We are all time travellers with now issues. The only way to work through these “issues” is with awareness.

Are you working on your now issues?

The Bible is literature.

That should be an obvious statement. Many Biblical scholars, for the most part quite devout, consider this axiomatic and uncontroversial.

And yet. It is also a brash and controversial statement. In some circles it is unsayable, unthinkable and the very idea of someone writing it out like I did above is a pointless affront, a deliberate radical provocation only meant to hurt out of hateful motives. And yet indeed.

The point I want to make is not a big one. It is not all-encompassing. It is not methodical. It is a spark of insight from a perspective of literary criticism. But to get to even a small point within such an asphyxiating lack of atmosphere requires many qualifications and convolutions. So I’ll start. Trying.

I’m going to go many steps further. I’m going to accept that first statement (“the Bible is literature”) as axiom and I will sincerely and respectfully ask that the Bible be read in the manner of literature. Enlightenment should happen if you do so. You should see things in perspective, perhaps for the first time. I will point out some of what becomes obvious if you do. It may (to some) be upsetting to the point of assumed blasphemy on my part. I am sure this is true amongst certain dear ones. It is the sort of thing that has historically gotten many a “blasphemer” or “heretic” killed.

I welcome that. I invite it, like I once invited the rabid supporter of the 2nd Amendment to plead the 2nd on my person. I outlived that person. But there are many dear ones who would see only propriety in having persistent unreformed heretics sacrificed, terminated, crucified or summarily mortally punished in other manners. I welcome them as well. I am at a point in my spiritual development when I know better than to value physical life over real eternal spiritual life. And while I live and respect life with everything that I have and that I am, the Holy Nām is the essence of all that is spiritual and eternal. I do not give the Bible any status as the literal word of God. So crucify me.

It might be useful, at this point, to talk about the forces that make it so hard to see the “Word of God” as something not literally that. Or to put it another way, to talk about the forces that establish and maintain the reverence and maintenance of the literal cult status of the Bible as literally holy and as above any kind of objective criticism.

Such forces are total. Such forces are awesome. All of good is arrayed on the one side and all of bad has been scapegoated on the other and run out of town.

I could provide a historical background on how we got here, but history is the kind of thing best consumed individual by individual. Our experience of encountering “history” in school is a big part of the problem. So, rather than give a historical context I’ll just point out a few things I’d like for you to look into yourself. The exercise of “looking into” may, hopefully, strengthen your abilities to question things. Hopefully, it will embolden you to actually approach things in the Bible like literature (which is it). I can hope.

So, in light of all that, please look into the mish-mash collection that the Bible actually is. Check how patchwork it really is. Check the process of determining what is in “the canon” but, more importantly about how it was determined what was NOT in. Check the timing of the writings. Check the political context at the time of the writing. Consider why someone would want to take a certain line or approach. Look into the status of the year 70. Look into how it came to play out that a “religion” grown so tentatively under such trying conditions of persecution grew into being the state-sponsored persecutor itself. Then think of the ways that the established religion takes advantage of a persecution complex even to this very day. Consider the time-line: a few years of being the persecuted followed by nearly two-thousand years of being the establishment persecutor. Yet the institutionalized cult is able to brandish that sorrowful chip-on-the-shoulder of being persecuted in a 21st century paranoically [sic] imagined “War on Christmas” and like-minded concerns. Inquire into how it turned on the doings of a certain murderous Constantine and his Grendel’s mother of a vengeful woman mother. (Of course, really look into this) (I assume you can approach actual ‘history’ writing as literature and not be sucked into the official state-sponsored official rendering of the story [in which Constantine is ‘saved’) [Maybe I hope too much. Maybe I’m wasting my time]. But I’ll keep trying. Look into. Look into who Origen is and look into why he was killed as a heretic. Look into the Pelagian controversy. Look into the issues of the purity of Paul’s writings. See to what extent ghost writing and embellishment have been factors. There are definitely sections of Paul’s letters that aren’t written by him at all, (we called it “faux Paul” in a certain Theological University sponsored four-year study group I experienced it with).

