Water, Tree of Life, Bible, Science, Darwin, Indians

Let us imagine for a brief minute that everything is water. The tree outside is water. The person beside you is water. The food you are eating is water. The sky above is water. The universe is water. You are water. Yes, imagine everything to be water. 

Now imagine, everything is linked because it is in fact all the same water...Rushing in and out of itself. 

Now, your mind and all consciousness imagine to be a net. 

This net moves through this water, catching things that are physical. The (water or the consciousness) manifested a table which got caught in your net, manifested a crab which got caught in your net, manifested a person which got caught in your net, manifested a star which got caught in your net. 

But all these physical things you caught are not real. They are not the water, but a manifestation- an illusion. The real is this water, this substance that is all things, this substance that we can't catch in our net to perceive it, see it or measure it. 

The water, the real, passes through our net all the time with little perception from most of us. 

It is interesting to me that the book of Genesis and even scriptures from other cultures use water to describe the early beginnings. Water is a very interesting phenomenon. In Genesis, the spirit hovered and moved over the surface of the abyss. The Earth was described first as a ball of water. 

Another picture from an image is that of a tree. In Genesis we find the Tree of Life. It is a very interesting image conjured in our minds. A TREE. And what is this tree of? LIFE.

Now, has anyone read Darwin's great book, Origin of the Species? Umm...I think there is something in there about a tree. Oh, yeah, the tree of biological evolution. 

Is it just me, or do those two trees seems very similar? 

On a different subject:

I think that if in biology we can see all our physical make-up described, retained and encoded into a single genome code, a code which could be considered in a way less then 3D...it makes sense that all the non-biology physical make-up would be found to be described, retained and encoded in a 2D format as well. 

This is what the current physicists are finding. This is called the Holographic Universe principle and while it was once not considered very viable, it is now being considered by most to be one of the more accurate descriptions of our universe. 

All the information that makes up our everything is really a code which we can't see directly. This makes everything we see really an illusion. Science is now showing us what many ancient spiritualists had said for millennia.  

I think that our FIELDS act actually like FILTERS, which filter this code from the other side... to our side. The information may look very disordered to us on the other side or perhaps it looks very ordered, but once it vibrates through the FIELDS, it takes on independent characteristics, in a way- like a personality, that makes the information appear separate and as independent parts and in a form we understand -have evolved to perceive. 

But lots of information is vibrating from the 2D format and in and out of this 'sphere of water' yet we don't perceive much of it, only that which is filtered through our fields which then becomes a part of our physical reality. 

Sometimes we might indirectly see some of this information and that is what virtual particles would be I think. "Virtual particles" are coming out of the nothingness of our space. This nothingness still has fields though and so the "wave-information" however minor has an interaction, but is not completely filtered to our physical reality so we don't experience it. 

I'll finish with my latest opinion in response to another closed minded individual caught in the web of reason alone while wearing blinders:

 No, I'm not saying to give credibility to other people's experiences. If you have not experienced it or have evidence of it then it would be stupid of you to just accept it.

What I am saying is that there is a difference to being narrow in your view of things, and open in your view of things. There is a difference in being blinded by your own arrogance and open to understanding. 

Humans don't have all the answers and might not be able to find them all. Our minds can only understand and perceive so much.

For myself I don't take the view so black and white as you. In my opinion you are superficially looking at faiths of the world like most and therefore seeing contradictions and so they are all wrong. 

I have two comments on that.

If you look at the words of the spiritual leaders and not the mumo-jumbo (Buddha, Hindu Guru, Kabbalist, Christ, Rumi) you find a lot of similarity. There is a common thread of oneness of everything, selflessness, compassion, love, harmony, denial of self, and many more commonalities.    

(In fact much of what the ancient Indian Spiritualist and Kabbalist and Sufist taught are showing to be possibly accurate by modern science from big bang, to worm holes, to the holographic universe, to everything literally being one though it appears separate, to the wholeness of all, to it all coming from nothing -which should be understood as a dynamic eternal nothingness not in the sense most think of it).

The geography, language, rituals, superstitions, clothing, dogma, and supernatural explanations are all just lines to make boxes for everyone to fit into. This is the superficial mumbo jumbo and was not taught by the spiritual leaders. 

