To be a Christ, a Buddha

“The purpose of Buddhism is to create Buddhas, not Buddhists. The purpose of Christianity is to create Christs, not Christians.” – Adyashanti

I would like to look at the life of Jesus not as a story about a man, but as an allegory, and instruction for self actualisation and a representation of the condition of man (and woman).

I am going to probably conflate details of the story to support my own interpretation, but I think that’s what religion is for: a symbolic stimulating jump-off point for initiating deep thought into both the human condition and the metaphysical (or ‘spiritual’) nature of reality.

Jesus was by all accounts, quite the androgynous man. Represented as having long hair- a feminine trait, as well as outwardly embodying conventionally feminine behaviours such as sensitivity, wisdom, and a nurturing nature. He represents the Jungian ‘integrated’ individual, having that internal balance of both the masculine and the feminine (or Anima/Animus)- he represents both.

Born of a woman on her own (all women must give birth alone), the trials and tribulations faced by Jesus represent the same woes that we all must face on the path of self-actualisation, of self-transcendence; a rebirth into spiritual becoming, tests, resisting temptation, and the acceptance of our eventual death which we all must face alone.

I find it no coincidence that the name of his potential lover towards the end of his life – Mary Magdaline, is the same as that of his mother (Freudian interpretations aside)- and in fact the whole story could be seen to be one great cycle, where the Virgin Mary is made pregnant by an angel, cared for by Joseph, the child lives, grows, and then fathers another child with Mary Magdaline, who goes on to carry the child and gives birth alone, who goes on to live, etc… Perhaps this is a way of interpreting the reincarnation or resurrection. This story to me represents the cycle of death and birth, with Jesus representing all men and women, all people. It also tells us that to live a good life we must make sacrifices and fight lovingly against injustice.

The ‘Christ consciousness’ is but one standard form of the walking on the path to enlightenment or an opening of the doors to mystical thinking. In South America this person might instead have been regarded as a Shaman, in the UK in earlier days- a druid, in oriental traditions- a Buddha. I think that the western archetype of a spiritual individual tends to be informed heavily by the image of Christ due to our culture, and the endeavour of all Christians should be to become more Christ-like, more loving, forgiving, and just. But let us not forget that Christ also flipped tables in righteous anger at the sight of gambling and money changing hands within the temple of god. Anger is not always unjustified.

On a tangent- I think there is a clever riddle within the bible with regards to the return of Christ, saying:

“Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah,' and will deceive many." Matthew 24:4-5

I think that this is an effective paradox or riddle in keeping the endeavour of Christ-hood pure. I have often asked myself (assuming the truth of the story)- how would Christ reveal himself without being labelled the very deceiver he warned against, or more likely- as a mad man? One who is sure that they are Christ are often labelled as crazy, and one who doubts that they are- cannot actualise that reality. So would Christ doubt themselves, or be resolute in self knowledge- in the awareness of the perceptions and judgement of others?

This is why I feel that it is supposed to be an endeavour in being rather than a claim of divine lineage. We must seek to embody the ‘Christ state’ or whatever you wish to call it, without being tempted to make a claim- for a claim is only ever useful in terms of feeding one’s ego or collecting rights. One on the path of Christ-hood must be trying to be, rather than claiming to be, and should see it as a divine responsibility, and never a right.

Equally, if the endeavour is within the realms of Buddhism or some other doctrine – claiming that you are enlightened is often antithetical to the behaviour of one who is, and I’ve met plenty of people who have dabbled in psychedelics and mistakenly convinced themselves that the substance-induced post-trip euphoria is a state of enlightenment, whilst the most enlightened individuals I’ve met have been some of the homeless or the quiet mechanic who fixes your car. I’m not saying that psychedelics can’t be helpful in opening ‘the doors of perception’, but they are not the whole answer.

Essentially, regardless of the approach or doctrine (and there are many), the endeavour should be one of being, not seeming. Anyone claiming to be the one true Christ or Buddha, or whoever, whatever- has missed the point. The point is not only that of a personal journey, but to try to see Christ in others, those who stave off temptation, who make sacrifices for the greater good, who defend justice in righteous anger and love, and to seek to try to mirror these qualities whilst admonishing or simply nullifying with indifference those behaviours that are antithetical to love- or, being a mirror for those positive corrective qualities ourselves. There is a quote:

“If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.” – St Chrysostom

Mother Teresa said:

“I see Jesus in every human being. I say to myself, this is hungry Jesus, I must feed him. This is sick Jesus. This one has leprosy or gangrene… I serve because I love Jesus.”

and sought to serve each of them as if they were Christ in disguise.

And finally there is:

“Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours.
Yours are the eyes through which He looks
compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which He walks to do good.
Yours are the hands through which He blesses all the world.”

We must seek to see the divine nature in one another, and to be it for those who need it (including ourselves).

This treatment of each other as if they were Jesus is not so difference to the dissolving of self and the ego in Buddhism, seeing each other as a reflection, as the universe embodied in yet another subject who is separate from us only in our own illusory perceptions.

So why was love such a threat to the roman empire, to power structures, why was the person in this story killed? To take a view in terms of the modern state of things: power structures are maintained through coercion, through divisive tactics of hate, stirring the pot of blame, jealousy, and cultural tensions. The simple but ever so difficult answer to this would be love, tolerance, and understanding. You can’t force it on others though, you have to embody it in the hope they understand and follow- tolerant even of those who are intolerant. Sometimes I wonder if tolerance taken to its maximum just gives open space for tyrants, and it’s something I haven’t quite worked out yet, but I think that these qualities at their heart would serve to undermine the unfair power structures that exist whilst maintaining moral integrity- avoiding hatred and violence. I ask you, can you fight for love – or is that missing the point? And, even if your actions make no difference to the overall state of things, they make a difference to your state of being- as Christ died on the cross alone, not knowing if he had made a difference but living and dying in faith and love was enough.