When you don’t consider context, perspective and background and you accept all is as is destined and as only could have been [the way that it is], you are subject to finding confirmation of what you seek. For instance, I remember personally hearing the argument that the best example of the integrity of the Bible is the fact that it is so seamless and fits together so perfectly well. This, of course, is common sense bonkers, but it transcends common sense. There are untold instances of the opposite, that the book is a hodge-podge gumbo of all sort of mismatches, but a literal “Word of God” person can and will argue the opposite and have all the force and strength of utmost authority on his side, because it is literally written in His name and so doesn’t get questioned by anyone decent.

That is force.

But it is farce too. Just objectively consider how does the “Song of Songs” fit in seamlessly? I’ll leave it at that. (Hint: female sensuality).

Well, I’ve written all that as a preliminary to the small observation point I was intending to make. It doesn’t seem to be going all that well for me. But I am sincere and will leave it at such a shaky level of autonomous and unplanned discussion. (My Muse sometimes seems to might be Mary Ann with the shaky hand). *(obscure Who reference). This is my discourse and it stands.

So what is this about? Why the convoluted windup? Why is it so? Well, those of you who know me in that other incarnation, the one which laughably might be called “real” wouldn’t be surprised to know that the genesis of this ‘essay’ was yesterday when I mowed the lawn. I had a written work in my head which started with what will come below. The windup comes about partly because of a delay in addressing the matter. But the main part comes about because I very much want to paint the perspective picture all too much. It is kind of what can be thought of as development of a “voice”. But maybe not. There is nothing that thinking doesn’t make so. Perhaps today I’m merely suffering from a surfeit of blue chakra energy. I am intellectualizing too much, in other words. I don’t know. But I am ready to begin.

The Bible is literature and should be read that way. Some sections of it obviously seem to be written by a man, a really presumptively patriarchal poser of a pompous puss of a man who needs control, imagining himself to be God. These portions should be questioned and seen in that light. Why do we go for this perpetuation of patriarchy when it is obviously man-oriented, man-convenient, and man-serving?

Why?

Ironically, I see some of these most obviously misogynist passages clung to as the most religiously righteous and moving parts. It hurts me to see any woman respond so. It is wrong. A recent example that got me started this way was from one of the Psalms (a minefield of cultural crap and miscreant nonsense keeping disproportionate company with genuine spiritual beauty). The particular ‘trigger’ incident for me was about how we need to be “broken” by God. This is so antithetical to spirituality and so obviously man-oriented that I couldn’t phantom how in the hell any independently-minded intelligent woman would respond this way. Or course, that is to presume a lot on my part. That is, inadvertently, that I personally seem to seek to contradict and negate the very religious experience of another. And that is patently NOT what I’m trying to do.

But, in another sense, there should be a universal spirituality available and open to all. The Kingdom of Heaven, say. Or the Realm of Wisdom to use a euphemism. I experience and feel this. I know it to be true. There is truly a spiritual Holy Nām, and not an exclusive culturally-bound Holy Name that is a focal point. That whole latter thing is totally man-contrived while the first is spirituality in key with Wisdom the Creator of the Creator of the Creation. So, yes, in a way, I am invalidating organized religion. I invalidate anything that isn’t spiritually involving all of creation all equally. That’s just me. So, we’re back to the beginning. Crucify me.

But let’s rein back! Let’s go back to the beginning, the lawn-moving epiphany!

The Bible is literature. It should be read that way. Please read it that way. Question that which your gut and your intellect tell you is insensitive and stupidly misogynistic and man-convenient. See it for what it is. Question it in the same way you’d question any man-centered misogynistic writing. Much of the Bible is beautiful and truly spiritual and elevating in nature. Almost all of what is in the Gospel of John, for instance, that pertains to light is that way. Spiritually beautiful. Inclusive. Yet, a main theme, a leitmotif of the very same book, is an extended cursing and denigration of Jews. The wonderfully spiritual beauty is fundamentally marred by a politicization. If you see the Bible only as the literal “Word of God” and not as literature, you could not appreciate this. The sad thing, the saddest thing, to me is that the political parts seem to be the ones most clinged to, the most relied upon by those who wish to be the most devout. But that is personal.

