If anyone saw CRASH, an excellent, excellent, best I've seen in a long time movie (if you can get beyond the occassional disturbing visuals) about how Spirit will always find a way to get through the resulting chaos from our delusions that we are separate from God and one another, then you most likely saw the trailers to the documentary RISE.

RISE documents how one man, Tommy the Clown, former drug dealer/ inmate started a sort of real life musical west side story and alternative trend growing in LA neighborhoods that is keeping kids from killing each other. ..and givng them somthing to live for and lots for us to think about. " You want to to battle with me" (not against me) is one of many rap songs to which they so passionatley dance their anger and grief. It could have been better made, imo, but hey..at least the guy took his money and time to make it, which is more then I've done. Make sure you watch to the end as it makes some excellent references to the ancestral roots of this trend to tribal dances in Africa, where simialar dancing took place. The idea was that if a man could not take down his dance partner without hurting him, without controlling his inner rage and anger, he was not allowed to marry. This was how they protected the wives and children from harm...according to guest African priest we were blessed to have in our presence at the veiwing.

These ghetto kids he said are well aware that they get the end of the barrel in the stores of their hoods..the food that is almost expired, the rejects at payless..etc. They know there in a hell hole of oppression and that they are worth much more.

It also suggests how destructive 'competition" can be to the human spirit, on it's most basic level. Rent it and see how Spirit is on the RISE in the ghetto. It suggests on some level to me, that leaders of the higher echelons of society might try exploring more creative ways for expressing their anger.

Oh, and about the kundilini....yes,yes yes.. dance like that and you will feel much better.

Longer more intellectual reveiw below.

Onehttp://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1635228,00.html

Ken Wilber says that there is virtually no vertical growth in most individuals between the ages of twenty five and fifty five. Films like this are shouting "WAKE UP!" to the masses.

Father Thomas Keating feels that if we could only bring our attention to God for twenty minutes twice a day, then more people would have an opportunity to
"awaken" to some point of departure from "false self" consciousness to something else.

"If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything; it is open to everthing. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities; in the expert's mind there are few....

In the beginner's mind there is no thought, 'I have attained to something.' ...When we have no thought of achievement, no thought of self, we are true beginners. Then we can really learn something....

So the most difficult thing is always to keep your beginner's mind....Even though you read much Zen literature, you must read each sentence with a fresh mind. You should not say, 'I know what Zen is,' or 'I have attained enlightenment.' This is also the secret of the arts; always be a beginner."

--Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

MM: Do you or anyone else here, happen to have a source for WHEN F. Keating said the above about "only spending 20 minutes 2x a day?" Just follwing my nose again...
Yea....for beginners mind and the most simplest, easiest, most pleasurable way to get there that I know of....

In addition to the 20x2 recommended daily dose, many go on retreats and intensives and sometimes will get together for six hours, with breaks on a Saturday.

http://www.centeringprayer.com/OpenHeart/open12.htm

Open Mind, Open Heart is probably the best introduction to Keating. Basil Pennington's Centering Prayer and Centered Living were two of the first books for me.

I will make a note of and see those movies, so thank you.

I am still wanting to know WHEN he first said that..any ideas as to where to look?

Finding Grace at the Center, originally published in 1978, has the instructions for CP, but it may have been several years prior to that, near as I can tell. WHY is the WHEN important to you?

BETTER EDITED ENTRY OF PREVIOUS POST (SORRY ABOUT THAT FOLKS)

It's important to me for several reasons, and would be of interest to anyone with a more in depth understanding of astrology because theoretically when a powerful spiritual teaching of such a sublime nature is planted in the collective consciousness, it is in a very fragile seed form. (Jesus- "My time has not yet come. " He of course knew this on the level of consciousness, as do many Masters, but in less evolved minds, (of which most of us have) Vedic astrology can assist this knowingness greatly) And the timing of when and how such spiritual Knowledge is planted can very much affect it's influence, it's success and/or it's failure ..i.e. whether or not it takes root with the highest possible influence. Any good farmer knows that how and when one initiates the sewing of one's seed is vital to a good crop.
Just like a devoted husband or wife comes to know the right time to talk to their spouse about say...as difficulty in the relationship, problems with the kids, finances etc. I think it's very similar with our Creator in that, the souls who spend their life in devotion and in accordance to the will of their Master, be it a person, or a set of princiclples that are in accord with higher law, such as Buddhism, will automatically have a better sense of timing about everything, as they will be in harmony and resonance with the universe. It's also important to know how to properly cultivate the crop, how to prune it, and weed it to keep it healthy and thriving.

But my main reason for asking, at this time, is this: The technique of teaching Centering Prayer is identical to that of the TM instruction, minus the Holy Tradition of Maharishi via a puja which takes place upon initiation and also minus a Sanskrit mantra, which theoretically has a subtle but profound difference on the consciousness of the person saying it.. Name and Form. Just like all sound vibrations each have very different effects on matter. Also when one focuses on a word which one knows the meaning of, it is very easy to want to engage the intellect, which defeats the purpose of using a mantra for transcendence and emptying oneself. The intellect is finite and so conceives of the word at the level of consciousness of the individual saying it. ( in devotion it's the same thing, but hopefully the thing we are devoted is relational,with a living, eternal Master, such as Jesus) ...With Sanskrit, which is one of the five sacred languages, (the most subtle ,imo) the sound....the name, is the SAME as the FORM, in and of itself. Through frquency, It resonsonates with' the meaning' or attribute of the sound itself. ( Rhudyars articles may hint at an aspect of what I am getting at from a different perspective) So theoretically (and experientially for me) it can affect both the consciousness and the physiology of the practitioner. My understanding is that these mantras were cognized by the Rishis while in very pure states of awareness....pure consciousness, and during a much purer time in the history of humankind, then we are in now and they should not be played with lightly.

