quote:

Originally posted by Freebird:
.. Jesus loved Mary Magdalene. Any human male knows the power within the arms of a woman who loves him, like a ton of chains around a man weakening him with the desire to stay. Jesus as the son of man and son of God had human feelings of love, which is so hard for humanity to accept. Great observation on your part. [/QB]

Dear Freebird,

You and I really are tuned into the same frequecy. Another of our interesting cross posts. My heart is filling with bliss. That scene with Jesus about to ascend and Mary Magdalene wanting to hold him is so rich. She becomes an evangelist, telling the good news to the other disciples. But do they understand in exactly the way she did? I think not. Each character, each person has their own experience to sort through and make sense of.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan:
[qb]. . . rest assured your loving, giving heart is appreciated, not only by me -- and oh how I do -- but also, I think, by Phil, though from a different angle, an angle befitting a the fine moderator that he is. His point is about theological method. As they say, "don't take it personally." [/qb]

Absolutely correct on all points. I totally DO appreciate your contributions, Freebird, but I don't take anyone's interpretations of mystical experiences to be beyond critique - - not even those presented as "revelations." So, as Ryan notes, it's "nothing personal." I do hope you and anyone else participating in these discussions are open to feedback, however; one doesn't have to accept what doesn't fit. I will say that, for myself, I don't consider any interpretation I have on this topic to be set in stone, and I've been dealing with it experientially and reflectively for almost 20 years now. If there's a better way to and understand these issues, I'm all for it. Hopefully, that's true for everyone.

Oh Ryan, you are absolute bliss today

Are we ever flowing in the river and stream together as we enter the sea of love above. Kisses from angels with iridescent wings with the colors of the rainbow.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that the resurrection is a reference to spiritualized sexuality, [/qb]

Hi Phil,

We are dealing here with the mystical reading of scripture. Some see it. Others don't. There is no proving it.

Last year, my wife and I, with others present sometimes, read through the whole gospel of John, one section per week using the lectio divina format. Four readings of the same text each evening, looking at each phase for different levels of meaning.

Midweek, I often consulted Raymond Brown's commentary on John. Not on the forthcoming text, but on the one that we had read before. As you can guess, I often saw mystical angles, as John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila did before.

Raymond Brown would have none of it. He explicitly says that John's gospel was not written with the intent of producing mystical insights like those of John and Teresa. So what I did was to try to reconcile the two by trying to first affirm the level of meaning that Brown saw, and whenever I saw a mystical meaning, I tried to make sure it did not contradict the literal meaning and the common, orthodox understanding of faith that all seekers have access to.

So for those who experience spiritualized sexuality in the way that it seems Freebird and I both do, the text conveys something more. But it is a "something more" that is not required for faith.

That's good work, Ryan. It sounds like you're onto the ancient practice of striving to grasp the four senses of scripture. One could even add a 5th sense -- what it means to you, personally. This was the early Church's response to the gnostics, who emphasized only the mystical. The early Church's contention was that one didn't really understand scripture until they grasped it in all these senses; this was authentic Christian gnosis, or knowledge. It sounds like you're much in that tradition.

Ray Brown's exegesis is very much more tuned in to the literal, analogical and moral senses of John's Gospel. I've heard him speak a number of times and have read many of his works. He's a good guy, though -- one of the best scripture scholars of our day, especially on John.

Here's a link on lectio divina and the four senses of Scripture by Thomas Keating. Good stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
...one of the best scripture scholars of our day, especially on John. [/QB]

Yes, Phil, his is one of the best. And on the forefront of building bridges with Protestants. My New Testament teacher at Union in Virginia, Paul Achtemeier, was one of the Protestants he collaborated with. In those days, my dream was to become a biblical scholar and teacher. But there were others nearby who were better at languages and or had more leadership gifts, so it seemed fitting for me to take my desire to learn in a different direction.

Brown taught for a time at St. Mary�s here in Baltimore and they hosted a conference dedicated to the ongoing impact of his work. I attended it and one of my favorite lectures was by a scholarly nun who spoke about John�s resurrection account. She helped me understand how cross and resurrection interplay in this gospel.

Except for the centering prayer movement, I doubt I would have found out about the lectio divina way of reading scripture. And if it weren�t for Lectio Divina, I doubt I would have been drawn to centering prayer. The group I was with in Lansing and now, my group in Baltimore both do lectio as part of each gathering.

I�m curious, when and where did you hear Brown speak? And what are some of the areas he impacted your thinking?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by revkah:
[QB] Suffice it to say that my own k awakening has been very sexual, and that has been the most disorienting aspect of it. .. Isn't it interesting that in this sex-saturated culture, the whole area of sex and divinity is embarrassing (at least to me) and almost taboo?"

Hi Revkah,

I'm intrigued by the word "disorienting." Reminds me of some other words:� orienting," "reorienting," "orientation," "orient."

Sex and divinity is taboo, yes. That comes into play in the scandal of the "virgin birth" and the various ways of interpreting it. It makes the notion of Jesus' father being in heaven quite (embarrassingly?) literal. One of the basic differences between men and women when it comes to sex is that if it leads to conception, the woman is in it for the long haul. By contrast, the man can be gone, dead, disappeared... whatever. That is why imho "father" is such an apt metaphor for the perceptually absent aspect of the trinity! Fathers are so capable of absence. Mother's really cannot be in heaven what with the nine months pregnancy, breast feeding etc.

I'm rambling... hoping I'll say something you might reply to because I enjoy your sharing so.