Yet, a great remedy is to understand the Bible as what it is: literature. When approached that way, the chaff can be dismissed as chaff and the wheat can be devoured as nourishment. Nourishment is a good thing. And what is the political is also the man-oriented patriarchal self-serving stuff Read that too like literature. Especially that! It is the opposite of nourishing.

And when I say it seems as if a man wrote it thinking he were God, I don’t mean Jesus Christ. For had Jesus had any part with writing a manifesto or even a Bible, and he didn’t, we would have a focused manifesto. It would be the beatitudes and it would be the two commandments. It would be inclusive and forgiving. Of everyone! But this is not the man thinking he’s God that I have in mind. I have in mind the most patriarchal. the most controlling, the most possessive, the most underappreciating of women and the most with the inane tendency to stamp out any sprouting of female initiative or creative invention, the most vile masqueraded as the most caring and ‘protecting’. Like a protection ring. Know those? Never mind the creative reality of Wisdom. Never mind the Holy Nām. Never mind spirituality.

Wake up! Learn to read. See context. Know what’s literature. Free your mind instead.

For it is the for that the metaphor is for.  This sounds ungraspable, though simple.  In some ways it could be more difficult for a mind to “grasp” (comprehend) – (the entomology, of course of the ‘comprehend’ word is half based on the Latin prehendere literally meaning ‘to grasp’) – than is the idea of one hand clapping.

These are thoughts – not exact, of course – that I was having while listening to the fine 1990 recording of Van Morrison’s song ‘Enlightenment’. ‘(Don’t Know What it is)’.  I tripped on this a bit.  Like my back yard, I can dig it.  Indeed.

I started to get into the nuance of just why and how we don’t know what it is.  Why is it ungraspable?

The flash of insight was delightfully sudden.  And simple.  Perhaps we put too much reliance and stock on the thinking of enlightenment as something obtained – either a gnosis kind of knowledge or an awareness obtained, a more awakened state.  Clap, hand!  Clap!  That indeed would be cool, you could ‘get’ an awakened state of gnosis by not ‘getting’.  That indeed leaves us where we always are:  not knowing at all what enlightenment is.  Yes!  That is how.

Yet enlightenment, perhaps, is a little bit more – or a lot bit different – from this.  Yes, that’s what it is.  Nothing is more or less, despite the thinking that makes it so.  It’s just something else.  Maybe enlightenment is not something gotten or obtained at all, but something one becomes to be – in a way.

Enlightenment is in some sort of way – or a multitude of ways! – a becoming of something unknowable, something like light in the metaphoric form.  It is a being spiritual in the spiritual light as spiritual light which is lightness and energy that can only be metaphorically known as light.  We may wave at the particles as they go by.  We may wave and particle.  We may exist in multiple states never observable as any state at all.  Who knows?

But one thing we can know.  Enlightenment is not something learned or obtained.  It is not an awareness gained or awakened to.  Try as you may.  Or even if you successfully don’t try at all!

But it is an eternal way to be.  Just be!  Be thankful!  Be happy! Be joy!  Be the metaphor for light!   Be the lightness of being!  Be creation!  Be! (And radiate!)

Happy is sHe who serves the Realm of Wisdom in the here and now, within the quiet center of the here and now

The light of Divine Creation & Wisdom & sat gurus & grandfather sat gurus & Christ sat guru & all the angels and Saints (including Bobby Hebert and Ironhead) are with you!

(But not Buddha music). Yet all variations of Om are there anyway.

I take all that’s given to me for the blessing that it is
No matter the inferences, deductions or appearances
No matter what
No matter
’tis

I go where it goes and do what it bids
As blessing, of course, It’s best when I don’t understand and when I don’t explain

Of course, I do share this temporal space (for the briefest of times) with that other fellow
Who does just that:  attempts untiringly to achieve an understanding of what is
Who openly shares understanding gleaned with sincerely attempted explanation

He bears the lashes of misunderstanding piously upon his back
Yet often gives out as well as he receives in impious manner
But pay that fellow no mind
He has no sway

It is my intention that the radical, provocative — [inflammatory?] — things that I say (and reduced to write) are understood and taken for what they are: overtures to a peace; personal missives of devoted affection that promote creative and open thinking which lead to the Realm of Wisdom/(Kindgom of Heaven, which is at hand and coming simultaneously, time out of time, time obliterate, eternal). My hope is that you all fall apart in your emotional fear-driven unsustainable mess of contradictions and/or impossible doctrine. Such hope is superficial.