I was at a symposium last year with Thomas Keating, Sheikh Din al-Dayemi, and Joseph Chilton Pearce(author of "Crack in the Cosmic Egg" and other great books. He was very involved with HeartMath. ) The focus of the symposium was: "What Are We Here For?" I had been introduced to Centering Prayer other times, and it was interesting for me to listen to F. Keating guide it. Not knowing it's history and that it was indeed influenced by TM, I introduced myself to him afterwards and very innocently, excitedly and candidly asked him if he was aware that the CP instructions was exactly the same as TM, but with out the mantra of say Jesus or love or peace, etc. ( I was seeking connection about it) He said, "No, it was different" and I said "No it's not... I have done both. The only difference is the mantra and lack of puja". He said "No, the 'intention' is different, TM is simply a relaxation technique." I said
" No the intention as originally intended and taught by Maharishi was always to help create World Peace and that the effects of the Sanskrit mantras help do that. I explained that the only reason Maharishi packaged it that way was to reach as many people as possible. (And you can bet that Maharishi always releases any new knowledge, at the most auspicious astrological time)

F. Keating then said that the intention of most people learning TM was for more success, better health etc ...inferring that CP had a higher intention as it focussed on God or virtues. (which is what some of the Siddhis do) I told him that MY intention upon learning TM was for World Peace and that once one transends, it doesn't matter what one's intention is, as they are not in the 'mind" but the Sankrist Mantra one uses DOES indeed have an effect on the consciousness and the physiology, that it is qutie different with each different mantra, though subltely so, then just any word one may choose.

F. Keathing of course was innocent in not knowing the BIG GER PICTURE of Maharishi, but in his relative ignorance about the whole matter, ...he of course thought he was right.

I don't at all question that the TM technique deepens prayer. When I first learned it, my prayer life became very very enriched, "infused" as they say in CP. But that is what is so great about TM . It enriches all experience, of EVERYTHING, while at the same time creating less attachement to experience. Interestingly enough, being a kinesthetic, I couldn't help but notice that the whole time I was talking to him his body language was very closed, arms crossed, head shaking 'no" the whole time, there was no questioning at all as to what I might be getting at, nor any hint that he was at all aware of the implications of "borrowing something" from another Holy Tradition., without respect to the way the originator of it wanted it taught. Nor did he even mention that it was indeed influenced by TM. It was a very sad moment for me even with out knowing that at the time, but now it's even sadder.

So it seems to me that what we have here is a case of some renegade TM teacher not being true to the the knowledge that Maharishi passed on to them in good faith, (and that is ultimately who is at fault here as TM teachers make agreements to teach TM as they are taught to teach it), and even though they may have thought, from their level of consciousness, that they were acting with the best of intentions, they may have actually done a lot of harm on more subtle plains. There is no way to know this for sure of course, but it's possible) I say this for many reasons. One being that there are many follow up lectures about the affects of TM on ones consciousness and physiology to help one integrate their new and sometimes rapidly evolving consciousness, depending on the individual. There are also preparatory lectures and gentle, yogic practices introduced along the way at retreats to help balance the physiology..or K energy, but they never refer to k as such. The whole introduction of ayurveda to the west is in some way to me a response to the need for it, and if it were not for Mahahishi, I don't think there would be as much attention on it now. Primardial Sound techniques have helped cure or treat certain conditions that were "uncurable" I got one from Depok and it definitely has a settling affect on my nervous system.

So all of this just makes me question the integrity of CP origin..(and of course the Church as many pagan rituals were also 'borrowed" by it) For me Holy traditions and teachings should be honored as much as possible as they are passed on by the originator of them, imo., unless there is some form of barbaric sacrifice. Especially when it has been asked of them. This is how the purity of the teaching gets lost, and in this particualar case, given what I've been exposed to about the subltly of changing consciousness, CP could on some unseen level, actually be causing harm with the good it brings, and maybe even more harm then good.

You said CP messed you up and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was part of why. Not that TM hasn't messed up a few people. There are many factors as I mentioned before that could cause this... but at least there are safeguards in place to try to prevent that from happening.

Peace, love and joy, Pauline

I've deleted the post above this one, Pauline, as you requested.

Pauline, I've been close to the CP movement for many years, and have visited and written to Fr. Keating about it. It is true that the use of the sacred word in CP invokes the intention to surrender to God's presence and action within, and that this is different from TM, at least in the way TM is currently taught. CP is therefore closer to the form of Christian prayer known as "simple regard" while TM seems to be more a concentrative form of prayer that opens one's consciousness to higher levels of awareness. While one might indeed make an intention at the beginning of a TM session, the repetition of the mantra doesn't seem to address the will in the same manner that CP does. So I think there is a difference, although there's no doubt that some of the early teachers of CP (Pennington, especially) were influenced by TM and were looking to provide a Christian alternative.