Ryan, I heard Brown speak at the Spiritual Life Center in Wichita, where he presented a five-day workshop for priests sometime in the early 90s. I volunteered to audio-tape the sessions, so I got to listen in on everything. He was amazing in both the clarity and depth of his lectures, which were delivered without notes, Powerpoint, newsprint, chalkboard, etc. There were handouts, but he mostly just stood and elaborated on some aspect of the scriptures, mostly John, which is is area of specialty.

After I attended a Cursillo in 1973, I decided I needed to learn more about my faith, so I went to the Catholic book store and bought a copy of his book, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Very meaty stuff, but also accessible to my grad-school mind. What he wrote (supporting the traditional doctrines) made sense. (I'm not sure, btw, that he'd agree that the Father was absentee; also, Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, not the Father, and a husband was provided in short order).

As you noted, Brown's exegesis doesn't tend toward a mystical interpretation, but it's not in conflict, either. We really do need both the spirit/mystical understanding and the more formal to have a sound grasp of the meaning of scripture, imo.

- follow-up post on theosis and sex coming soon.

Here's following up from another aspect of our discussion and how I see things.

I believe we are born anew in Christ through baptism and faith whether we experience K or not. This rebirth happens primarily in the spiritual part of our human nature (the soul), and grows as the mind and will advance in truth and love, respectively. In time, this growth comes to transform the emotional and intellectual roots of our nature through the dark nights of sense and spirit. Eventually (in some, but not all), it even overflows into the body itself, and that's where k comes in. With the awakening of the K process (which might even take place during one of the dark nights), the body itself becomes transformed in such a manner as to better accommodate the intensified and purified psychic energy of the higher Self. This emergence of Self is mediated by Christ through his union with Ego, and facilitated by the Holy Spirit, whose intelligence guides the process of inner transformation. In truth, we can speak of this emergent Self as a Christ-Self when it happens this way (a nuance, here, is that there can also be emergent-Self awakenings that are not mediated by Christ and the Spirit). As the body itself comes to participate more and more in the love relationship with God, even one's sexuality becomes caught up in the process.

I hope this perspective makes sense. It validates the rebirth process that precedes k awakening (which most do not ever experience), and also recognizes that k awakenings can take place without any reference to Christ and the Spirit (inasmuch as Self is of the soul, and not Christ).

Good insights Phil

Phil's quote:

It validates the rebirth process that precedes k awakening (which most do not ever experience), and also recognizes that k awakenings can take place without any reference to Christ and the Spirit (inasmuch as Self is of the soul, and not Christ)
-------------------------------

I certainly am in agreement here. The light of the Holy Spirit coming forth from my heart was first, followed by an active k process. God's Holy Spirit is the Birther of the newborn spirit within me and in control of this great work of love.
-----------------------------

I really do not see any specialness of individuals who are within the k process, and between the lovers and followers of Christ who are not undergoing this k process, and who instead by their faith and love in Christ may receive a new birth silently, for we are all the same as children of God.
-----------------------------------

Everything works together for those who love God.
------------------------------

We have quite a few forum members who are and/or may be within a k awakening,and some of us are in the integration and transformation of well known k process.

I am curious as to how many of the members here on the forum within the k process have received shaktipat, Toronto blessing in Churches, attended revival meetings in Churches with laying on of hands by a Pastor, or a member having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, Reiki initiations, Darshan, etc. and how many, like myself, have entered this process, without any knowledge of k, nor any stimulation by another, as well as none of the above named sources which can trigger k activity in its awakenings.

I received laying on of hands and baptism of the Spirit in 1973, and have experienced glossalalia ever since. Not much evidence of K activity until 1986 or so, however. I do find that glossalalia helps to both stimulate and balance the energy, however.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Very meaty stuff, but also accessible to my grad-school mind. What he wrote (supporting the traditional doctrines) made sense. (I'm not sure, btw, that he'd agree that the Father was absentee; also, Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, not the Father, and a husband was provided in short order). [/qb]

Thanks Phil, for that story of when you heard Ray Brown. I'd like to read his book on Jesus' conception and resurrection. True, I doubt he'd agree with my take on the relation of Jesus' "Father" and the virginal conception. One might say that "Jesus' father was the Holy Spirit" but that doesn't sound right either. I know I'm being a little provocative, but if we just recite the creed, it sounds so familiar, it seems to me the mind kind of glazes over, and we miss the punch of it somehow. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to see the virginal conception as related somehow to spiritualized sexuality, but one has to get past that traditional religious fog. How would you relate the virginal conception to spiritualized sexuality if at all?

quote:

Originally posted by Freebird:
[qb] I am curious as to how many of the members here on the forum within the k process have received shaktipat, Toronto blessing in Churches, attended revival meetings in Churches with laying on of hands by a Pastor, or a member having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, Reiki initiations, Darshan, etc. and how many, like myself, have entered this process, without any knowledge of k [/qb]

Interesting question, Freebird. My initial flash came spontaneously without clear social explanation. I had not head of "k". Subsequently, I sought out/found centering prayer, hatha yoga, reike, acupressure/massage, shalom place etc. I was drawn to these in part to help integrate/balance the energies.

K seems to be a special situation found more among contemplative types, and even then, not all of them. It also seems to be more related to the emergence of Self-consciousness than anything else, which is why we find evidence of K outside of Christian spirituality.

Phil, I think we have to differentiate between Kundalini with Holy Spirit and kundalini without Holy Spirit. According to my understanding the first one is more related to the emergence of Self-consciousness while the later one has to do with embodying the energy/spirit of Christ in our body. Faith and baptism is the crux of the process and kundalini with Holy Spirit consolidate our faith in Christ. For this reason, I believe, kundalini if it is properly guided by Holy Spirit can be essential for our growth in Christ. Please correct me if I�m wrong.