But I get it, and certainly am aware that I live in an outrageous time. (Interesting times, yes. I get that ancient Chinese blessing/curse too). [I’ve seen that movie too]. I understand that there are virtually no overtures to peace that can breathe in the toxic atmosphere of ever-escalating inflammatory provocations. [The conflagration of provocations is a virtual hell of fire and brimstone that chokes out all peaceful and open thinking]. (I get this too). It is very hard for one who delights with glee at each and every liberal agony — real, alternative real, deluded or imagined, false and true — to see and to think (i.e. ‘understand’, ‘get’) in anything other than tits and tats. Imagine!

Yet, too, hard it is to see that when it is said that we are made in the image of the Creator, what is referred to is not at all a physical likeness — (i.e. [but not limited to] a certain [religious sense of] whiteness) — but it is creative powers to create the world, bound and loosed in karmic standards as it truly is. (And truly you have been told, directly and in circular parables, if you were wont to listen to subtleties and nuance). Yet here we are. You don’t. You know you don’t. Here is the world as created by a critical mass of concerted creators, little godlike emperors, naked in ambition to rule the “other” (with effective and manly strong ‘law and order’ and no uncertain ‘property’ protections of ‘superior’ ‘ownership’) (And in all ‘legacy’ and ‘heritage’ of same). [Know your ‘state’s’ rights]. Statues and statutes. Spitting images. False idles.

It is my intention to be understood and taken as a promoter of peace. My hopes that you learn by falling flat are only superficial, i.e. human. O Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.

It is not about what you become.  It is about how you become aware of true eternal existence.