The following links elaborate on this some more:
- http://www.centeringprayer.com/cp-tm.htm
- http://www.centeringprayer.com...macy/intimacy01a.htm
- http://www.thecentering.org/tm.html

Note that I'm not intending to say anything detrimental here about TM; only to distinguish it from CP as it's currently taught.

So all of this just makes me question the integrity of CP origin..(and of course the Church as many pagan rituals were also 'borrowed" by it)

The "borrowing" of pagan rituals by Christians has been greatly overblown. Can you give one example?

As noted above, CP does have roots in the Christian mystical tradition, most notably the teaching in the Cloud of Unknown and in St. Teresa of Avila's "Prayer of Simple Regard." The only thing that seems to be "borrowed" from TM is the bit about doing it twice a day for 20 minutes. Zen meditation practices also influenced this way of doing things, along with the sitting in a circle, dinging a bell, and so forth. Beyond that, however, it's a stretch to say that CP is just Christian TM.

Virya (Pauline),

You can absolutely rely on what Phil has to say about this, as well as Keating. God is, of course, unlimited, and no one has all of the answers, but there is alot of experience to draw upon. Keating has been a Green Beret of sorts in the ancient tradition. He went into the monastery at the beginning of WWII, lost many freinds and classmates in the war.

He rose to prayer at four AM and attended services four times a day, read the bible and meditated and worked and served. He was an abbot for twenty years, including the difficult time of reforms after Vatican II. Before that, much communication took the form of hand-signals. He has fasted, and prayed and sacrificed most of his life.

Because he cared so deeply with a godly love for
the generation running off to the subcontinent for enlightenment, he has popularized and adapted what the brothers and sisters have been doing quietly for centuries, and done this most generously for our benefit.

There are a hundred forms of medidation. I have 115 practices in Osho's Book of Secrets alone. Do what you think is best. For myself, I will continue to dance with the One that brought me to the dance.

RISING_&_CRASHing_in_waves.com

Thanks Phil,

Those links were helpful. more comments about them below meanwhile

Oh... I am so FRUSTRATED!!!!...
I wrote a fairly long post in response to yours, copied it (so as to later paste it back in..and forgot to before cutting something else..).erggh...I had to exit Sh Place to go and retrieve the link below.

It's an article by a very sassy, highly entertaining theologion whom I recently discovered and whose writing style and ideas I savor.. the little I have read so far anyway. Have you heard of him? Robert Price. How do his ideas in the article compare with Catholic doctrine, as currently I find myself resonating with his ideas about the death and resurrection. Read about his background at the Home icon.

I went to get this link in reference to your question about specifics of Chrisitian adoption of pagan traditions. In addition to what he mentions about the Corn King Myth, there are also other earth based tradtions of the spring/ fall equinoxes, winter soltice which definitley correspond to Easter, All Saints Day, Christmas...These don't fall on the same days of these events of course, which is a shame, as they would deepen everyones experience of them. It serves us greatly to live in harmony with the Natures cycles.

http://www.robertmprice.mindve...rchetype_casting.htm

I wrote a lot about the TM and CP stuff to. I'll check out the Cloud of Unknowing sometime to see how the early Christian Mystics described their CP pracitce. It was not just the 20 min 2x a day, it is also the instruction..the language, the words of instruction, even the cadence and timing are identical.
F. Keating has a very different experience of CP then I do, as I find it very calming, and can't imagine in not being calming for anyone.. though it is not AS alming as TM. CP,I liken more to the practice of the Sutras. However in TM we add the the Yoga Sutras, (some of which are virtues, others for the physilogy others for restructuring consciusnes) AFTER TM, so that they are 'imbibed' or 'infused' at that most subtle, most refined state of awareness..in pure consciousness. That way it sinks in deeper.."Water the root to enjoy the fruits" (not the leaves and stems in other words, not a the level of the the min which is full of preconceived notions about what it is comtemplating, but deeper, closer to the source of thought..in the state of pure awareness) The other difference as I experience them, is that every sanskrit Mantra really does have very fine subtle vibrational differnces, which if the TM model was indeed borrowed, they totally missed one of the most important parts of the process.

Let me know what your take is , and the Churches take on R Prices perspective..and if you know, which other theologions share that perspective.

I appreciate your time on this..and your site, more and more..Good work Phil. May the Muse be with you. Virya

quote:

I see in Mufasa/Simba in The Lion King a theological counterpoint to another mythic children's fantasy, C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia. There we also see a Lion King, Aslan, who is a thinly veiled Christ analogue. He dies and rises, too, but there is no cycle; rather history ends in "the Last Battle." Here is a linear view of history: the old age ends and the new, transformed age replaces it. There is no less a death and resurrection theme here than in the cyclical Corn King myth on which The Lion King is based. It's just that it happens only once. And the renewal that comes is not the periodic return of earthly vitality and vigor; it is the replacement of that whole cycle by an imagined supernatural substitute.

Surely we�re getting into the realm of archetypes. And what are archetypes but common themes? And why are there common themes? Well, because existence has a certain character or nature to it just as, say, three-dimensional geometry does. What sort of 3-dimensional geometrical existence could ever stop running into the common archetypes of circles, polygons, and lines? The Mona Lisa can no doubt be broken down into these.