There is an old Indian story: 
     There are six people in a dark room and one moves to the center to hit an object. He says, "It is a long bumpy thing with slim at the end." Another man moves to the center and says, "No, it is large and wide and leathery." The other man comes to the center and says, "No, it is short and furry and soft." The other man says, "No, it is like five rocks sitting on the sand." The next man says, "No, it is beating thump thump." The last man says, "No, it is flappy, and rounded and soft."
Then, the lights turn on and they see they have all found different parts to the same whole ---an elephant. 
 
FYI: Ancient people were capable of figuring out all kinds of things. The Mayans and Egyptians both had highly sophisticated understanding of the cosmos and the human body. Further since these ancient peoples of the world lived in nature constantly, not in front of computers or TVs or phones, they were not disconnected like many of us today and so could understand nature in ways that would evade us. 
   

Fairies, God, Nature, Spirit, Connection

The Argument:

There are actually thousands of scriptures from around the ancient world about unicorns and fairies.
The dominant religions in Europe before Christianity took over were full of fairies. As well as other ancient religions around the world with almost identical myths (although different NAMES for what were essentially fairies).
The same case that is made for the existence of god, could be made for the existence of fairies.

And if god is in reference only to our personal needs, and only dwells within us? Than it's not god, it's just some psychological construct.

The Response:


Frankly, I don't think much of what u r referring to is myth. I call it legend. Most stories are embedded in some form of fact, something that happened and a story emerges from there. There probably were some kind of horses with one horn on their head which is how the stories may have started. There are fossils of one horned horses actually. Even trolls and leprechauns may have an actual link to a real people which was shown on the discovery channel. A very short species. 

Not sure what u mean by only our personnel needs and something within us. I would't agree that if that is all it is then its merely psychological. But to me, "god" is something that is used to describe what is within all living things and even non-living things, that connects everything to itself and manifests in all living things. Is everything and nothing. 

I don't think the material world is real at all, but an illusion.

And I think nature is far more interesting than most of you give it credit for, and doesn't have to make sense to us, or be measured by us or dissected by us to be.

I think a connection to something allows u to understand it in a way mere measurements alone cannot. I can dissect ur brain, but that tells me nothing of how well you spoke English or your mathematical skill. When I am connected to u, get to know u then I learn these things. Scientists in the past failed to see how clever great apes were by mere measurements. It was three women who dared to named their apes and connect to them that learned and showed everyone how amazing they really were. 

 People of the past may not have the sophisticated tools we have today, the computers and fancy gizmos that allow such precise measurements. But they were connected to nature in a way many of us fail today.

Connecting allows for intuitive truth, which is why Einstein rightly understood SR even though no one understood how and why he would come up with it. 

Why former Christians have the worst understanding of the scriptures

I love to rip on everyone, don't take it personally.

This is in response to a few misunderstood scriptures also taken out of context by a former fundamentalist.



On when Christ spoke about the fig tree: 

U don't understand that the fig tree is a symbol of bearing fruit and not bearing fruit. That what you are in your heart is what you bear. And if your heart is fruitless, it may always be fruitless. 

U really don't get anything that was said, wow. I'm all for your mentioned scientists, but you should try to understand the words in context of when and how they were written like all words.

On Europe not washing their hands and dying. Why didn't god warn them to wash hands:

Matthew 15:
  “Why don’t your disciples obey what our ancestors taught us to do? They don’t even wash their hands before they eat. These pharisees wanted to know why Jesus did not do this and therefore we can conclude they did. They were taught this in the Levitical laws, which by your fundamental upbringing you certainly have missed. Was it god? Maybe not...but the Jewish people weren't stupid. 

It was Europe, who rejected Jewish teachings who suffered from the above. God's plan? No. But rejection of what was already taught. 

On all the mixing of Leviticus prohibited:

What harm could it bring to mix grains? Grains have been known to overgrow one another and then destroy the weaker gene. This makes one grain extinct. 

The sanitation of today was different from then. Pig and shrimp did kill. They are bottom dwellers, eating anything. It is unsanitary. 

