The symbolic significance of Jesus is that he is God exposed to the spectrum of human experience — exposed to the first-hand knowledge of what being a man entails. But could God, incarnate as Jesus, truly claim to be a man, to encompass the spectrum of human experience, without coming to know two of the most basic, most elemental facets of the human condition? Could God claim to know the totality of human existence without confronting two such essential aspects of humanity as sexuality and paternity? We do not think so. In fact, we do not think the Incarnation truly symbolises what it is intended to symbolise unless Jesus were married and sired children. The Jesus of the Gospels, and of established Christianity, is ultimately incomplete — a God whose incarnation as man is only partial. The Jesus who emerged from our research enjoys, in our opinion, a much more valid claim to what Christianity would have him be. (Baigent, Michael; Leigh, Richard; Lincoln, Henry (1982). The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Corgi. ISBN 0–552-12138-X.)

Incidentally, also a fairly good example of what I would see as a helpful pragmatist-constructivist line of argument on the issue. What view of the world and social practices do I commit myself if I believe this or that?

And I am fascinated by (also historically and biblically plausible) ideas of Mary as an „apostle to the apostles“ and founder of a Christian movement promoting female leadership. I wish there were any of that still in the Catholic church!

Humility is not an end result of spiritual practices and denials. Humility is not an achievement, it is not a virtue to be cultivated. A virtue that is cultivated ceases to be a virtue, for then it is merely another form of achievement, a record to be made. A cultivated virtue is not the abnegation of the self, but a negative assertion of the self. […] You cannot become humble. The very becoming is the continuation of self-importance, which conceals itself in the practice of a virtue. How strong is our will to succeed, to become!

That makes a lot of sense to me, and is actually what I observe a lot in the practice of meditation and spirituality in the west. At the same time, it clearly leaves the question: If you realize you are not humble right now, and are told there is no way of becoming humble, what can you do?

To me, while I acknowledge that from a purely logical point of view this is indeed a paradox, there is a solution in viewing our mental and emotional activity on two levels — that what our primary thoughts and feelings are, and our thoughts and feelings about these. The realization came to me in attempts at meditation, and at quieting my mind. I realized I could not do that, but I could at least be quiet about that, not have the second order reprimands on top of the incessant flow of first order thoughts and feelings. Now, of course, the magic is that the moment I realized that, the first order thoughts and feelings do begin to be more quiet also.

I believe and feel it works the same also for the other qualities that we aspire for — I cannot make myself be accepting of everything, but I can start immediately by being accepting of not being accepting. I cannot make myself humble — but I can be humble about the fact of not being humble. And so on. And for me, that really feels like how I understand Krishnamurti: it’s not a process of becoming, it starts with a sensation of realization that is its own fulfillment, even though of course it leads to a slow process of change on the first level of mind and emotion.

As a closing remark: Only in writing this I realized how close the title I chose is to what Gestalt Psychology calls the „Paradoxical Theory of Change“, which in more worldly but also maybe more complicated terms basically says the same thing: In order to change, we have to first accept what is.