Our existence has such common themes as life/death/renewal because living and dying and being born is how reality works. We can inflate this into something quite mystical and magical (and surely anything mystical or magical is going to take place on this stage) but to say that there are archetypes does not justify grabbing anything new (such as Christ) that comes along and thereby getting to the real story by simply deconstructing him into component archetypes. Christ could indeed be nothing more than a not particularly imaginative re-make of some older myth. Or, because he is so deeply imbedded into reality, one would expect archetypes galore to be seen in Him. That�s one way of looking at it, anyway.

Interesting article, Pauline.

Hi Tingawa MM,

I hope I am not givng the impression that I am questioning F Keatings intentions, innocence or intergrity, because that is not at all my intention. But history proves that humanity still is seriously suffering from doing the best they possibly can,andit is my feeling, (and even quite a bit of knowing at this point in time,) that much of what we do, we do out of ignorance, out of sheer lack of proper use, indeed even proper understanding of the knowledge that has been given us.

"Knowledge is structured in consciusness" MMYogi
"The Kingdom of Heaven is within You" Jesus
"Outer depends on inner" Maharishi M Yogi

This was his teaching and this has been my experience. This is not to say that I feel that I other TM'rs are fully awakened at all, but rather to say that the paths I have been led to, have been largley concerned with "how" we aqcuire knowledge. What is really behind or underneath the concepts we operate from?
The story about the woman who asks her mother why she always cuts off the ends of the ham ....comes to mind. "That's the way we've always done it" or when asking grandma.. "I don't know" Well, as it turns out, from digging deeper and deeper, it was only because the great, great, great grandmothers' pan was too short.
I don't know if that story adequately gets at my meaning ...but it gets at a part of it.
VML..Virya

HI there Brad,

I've missed you....But I have to say, your writing style on the interplay thread is much easier for me to absorb...as it is much easier on my fluffy left brain. Just a little language problem for me..but I will try to adapt.
Attention ! you lazy left brain cells...
\
I think I understood every thing you said, but the only part I feel I understand well enough to comment on, or care to comment on, is the part "because he is so deeply imbedded into reality, one would expect archetypes galore to be seen in Him."

Yes yes yes..And why wouldn't we..If He is indeed one with God,(and I personally believe that He is) all Truths of Nature would be reflected in his personhood if we look deep enough.
Virya (pauline)

quote:

And that's the point: why despise the Circle of Life, treat it as a mere charnel house to be escaped by a fantastic resurrection? It has death and doom, and it always will. But it also has life and joy, and it always will. The Circle turns.

I find a lot of pragmatism in that viewpoint, thus I don�t reject it, or the thinking that went into it, out of hand.

Nor does this quasi-Christian feel totally psychologically in need of redemption, of escaping the circle, of some type of cosmic justice wherein wrongs are righted. I can well accept the possibility that my life is all that there will ever be to me, as far as I am concerned.

I do not come to spirituality out of a need to comfort myself, to put myself on the side of Justice so that those who have wronged me will pay, or so that I can live forever. I can�t, for instance, imagine that living forever would be good since, frankly, this life is a bit of a pain. But what I do have is a bit of imagination and some reasoning ability, along with a passable sense of esthetics. And it seems inherently close-minded, unimaginative, and downright unevolved to say �the world before my eyes is all there is and there can be no more simply because I can�t know so�. Well, we�ve got scientists right now looking for nine, ten, or eleven extra hidden dimensions in reality to satisfy their on-paper-only theories of how physical reality is constructed. What justifies such a search? And maybe, yes, they can construct mathematical equations that give such things life, and confirming experiments that give them depth, and all this is done through, in, and by the non-physical mental world through which we live and, ironically, through which we deny the immaterial and/or that which is not conveniently repeatable to material science.

I know I�m getting off track here, but I wanted to comment on that one part. Yes, it�s VERY easy to be certain of things when one throws out consideration of all the loose ends, the uncertainties and mysteries staring us in the face each day, not to mention �knowings� that I consider legitimate, although necessarily subjective, and about which we are necessarily constrained in terms of how broadly we can interpolate from them (IMHO).

Still, I have not proof or even deep inkling concerning the reality of Christ. Not yet, anyway.

I think I understood every thing you said, but the only part I feel I understand well enough to comment on, or care to comment on, is the part "because he is so deeply imbedded into reality, one would expect archetypes galore to be seen in Him."

Yes yes yes.

I�m truly pleased you agree, Pauline. But go ahead and disagree all you would like as well. And basically, that last line that you quote was the whole punch-line, so to speak. The rest of what I said was all meant to lead up to that. But if I would have jumped straight to the punch-line then I�m not sure it would have been supported or anchored correctly. But I�ll make not to try to do better on the lead-ins next time.

And I�m half-tempted to rent the movie, �Rise�. But I�m sort of waiting for a second opinion. I gotta sign up for Netflix one of these days.

The movie itself is not at all as well made as I thought it could be, parts of it really drag on. It's about street kids after all, and was no doubt very low budget. But the message and the story is FANTASIC. Watch till the end.

I also think it would do you some good to dance like that..you know ...shake it up and out a bit..Just try it, you'll see what I mean...Lots of hot babes in there too Brad.

