Christ/Buddha: Archetypes vs. Stereotypes

Ok, Ok, Okaaay!!! Let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that there was an historical "person" named Jesus who attained the enlightened ‘Christ Mind' and shared that message with the world. It's NOT too hard to believe, (even though the similarities between the symbolic and mythical ‘messiah' figures of other cultures, are profoundly striking and should be considered)

So what did this Jesus look like?

Should we rely exclusively on biblical accounts in relation to the appearance of this enlightened master? Or was he a swarthy Arabic man? Maybe he was a full-blooded African as other historians claim, or simply the tall, thin and frugal looking Caucasian man with long hair (a popular rendition attractive to many westerners). Or what if ‘he' was in fact........a woman?

Ahhhh! Blasphemy you speak!!!

You laugh at such silliness, but wait! Once you insist on a form and a body, the discriminating ego-mind will demand ‘appearances' and you will SEE those features in your mind and they will be real for you.

When you enter your Christian church, are you moved by what you see? What if the crucified Christ had the features of a black man? Or an Asian woman? (we can be just as moved by the ‘virgin mother' however, as long as the roles are clear).

Therefore, we have left the unlimited realm of ‘archetype' and entered the restricted zone of STEREOTYPE ("a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group" -Amer. Herit. Dict). And we are all too familiar with the deleterious effects of stereotyping. It tends to lock down one's perspective, to where you just might miss the deeper meaning found behind the forms. Archetypes are the message and do not require forms or persons, (although we can make that attribution). However, stereotypes demand form, which can distract from the message. And, as history shows, often do!

And what about Buddha? Was he really the laughing fat-man or was he an emaciated long-haired, hippy-type? And what about Muhammad or Moses? Or Adam and Eve? What did they look like? Many claim it does not matter until an oppossing 'appearance' is presented.

If you believe these "persons" existed historically then you may unwittingly attribute to these historical "figures" the ‘values' traditionally inherent to that form or appearance. Stereotyping is a ‘real world' problem. Thus, it seems reasonable that the same problem is found through the numerous interpretations of historical figures prior to image recordings. Of course, for the biblical literalists who rely solely on the ‘text,' there is only one physical Jesus and for the Buddhist one embodied Buddha.

However, I believe there may be hundreds, if not thousands. Call me crazy!!

Alas, this may only be a mere trifling and insignificant issue for which I fail to add anything substantial to the discussion (as many claim is my tendency). However, racism, sexism and all the other judgmental ‘isms' are easily observable on a multitude of levels, from the most severe to the most minimal. This "type" of SEEING is often unconscious to the mind that discriminates differences and all minds do SEE differences. For many, Christian dogma and doctrine is one big distraction. However, for others it has resulted in a more expansive view.

If your Jesus is a tall Caucasian youth and mine is an old squat, pot-bellied, Arabic woman, will you judge me deluded or deranged? Will I be ostracized, derided and spit upon?

Such is the infamy of Christian history...

We can say the names with reverence based on the archetypal message they present for all people, but without needing the criteria of appearances, features, bodies or persons based on ‘historical' analysis. In this way, we may finally come to cease our obsession with the forms that often result in missing the content that the forms symbolically express. I imagine there is little argument that the world is sorely in need of that salvational, redeeming content. If only we could break from historical forms and persons.

There is a strong possibility that there was no man named Jesus, nor one named Buddha. However, there most certainly is Christ Mind/Buddha Mind. And it is blissfully free of form.

Hallowed be thy message, since the names no longer serve me...