Linen and wool is not because of fashion. One is made from animal and the other of plant. Much of the mixing (of various things in the laws) could be said to symbolize mixing of faiths or relating to the story of Cain and Abel where one brought wool and the other plant...but practically Jewish people had reasons for things and many times these have a scientific correlation or moral correlation (or at least what was moral for the time). 

The passage has to do with SEWING the two together, not wearing the two together. It is like saying what nature has produced, I will make better. And what a wonderful job man has done. 

Can we say Factory Farming. 


The stories in Genesis don't belong to Christians. They are Mesopotamian stories. Egyptians, Assyrians, Sumerians and Hebrews all had them. People didn't tell truths in fact, fact, fact, fact format like you are used to today.

You have to understand HOW they wrote. 

Truths are told, though something is not factual. 

FYI: Most of the Genesis account can be found in Mesopotamia from the possible Tower of Babel, to the possible Garden of Eden. Stories began because something actually did happen and they wanted to convey the truth of what happened.

Also- images and pictures are a very important literary device. The picture you form in your head when you read Tree of Life is very interesting and can be understood even by a child. Do you see the tree? Now, go read Darwin's Origin of the Species. "

Nothing is an Accident?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R16cXQBndQ&list=UU2Xd902w9u5_2oa7SHFSvZw&index=2


This is interesting, because I agree with much of what he says, but then I'm not sure how he is concluding because of Higgs, that means everything is an accident. We don't know.

We don't really know if there is something on the other side of big bang and time pulling the strings. If how this entity works is through randomness and accidents or intentional accidents or hands-off.
But let us say for the sake of argument that it is accidental...that doesn't mean it is not purposeful.

We think of things in terms of intentions because our minds work that way, our space-time physical forms are trained that way.

But what if accidents are purposeful?

Eventually something will come from the nothing, and given enough time there will be life and eventually life that will have a higher intellect which can draw meaning.

Eventually there will be meaning from every accident and from every accident something will happen. Sometimes this something survives and sometimes not.

Whatever path we choose will also derive meaning.

So, even if everything we know is accidental (as we define intent) so what? Meaning is still inevitable. And if time is an illusion and not linear, if reality is past-present-future as one. If reality is really such that everything is one....then the ending is the beginning...the beginning the ending. The meaning was from the beginning too.

And this says nothing of how spiritual energy works. Perhaps the spirit doesn't have intentions, but simply is.


And what about Nothing? Was it accidental? Did it always exist?

We really had two options for most people: It all came from nothing or something eternal. For myself, I always saw a third option of an eternal nothingness.

This is what I think best describes from where it all came.

But then what is nothingness? Does it retain any order? Any information? Does it have mass? I think we have established yes in QP, right. Does it retain conscious energy? What kind of energy is it?

Compassion and Evolution-What do you think?

I have seen that compassion is actually taught. For instance my cat naturally if we want to say genetics and evolved traits- was naturally more aggressive. Of course, he is wild like all cats. 

But I am very affectionate and loving and compassionate to him and so in time, he has begun to exhibit these traits in return. The more I kiss him or hug him, the more he reciprocates. But if he is startled outside he reverts back to agrees ion with me for a moment. So, he is capable of both.

But what will he be depends on his environment. 

I have seen a study on television where when you are compassionate to another human being, that part of their brain actually goes on and developes more. You even develop yours more the more you use it. 

So, compassion is defiantly something, in my opinion, something that can be taught and is carried on by living organisms exhibiting this trait to others.

Not just a born with it and so you got it kind of thing.

So, in this very symbiotic sense is where the evolution of compassion takes place, I think.

So- that is why in my opinion religion has played a big part in this evolution of compassion.

Yes, human beings have evolved the capacity to be violent and also to be kind, just like most animals.

But what traits persist and grow and evolve further?

Evolution is a participatory natural process in my opinion. We don't sit on the side lines and everything just happens to us. We are contributing to our own evolution and this is a very important part for people to understand.

What you put in the mixing pot is going to come out of it. 

This is where religion or culture plays a very instrumental part of morals or compassion in my opinion, continuing to evolve and hopefully for the better. 

Any animal can show meanness or kindness. Chicken fights is an environment that supports violence and so the chickens become more violent. Chickens in small spaces even pluck each other to death.
Kinda like children misbehave when in small spaces.