CRASH on the other hand is an EXCELLENT film...as good as they get imo..in that genre.

I also think it would do you some good to dance like that

It would do me wonders to dance like that�or to dance like anything.

Still waiting for pigs to fly.

Pauline, your link didn't work, for some reason. I have heard of P
rice but did a short round of research to refresh my memory. In the first page I visited, I found the following, in pgh. 2:

quote:

First (and, I warn you, this one takes by far the most explaining): It is quite likely, though certainly by no means definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Put simply, not only is the theological "Christ of faith" a synthetic construct of theologians, a symbolic "Uncle Sam" figure. But if you could travel through time, like Superboy, and you went back to First-Century Nazareth, you would not find a Jesus living there.

So, go figure why all those first century Jewish people in Galilee and surrounding areas became believers, not to mention Paul of Tarsus, etc. They were enamored with a "construct," so much so that they felt compelled to die for this.

Why does price conclude this?

It seems he himself has become enamored with scholarship that shows parallels between the Gospel stories and mythological themes found around the world. Shades of Joseph Campbell. Because of such parallels, Price seems to conclude that what is more likely is that the Jesus story is naught but a Hebrew/Christian representation of the same, as how else to explain it? I'll leave the little children to respond to the obvious.

quote:

The New Testament epistles can be read quite naturally as presupposing a period in which Christians did not yet believe their savior god had been a figure living on earth in the recent historical past. Paul, for instance, never even mentions Jesus performing healings and even as a teacher. Twice he cites what he calls "words of the Lord," but even conservative New Testament scholars admit he may as easily mean prophetic revelations from the heavenly Christ. Paul attributes the death of Jesus not to Roman or Jewish governments, but rather to the designs of evil "archon," angels who rule this fallen world. Romans and 1 Peter both warn Christians to watch their step, reminding them that the Roman authorities never punish the righteous, but only the wicked. How they have said this if they knew of the Pontius Pilate story?

This indulgence in a variety of fallacies cannot be taken as serious analysis. What Paul does not bother to say, for example, is generally considered to be taken for granted by his listeners, and not a belief on his part of something different from the Gospel message. Also, his attributing the death of Jesus to evil powers does not mean he is ignorant of the role of Pilate and the Jewish authorities. He is speaking theologically, and, again, seems to assume that everyone knows the historical circumstances of Jesus' death. Recall, too, that Paul met with Peter, who was a contemporary of Jesus, and also many others who knew the historical Jesus. He was not ministering in some parallel universe where a different kind of Christianity was taking hold.

I don't have the time or inclination to reply to all the other points and errors in Mr. Price's writings. What in the world do you find compelling about them?

-----

Re. "pagan" holidays like Halloween, Christmas, etc. It's not so much that the Church appropriated their message to form its teaching, but that it used the occasion to promote its own teaching. Nothing about the incarnation of Christ is compromised by celebrating Christmas on the old Winter Solstice holiday, for example; the teaching would be no different if we celebrated it on the date Jesus was born (which we don't know). So the Church took a day valued by non-Christians and "Christianized" it. That's brilliant, imo.

Phil this is the article below. I am noticing I seem to have a HUGE mental block to some forms of theological discourse, yours included, and nothing personal is meant by that but I just want you to know that Truth for me, at it's best is SIMPLE enough for a child to understand. so the less intellectual we can be, all the better for me please,

The only thing I have read by Rober Price is the the article below...and yes part of it appealed to me..at least my interpretation of what he is saying. But from what you cited, it sounds like Price actually questions the existence of the person Jesus, which is an interesting perspective, but not one I resonate with as I've been too blessed by the fruits of devotion. My question about the article below, if I understand him correctly, or at least my own twist on it,,,,suggests that the death and resurrecton were part of Jesus's life, part of his strory as a means of giving us the message that they are the natural and inevitable process of transformation, spiritually and emotionally in every day life. That they are what move us toward Christ consciousness. The reason devotion to Christ would be so life giving is that He fully embraced that,,,he lived and died it... and that in and of itself enlivened the power behind the myth, which is universal Truth...but I don't believe it was just a story. I do believe He came, and died and rose. What I don't believe in ...is the interpretation that many Christions seem to have...that He will come again in one human body as the Christ.. My sencse of it, from my sprirtual practices and an increasing inner awareness of it, and the manyh people I meet who seem to be getting closer and closer to this, is that Christ will come again in the ONE Body of all of us....those who choose to aspire and live in Christ consciuosness anyway...and that that will be the 2nd coming..Is this what the Church teaches?

Archetype Casting

What makes The Lion King so great? Of course it is well crafted in many ways; hundreds of people worked on the animation. But that would not have rescued a film with a less interesting story and script. For one thing, the movie strikes me as hilarious. It has funny lines as well as a great sense of timing. Timon the meerkat (or "the Weasel Guy," as my daughters and I like to call him) is a character worthy of Warner Brothers cartoons in their heyday. But the film is also a tragedy. It does not need Elton John's occasionally sappy music to achieve this effect. (Tim Rice's lyrics, on the other hand, sometimes remind one of his bewitching work in Jesus Christ Superstar.) The epic dimension of the cartoon is my topic here. I want to discuss the inherited mythic DNA in The Lion King.