Wysheid van die goddelike skepper, lig, sonder godsdiens

Urtësia e Zotit, dritë, pa fe

ye’igizī’ābiḥēri t’ibebi ፣ birihani ፣ yale hayimanoti

hikmat alkhaliq al’iilhi , alnuwr , bidun din

Asttso imastut’yuny, t’et’ev, arrants’ kroni

İlahi yaradanın hikməti, işıqsız, dinsiz

Jainkoaren jakinduria, argia, erlijio gabekoa

Mudrasć Božaja, svietlaja, biez relihii

Withoutśbarika sraṣṭāra jñāna, ālō, dharma byatīta

Mudrost Božja, svetlo, bez religije

Bozhiya mŭdrost, svetlina, bez religiya

Saviesa de Déu, llum, sense religió

Kaalam sa Dios, kahayag, walay relihiyon

Nzeru za Mulungu, zopepuka, zopanda chipembedzo

Shàngdì de zhìhuì, guāngmíng, méiyǒu zōngjiào xìnyǎng

Sapienza di Diu, luce, senza religion

Mudrost Božja, svjetlo, bez religije

Boží moudrost, světlo, bez náboženství

Visdom af den guddommelige skaber, lys, uden religion

Wijsheid van de goddelijke schepper, licht, zonder religie

Saĝo de Dio, lumo, sen religio

Jumala tarkus, kerge, ilma religioonita

Karunungan ng Diyos, ilaw, nang walang relihiyon

Jumalan viisaus, kevyt, ilman uskontoa

Sagesse du divin créateur, lumière, sans religion

Wiisheid fan ‘e godlike skepper, ljocht, sûnder religy

Sabedoría de Deus, luz, sen relixión

ghvtis sibrdzne, msubuki, religiis gareshe

Weisheit des göttlichen Schöpfers, Licht, ohne Religion

Sofía tou Theoú, fos, chorís thriskeía

Bhagavānanuṁ jisāna, prakāśa, dharma vinā

Sajès Bondye, limyè, san relijyon

O ke akamai o ke Akua, ka malamalama, me ka hoomana

חכמת האל, אור, ללא דת

dharm ke bina, prakaash, bhagavaan kee buddhi

Kev txawj ntse ntawm Vajtswv, qhov kaj, tsis muaj kev ntseeg

Isten bölcsessége, könnyű, vallás nélkül

Viska guðlega skaparans, ljós, án trúarbragða

Amamihe nke Chineke, ìhè, n’enweghị okpukperechi

Kebijaksanaan Tuhan, terang, tanpa agama

Eagna Dé, solas, gan reiligiún

Saggezza di Dio, luce, senza religion

Kami no chie,-kō, shūkyō nashi

Dēvara bud’dhivantike, beḷaku, dharmavillade

Qudaydıñ danalığı, jarıq, dinsiz

brachnha robsa preah ponlu daoy kmean sasanea

jong-gyoga-eobsneun bich, hananim-ui jihye

Isehrezayiya Xwedê, ronahî, bê ol

Kudaydın akılmandıgı, jarık, dini jok

pnaia khongphrachao khuaam savang odnybomi sadsana

Sapientia Dei, lux sine religion

Dieva gudrība, viegla, bez reliģijas

Dievo išmintis, lengva, be religijos

Wäisheet vum gëttleche Kreator, Liicht, ouni Relioun

Mudrost na Boga, svetlina, bez religija

Fahendren ‘Andriamanitra, mazava, tsy misy fivavahana

Kebijaksanaan Tuhan, cahaya, tanpa agama

daivattinṟe jñānaṁ, veḷiccaṁ, matamillāte

Għerf tal-kreatur divin, ħafif, mingħajr reliġjon

Te whakaaro nui a te Atua, marama, kahore he haahi karakia

Dēvācē jñāna, prakāśa, dharmāśivāya

Burkhany mergen ukhaan, khöngön, shashingüi

bhurarrsahkaineat uarntaw , aalainn ,

Paramēśvarakō jñāna, prakāśa, dharma binā

Visdom av den guddommelige skaperen, lys, uten religion

Mądrość Boga, światło, bez religii

Sabedoria de Deus, leve, sem religião

Dharama dī bajā’ē raba dī sūjha, cānaṇa

Înțelepciunea lui Dumnezeu, lumină, fără religie

Mudrost’ Bozhiya, svet, bez religii

Poto o le Atua, malamalama, e aunoa ma lotu

Gliocas Dhè, aotrom, gun chreideamh

Mudrost Božja, svetlo, bez religije

Bohlale ba Molimo, bobebe, ntle le tumelo

Huchenjeri hwaMwari, mwenje, pasina chinamato

deviyangē pra is āva, ālōkaya, āgamak nomætiva

Božia múdrosť, ľahká, bez náboženstva

Modrost božja, svetloba, brez religije

Xikmadda Eebbe, Iftiin, diin la’aan

Sabiduría del creador divino, luz, sin religión.

Hikmat panyipta ilahi, terang, tanpa agama

Hekima ya Mungu, nyepesi, bila dini

Den gudomliga skaparens visdom, ljus, utan religion

Xikmati Xudo, saʙuk, ʙe din

Kaṭavuḷiṉ ñāṉam, oḷi, matam illāmal

Dēvuni jñānaṁ, kānti, mataṁ lēkuṇḍā

P̣hūmipạỵỵā k̄hxng phracêā s̄ængs̄ẁāng doy mị̀mī ṣ̄ās̄nā

Tanrı Bilgeliği, ışık, dinsiz

Mudristʹ Bozha, svitla, bez relihiyi

Xudoning donoligi, nursiz, dinsiz

Trí tuệ của Thiên Chúa, ánh sáng, không có tôn giáo

Doethineb Duw, goleuni, heb grefydd

Ubulumko bukaThixo, ukukhanya, ngaphandle kwenkolo

khkhmh fun got, likht, on religye

Ọgbọn Ọlọrun, ina, laisi ẹsin

Ukuhlakanipha kukaNkulunkulu, ukukhanya, ngaphandle kwenkolo

It is neither helpful or wise to judge a day as good, bad or indifferent. Each day contains an appropriateness that is. Each day, too, is a seamless part of eternity.