So our environment, the non-living environment as well as the living environment, which includes the consciousness there, effects the evolutional progression. 

Culture is a part of all animals consciousness in my opinion.

Religion is a part of human's consciousness, and is another aspect of culture. 

So, we have to consider both when we consider compassion and the effects both have played. 

How is God in us?

I recently read an article asking How God can be inside of us?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherhowse/7379255/How-can-God-be-inside-us.html

My views are such as this:

God is everywhere, every when, and everything, nowhere, no when, and nothing. When we start to ask questions like "where" is God, we begin to put God into a space-time physical description which God is not. God is not in one location, the spirit is in all locations and since it is no thing, it is in no locations by all physical definitions.

God, in my view, is very much in the rock as well as in a human being. It is just that the human being can be aware of God in itself and its connectedness to the whole and the rock is not aware. This is because God is a breathing interconnected spirit much like a web. The spirit breathing within everything, sustaining everything. The same fundamental energy of nothingness is within the rock and is within us.

All this physical world is within what I would call the "water" or God. The "water" is this spirit and every Thing is floating around in this "water", seeing its separateness. It is all made up of this fundamental water which for all physical definitions is nothing. It is all sustained by this water since it exists within it.

Our brains are like nets fishermen use to catch fish. We catch fish and see this physical phenomenon and think this is the real, this physical thing we eat. But we miss all the water passing through our nets, the actual spirit sustaining us and making us and connecting us to everything else. In fact we are this water too but temporarily have taken the illusionary form of a net. The more we attach ourselves to this net, the more we think we are the net when in fact we are not.

How is God in us? The water is passing through us all the time already, as it is all things, all the time, in all places. The question is are you aware or conscious of the filling? Are you awakened?

The 5 elementals of true religion

The Self, indeed, is below.  It is above.  It is behind.  It is before.
It is to the south.  It is to the north.  The Self, indeed, is all this.
Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this, and understands this delights
in the Self, sports with the Self, rejoices in the Self, revels in the
Self.  Even while living in the body he becomes a self-ruler.  He wields
unlimited freedom in all the worlds.  But those who think differently from
this have others for their rulers; they live in perishable worlds.  They
have no freedom at all in the worlds.

                  Hinduism.  Chandogya Upanishad 7.25.2

In my travels and explorations of cultures and religious over the past ten years, I have found that there are five elements to the four major religions that would define, in my opinion, true religion. Everything else is just the extra stuff or the extra fluff. The extra stuff can be enhancing, but the extra fluff can be dividing.

The five elements that to me constitute true religion and is found in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are teachings of: Love, Compassion, Oneness, UnSelfishness, Transformation.

This means that these teachings are found by their major prophets, gurus, monks, or such and found in their major scriptures. This does mean that all who claim to be of the faith or religion practice these teachings and often people will misuse, misinterpret for their benefit, and manipulate scripture for their own purposes. 

To me, this is the core of true religion and is at the very heart of true religion. All the extra fluff like the clothing, the diet, the geography, the language,  the superstitions, the magic, the rituals, the gods can all be points of separation and add to keeping people into boxes of division, but in fact we are not divided except by illusion.

We are all one. It is when we are living in the illusion of division, separateness where we find hate, arrogance, manipulation, and selfishness. Because when we realize we are one with everything else, when we try to take something down we than realize we are only taking down ourselves, and when we try to lift something up only then are we lifting up ourselves.

(We also find quantum physics is leading us to the understanding that everything is not just as I would say spiritually one, but literally one. Physicists have a hard time understanding how everything appears separate yet acts as one. The whole is in all the parts.) 

As Christ said, "Whoever is last is first and whoever is first is last."

We also find Christ said "Be as one with the Father as I am one with the father." In Hinduism and Buddhism there are also teachings of becoming one. They teach about the experience of Brahmin and the oneness with God which would be a perfect state of being. While Hindus call it Moksha and Buddhist call it Nirvana, the idea is similar. It is a state that ends all suffering. It is a state where all is one. Hindus believe all is one and everything is spiritually connected. All reality outside of Brahmin is considered an illusion. This makes sense when you look through the eyes of spiritualism or even through the eyes of quantum physics. 