Most narratives operate according to the basic structure whereby an initial state of well-being or at least equilibrium is upset and then, with difficulty, restored. So it is no surprise when we see this plot-skeleton in The Lion King. But the film has strong resonances of a more specific myth, that of the Corn King, brought to our attention a century ago by Sir James Frazer in his monumental work The Golden Bough. Deep in the race, Frazer explained, is the belief that the king carries within himself the life and fertility of the land he rules. As such he is a living god. He may be called upon to give his life in a time of famine so that his blood may fertilize the fields anew. (Other movies that make good use of this myth are The Wicker Man and Eye of the Devil.)


The Corn King myth underlies the practices of various primitive peoples and appears in mythology under the names of Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Baal, Tammuz, and Bran the Blessed. The wounding and healing (or the death and resurrection) of the god/king represents (and is believed actually to facilitate) the renewal of vegetation in the Spring after the death of plants in the winter.


Such religious beliefs and practices have been reinterpreted in the various cultures that cherished them in order to create an internalized, individualized religion of initiation and enlightenment. These we are in the habit of dubbing "Mystery Religions," the term referring to the sacred rites performed to mark the enlightenment/maturity of the initiate. Usually such rites included baptism in water or blood, a sacred cup or meal, investiture with sacred robes, etc. Christianity, in case you hadn't noticed, is one such religion. Its savior, like Dionysus (many of whose mythic traits the Jesus figure must have absorbed in syncretistic Palestine early on) offers the sacrament of his blood which is wine, the blood of the grape, and his body which is bread, the body of the grain. In baptism one dies and rises with him, just as nature itself does.


Jessie Weston argued in From Ritual to Romance that many key features of the Arthurian legend cycle stem from the same sort of initiation Mysteries. She guessed that the story of Perceval who passes the night in the Chapel Perilous and who must ask the right question to bring about the healing of the Fisher King (or Grail King), who languishes from a wound that causes his domain to become the Wasteland, came from the rituals of a pre-Christian pagan Mystery religion in Britain. It has been Christianized in that the Grail which restores the Fisher King is made the Chalice of the Last Supper, but as we have seen, that very story probably derives from the same sort of myth and ritual.


I like the ingenious way in which Rospo Pallenberg streamlined the Arthurian Grail legend in his screenplay for John Boorman's film Excalibur (a film of enormous mythic power, and still my favorite movie). He makes Arthur into the Grail King. Arthur sends the knights out to find the Grail because he lies wasting away while the glory of Camelot itself has faded. Perceval recovers the Grail from which Arthur drinks and returns to full power. As Perceval hands him the cup he says, "You and the land are one. Drink, and you will be reborn--and the land with you."


This is what we see in The Lion King as well. The land dies when the Lion King Mufasa dies, killed by his own Mordred, the evil royal brother Scar (= Judas Iscariot). When the baboon shaman Raffiki, who plays the role of Merlin/John the Baptist in The Lion King, finds the self-exiled Simba, he tells him that his father Mufasa is still alive, alive in Simba himself. The film ends where it began, with the new Lion King and Queen displaying their newborn cub, the heir to the throne, before the worshipping ranks of animals. It is the embodiment of the film's opening song about the Circle of Life. And here is the cyclical renewal of Sacred Time which meets us most strikingly in the Corn King myths. For a classic discussion of the cyclical character of Sacred Time, see Mircea Eliade's books, The Eternal Return and The Sacred and the Profane.


I see in Mufasa/Simba in The Lion King a theological counterpoint to another mythic children's fantasy, C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia. There we also see a Lion King, Aslan, who is a thinly veiled Christ analogue. He dies and rises, too, but there is no cycle; rather history ends in "the Last Battle." Here is a linear view of history: the old age ends and the new, transformed age replaces it. There is no less a death and resurrection theme here than in the cyclical Corn King myth on which The Lion King is based. It's just that it happens only once. And the renewal that comes is not the periodic return of earthly vitality and vigor; it is the replacement of that whole cycle by an imagined supernatural substitute.


Lewis tried (in his essay "Myth Became Fact") to say that all the Corn King legends were some kind of mythic expressions of the subconscious yearning of the human race for the coming of Christ once and for all. I guess the repeated, cyclical character of the thing was like the repetitiveness of the Old Testament sacrifices according to the Epistle to the Hebrews: had they been the real thing, they'd have done the trick the first time and needed no repetition. But when the real dying and rising god appeared, he did the thing once and for all. Accordingly, there will be one definitive turnabout, and one only, however long we must wait for it, when the Risen Christ returns to transform the corrupt and sinful earth into a spanking-new model. It's not going to keep happening the same way again and again, they say. All the sorrows of the world will one day be done away with and we will be sitting pretty in endless comfort, once Christ returns to dispense with the old Fallen Age.


To tell you the truth, I just can't buy this. I don't think it's even a good idea. Get real, folks. This is the world. It contains death because we are organic, mortal beings. We ought to make the best of it. There is ecstatic glory in this mortal life, though sooner or later we must fall under tragedy's scythe. And, contra some New Age gurus, it does no good simply to wish tragedy away. It is real. There is never going to be some other world of sweetness and light to replace this one. Remember the sequence "Christmas in Heaven" in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?


