or rewards are given.

The “Matthew effect” was coined by Robert K. Merton to describe, for instance, how famous researchers get more credit for their work than unknown researchers who do essentially the same work.[2] Seen simplistically, this appears to be what Christ was teaching: if you work actively towards building the Kingdom of God on earth then God will favor you and reward you, whereas if you are lazy or simply refuse to work toward the Kingdom, then you will fall into God’s disfavor and not be rewarded in life.

But the teaching is deeper than that and is ultimately a teaching about dualism versus non-dualism.  It is both the joy and the challenge of Christ’s parables and sayings that more often than not they can be read on at least two different levels. Here with these several related parables is no exception. At the surface level of understanding, the teachings say that if you work towards establishing the Kingdom of Heaven (on earth) then God with reward you. The harder you work, the more ‘full’ you are of such work, the more you will be rewarded. There’s some similarity to a more simplistic view of karma: you do good then good will happen to you. The more good you do the more you benefit. Again, this is a simplistic view of karma, not an accurate one.

But the deeper teaching goes to Christ’s message about dualistic versus non-dualistic thinking and action. Throughout so many of his parables and sayings, Christ keeps coming back to common themes: develop don’t know mind, the mind of wonder of a child (childlike not childish), align your will with God’s will (that is, realize your true self, your Christ nature, your oneness with the ground of being), reject attachment to material things, and so on.

 While the two approaches (Zen and Jewish wisdom) may at first seem to be at odds—one teaching your cup must be empty, the other that it must be full—they are in fact both addressing essentially the same teaching. Insight into how this can be is gained from appreciating that a core part of Christ’s teaching was the practice of kenosis, or “self-emptying.”

Kenosis (or rather the verb form kenóō) is mentioned five times in the New Testament (Ro.4:14, 1Co.1:17, 9:15, 2Co.9:3, Phil.2:7) with exponents of Christ’s “self-emptying” core practice using the text of Philippians (2:7) which describes Christ emptying himself of his own will and filling himself with God’s will. This is Christ’s teaching, mentioned elsewhere in here, that a key goal of following Christ’s “The Way” was to align your will with God’s will, thereby becoming a son (or daughter) of God.

Another way to think of this is that this kenosis is an overcoming of ego-based behavior and thought, a transformation from dualistic (ego-based) being to non-dualistic being. An emptying yourself of your “self” (with a small s) and filling yourself with your true “Self” (with a large S). The simple truth is that as you enter into non-dual consciousness then your entire being simultaneously becomes totally empty (of self, ego, dualism), and yet by the very fact of being thus ‘empty’ is therefore totally full. Non-dual consciousness cannot be partial—it is full to overflowing at all times since it is, after all, awakening.

To evoke a modern parable, it is like the woman who went around with extremely dark glasses on that turned her world dark and monochromatic, and blinkers that cut out most of her field of vision. And then one sunny mid-summer day, the woman took off her glasses and removed the blinkers. In that moment she went from being full of a dark, limited view of the world to be filled with light, color, expanse of vision.

The spiritual transformation from ego based, dualistic being to non-dualistic fully awake being is like this. But it isn’t the end of the journey: there is then the integration of the dual and the non-dual. To draw the parallel of a compass, realizing non-dual consciousness is like getting to 180—but our journey doesn’t end until we get all the way back round to 360, having fully integrated the dual and non-dual (or in Zen terms, the “absolute” and the “relative”—but more on that later and elsewhere in this and subsequent books).

Let’s look again at the core teaching Christ is reported to have used in more than one parable: “as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.”

In teaching my students as we work on koan introspection I caution them to look out for “the hook.” Many koans have at least one hook, and often there is a core hook. What form this hook takes varies koan to koan, but in general it is the part of the text that is designed to draw the intellect in. In other cases, it may be just a red herring or deliberately misleading, or even downright false, statement. But the intellect is drawn to it as if a moth to a flame.

Here in what Christ taught I would suggest the hook is the word “has.” Elsewhere in his parables and sayings, Christ focuses on a core part of following “The Way” is to not be attached to material possessions. He speaks of becoming like little children in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (within), and of how it is harder for a rich man to achieve this state of consciousness than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. And elsewhere still he teaches his followers to look at whose face is on a coin: “Give to Caesar things that are Caesar’s and give to God that which is God’s.”

These are all part of Christ’s core teaching on attachment, which is also a core part of the Buddha’s teaching, too. The teaching goes like this: so long as you think there is a “you” (or “I”) that can “have” things you will not be able to realize your Christ Nature/Buddha Nature. To believe you “have” things is central to dualist thinking, and a core illusion that keeps us from being awake to who we truly are.

Let's close by returning to the core teaching: To one who has nothing, even that will be taken away.  

Sit with that. Having nothing, having that taken away. What does this mean?

---

[1] https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/difficult-sayings.html

[2] Merton, Robert K. (1968). "The Matthew Effect in Science" (PDF). Science. 159 (3810): 56–63.