The Lion King is tragic and comic, and so is life. My children are learning something from it. Both times I took my girls to see it so far, little Veronica has cried when Mufasa dies. As she should. Oh, what a moment to be a parent! Nothing exceeds such sweetness, hugging your little one at such a time. It is part of this "unregenerate world" of which C.S. Lewis wished so urgently to be rid, but I think it does not suffer by comparison to an imaginary Millennium. And that's the point: why despise the Circle of Life, treat it as a mere charnel house to be escaped by a fantastic resurrection? It has death and doom, and it always will. But it also has life and joy, and it always will. The Circle turns.


The linear model of apocalyptic thinking, Harold Camping's notion that things as we now know them will be swept away to prepare for a Technicolor Oz of some kind, with a cross on top, is the cloth from which Christian triumphalism and manifest destiny have been sewn. Aslan does not really provide us a lesson about renewal. Instead he leads us to childishly deny the reality of death, while Mufasa/Simba bids us accept it as part of our assigned place in the scheme of things in which we may rejoice in the hour granted us.


Robert M. Price

Phil this is the article below. I am noticing I seem to have a HUGE mental block to some forms of theological discourse, yours included, and nothing personal is meant by that but I just want you to know that Truth for me, at it's best is SIMPLE enough for a child to understand. so the less intellectual we can be, all the better for me please,

Pauline, you're asking me to take quite a bit of time to read an article, reflect on it, and write a response, when it seems you don't even value much what I say. Could you maybe tell me what I wrote in my response to points by Price above that was difficult for you to understand? I don't think I was being excessively "intellectual."

Dear Phil,

I agree it was a smart move to interweave Easter and Christmas with pagan tradtions, as a marketing move for the Church But I disagree that not them having on the same day doesn't matter. (xmas is not btw) The pagans were very in touch with the natural earth rhythms. And I didn't come to that awareness from reading about it in a book but through a natural organic process, an unfolding awareness which mylong time 2x a day meditation practice has opened me too....Knowledge for me always seems to come after. On those days, there is a distinct subtble vibrational difference that can be felt the more in harmaony with nature wee become. They are natural times for us to either come out, linger, recede, or go deep within as the coorrelate to the Suns magnetic pull on us.. Christmas, which SHOULD be on the same day as the winter equinox is a time for nuturing the Christ seed within deep us, (the tiny babe in a manger ) It's a time to retreat and be in innocence with God. But instead western culture now has most Christians spending all their time with the hustle and bustle of XMAS....the opposite of what Nature's impluse wants us to do.

I am other than clear as to why you feel I don't value what you say. Asking your opionion, is to me, a demonstration that I value what you have to say, though admittedly it may not be in the way you would prefer I value it...So maybe it would assist to tell you WHY I value it and what will lead to my valuing in all the more.
You are, to the best of my knowledge a highly committed, well-educated practicing Catholic and even a spiritual director in the Catholic tradition. You have a web site that seems to try and embrace the various backgrounds and spiritual experiences of others, and that allows discourse amongst them, while holding to your own beliefs and staying focussed on your goal, which I am assuming is to bring more people to Christ, maybe even to Catholicism. Your website alone is in itself is a huge and wonderful contribution to the pursuit of Truth.

There are many different voices in the theological world, about who Jesus was and why he came here and what it all means to humananity, and so we will naturally have very different experiences that inform us about the full meaning of that Divine Mystery. Being that Jesus' life is one of, if not the most profound mystery in our humanity, I find I learn much more about the Truth of who He is thru questions, in light of my experience and knowledge thus far. I feel this This is a very prudent thing for me to do, given my personal history with spiritual abuse by Catholic priests, who I was taught since infancy were a representative of Christ. Surely they could be trusted? They perform and receive sacraments, they read scripture, they visist the sick..they do all the things that Catholicism tells us will lead the soul to salvation.. .the meaning of which I may or may not have different ideas about then you or the Church authorities, given my experience of Church authorties,and of other Catholices and of other spiritual practices and spriritual teachers . But unfortunatley (or fortunately as we know now) if even priests cannnot be trusted to know and live according to the Truth they profess, for me that is a sign from God, that any spiritual aspirantion needs to utiize the use of lots of questions and the right questions at that. It's the only way to truly know if what someone else says is true.
That said, perhaps you are feeling there needs to me some monetary exchage of energy between us, as I realize this is part of your livlihood. It's not my intention to take more of your time then you wish to give. Some Catholic doctrine I am quite gray about, but the only thing that would ever entice me into an RCIA class ro spiritual direction is if the initial questions I have, get some answers that convince me it would be worth while to journey with that peron, or take that class.

Spiritual abuse leaves deeper scars then any other form of abuse. It wounds and fractures the most fragile, teh most pure, the most vulnerable part of our being....the soul. So aksing lots of questions makes good sense to me.

About Robert Price: In my own spiritual queries Phil, as a cross pollnator, I have found that there are little pieces of Truth in just about anybody or any ole' crack pot theory. So the fact that Robert Price may not believe Jesus actually lived, doesn't cause me to dismiss any other pearls of wisdom, that might be gleamed from him, especially if it stacks up to the weight of my own experience. There is much the Church teaches that I don't resonate with or find any value in, and some things frankly I feel despaately need to be changed. And given my experience with the Chuch so far, and many of it's child abuse victims , it's claim to being the One true religion sounds just as nutty as a weel edcucated theologion niot believing that Jesus actually existed. I think we all have little pieces of the Truth and I am finding that it natureally unfolds itself upon itself if we ask ther right questions

I have reread your answers and think I now understand them. If you have time I'd still like to know what the Church teaches about the death/resurrection and the 2nd coming ( in reference to the Rober Price article I wanted you to read above) and if you care to share ..any experience you have had that telly you that perspective it a true one.

Below are the parts that confused me on the parts you sent, but I think I understand them now.

Romans and 1 Peter both warn Christians to watch their step, reminding them that the Roman authorities never punish the righteous, but only the wicked. How they have said this if they knew of the Pontius Pilate story?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This indulgence in a variety of fallacies cannot be taken as serious analysis. What Paul does not bother to say, for example, is generally considered to be taken for granted by his listeners, and not a belief on his part of something different from the Gospel message. Also, his attributing the death of Jesus to evil powers does not mean he is ignorant of the role of Pilate and the Jewish authorities. He is speaking theologically, and, again, seems to assume that everyone knows the historical circumstances of Jesus' death.

Pauline, there are serious conflicts between the beliefs of "pagan" religions and Christianity. Maybe the Church could have done a better job of finding a way to respect the former while evangelizing, but those were not the days of political correctness, I'm afraid.

Maybe I heard too much criticism in your remarks above about having a block to my theological discourse. I'm still not sure how to respond in a way that's helpful, however. I'll just say what/how I'd say things to anyone on the forum and we'll see what happens.

There are many different voices in the theological world, about who Jesus was and why he came here and what it all means to humananity, and so we will naturally have very different experiences that inform us about the full meaning of that Divine Mystery.

What "theological world" are you referring to? Among Christian theologians, there is no confusion about this. Outside of perspective of Christian faith, there is no Christian theology, and so what one finds there is something else -- usually misinformed about something or motivated to develop other aspects of the truth than that which Christian theology sheds light on.

See, you cannot separate theology from an a-priori faith-perspective. The old definition of theology is reason reflecting on faith; no Christian faith, no Christian theology. I don't mean to be saying, here, that other theologians aren't worth reading; I read those from other traditions all the time. But I don't expect them to be helping to shed any light on aspects of the Christian faith. Sometimes they do, though inadvertently.

Re. spiritual abuse: sure, it's there, and it's damnably shameful that representatives of the Gospel are sometimes the perpetrators. That said, one thing we CAN say is that their behavior is out-of-sync with the Gospel. They are convicted by the very message they profess to live by, which shows that the Gospel transcends such behavior. So you have to look past these people to the message itself, though I know that's often hard to do.

Spiritual abuse leaves deeper scars then any other form of abuse. It wounds and fractures the most fragile, teh most pure, the most vulnerable part of our being....the soul. So aksing lots of questions makes good sense to me.

You know, I'm sure, that this kind of abuse happens in all religions. In fact, the Eastern traditions that you seem so enamored by are notorious for abuse precisely because some people are regarded as enlightened by devotees who excuse in them the most outrageous behavior in the name of "crazy teaching." So let's not pick on Catholics too much, here. At least, as I've noted above, Christian spiritual abuse is condemned by the Gospel while the abuse of Eastern teachers in condoned in the name of their theology.

Romans and 1 Peter both warn Christians to watch their step, reminding them that the Roman authorities never punish the righteous, but only the wicked. How they have said this if they knew of the Pontius Pilate story?

I guess Price thinks he has a "gotcha" on that one. Think how absurd that is, Pauline -- to use the Scriptures as a way to disprove the teachings of Christianity. Think how much you have to ignore and how much taking things out of context you have to do to propose a point like that as evidence that Jesus wasn't crucified by Pilate.

But, to answer: what they wrote is true. The Jews and Romans generally did punish law-breakers and did allow peaceful citizens to live their lives without harassment. In the case of Jesus, he was crucified because of trumped-up charges made by jealous and threatened Jewish leaders. A righteous person was condemned, but, OTOH, Jesus was a prophetic type, confronting these leaders about all sorts of things.

You can gather a few pearls from Price et al, I'm sure, but you have to be careful about the overall spirit of his writing, which seems to be to shed doubt and confusion about the Gospel. There are many, many other writers who would better serve you in your journey to re-examine Christian faith.

I want to give moe time to reply to specifics on your post above Phil, and I very much appreciate your time and I am loving the website. Lots mystery and magic happen here. It's truly a great contribution, though a bit addictive. My post on the Tranforming Love Habit might better clarify my orientation or experience of Jesus for you.

I other then mean to sound critical of you or your faith at all. And I am other then trying to make a 'mental' adjustment in order to fit my spiritual experiences or journey, into some one elses notions about who Jesus was and is...Anyone that rose from the dead is capable of transcending time matter and space to reach the hearts of those who truly wish to know Him. one need not be a scholar or even be able to read very well in order to do that. I've learned more about forgiveness and compassion from illiterate women prisoners then I ever learned from a sermon, or a book or in even in my prayer life. Jesus is very much present in the least of these, and I think thats exactly why he wanted us to spend time with them.....

More later though .. thanks again.
Peace, Pauline

Pauline, how about we take this discussion to the "Why Christianity?" thread. If you want to copy/paste your post two above, I'll do my reply and we can continue.