In Kabbalah we learn that God, the spirit, closed and this formed a vacuum from which everything came, starting as the size of a grain of sand. Yes, this is what they said 500 years ago. In some Eastern beliefs we learn everything is inside of God. The spirit is both inside of all things, including us and outside of everything, in my view. All pervading and everywhere -yet nowhere because a where implies a thing and God, the spirit, is not a thing. The spirit was all there was, until it closed. When everything birthed from the vacuum of nothingness, the spirit then breathed, opened and encompassed everything. 

Christ speaks of denying the self. He also says, if anyone should come after me, let him deny himself and pick up his cross daily and follow me. This means to say no to yourself. This is because of our nature. Our nature and our spirit our in conflict. Because the father is spirit, or true reality is spirit than we have to see things in spiritual form and context, not in our illusionary physical and natural world. In Judaism the Torah states, The Torah abides only with him who regards himself as nothing.

                   Judaism.  Talmud, Sota 21b

The link below shows more similarity in denial of self with Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. 

"All states are without self." -Buddhism Dhammapada 277-79

To me, this reminds me of looking at everything through the eyes of evolution. We 

think this is a cat or frog, but in fact we were all something else before and will  become something new in the future. Lines we draw to define this or that are fleeting and not very real, for the real is that we are all connected and not divided, 

not this or that but always in-between. To understand in the definition of a self, whatever form that takes, we are limiting our own understanding is grand. 

Our goal should not be to enhance the self, but as Christ said to deny the self and become one with the Father. Through this, we understand our oneness with everything, with God -the all pervading spirit that is everything. We then unite with this God and with our true form. Divisions then disappear. The illusion of the physical  crumples.   

    http://www.unification.net/ws/theme126.htm

Self-denial is necessary to overcome the hindrances of egoism, 

pride, and selfish desires which obscure the true nature within. The

person who is always concerned with himself or herself, is trapped in
"the ego-cage of 'I', 'me' and 'mine.'"  Consequently, he can neither
realize his own true self nor relate to Ultimate Reality.  From a Hindu
perspective, denying "I," "me," and "mine" is in fact a way to find the
true "I" that is transcendent and one with Reality.  In the Western per-
spective it is a way to recover the true self, which is loving and comp-
assionate, having been created in the image of God.  Both perspectives
affirm the paradox that "he who loves his life loses it, and he who hates
his life will keep it."  For more on this paradox, see Reversal and
Restoration, pp. 544-50.

       Buddhism also teaches that the path to the religious goal requires
one to deny the self and all egoistic grasping.  But it goes further,
grounding the practice of self-denial on the ontological statement that
any form of a self is unreal.  Buddhism is most sensitive to the insight
that self-denial, when done for the purpose of seeking unity with an Abso-
lute Self or God, can become subtly perverted into a form of pride and
self-affirmation.  Total self-denial should therefore dispense even with
the goal of a transcendent Self.  There is no self, either on earth or in
heaven; all forms are transient, subject to birth and death.  A number of
texts explaining this doctrine of No-self (anatta) are collected here:
more may be found under Formless, Emptiness, Mystery, pp. 85-92 and Orig-
inal Mind, No-mind, pp. 217-23.


He who has no thought of "I" and "mine" whatever towards his mind and
body, he who grieves not for that which he has not, he is, indeed, called
a bhikkhu.

                   Buddhism.  Dhammapada 367


They are forever free who renounce all selfish desires and break away
from the ego-cage of "I," "me," and "mine" to be united with the Lord.
Attain to this, and pass from death to immortality.

                   Hinduism.  Bhagavad Gita 2.71




Dhammapada 367: Cf. Madhyamakavatara 3, p. 412; Diamond Sutra 14, p. 888.
Bhagavad Gita 2.71: Cf. Bhagavad Gita 5.10-12, p 774; Maitri Upanishad
3.2, p. 412; Srimad Bhagavatam 11.4, p. 412; Katha Upanishad 3.13, p. 840.




If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross
and follow me.  For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever
loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

                   Christianity.  Mark 8.34-36


Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth
and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.  He who
loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep
it for eternal life.

                   Christianity.  John 12.24-25


O Son of Man!  If you love Me, turn away from yourself; and if you seek My
pleasure, regard not your own; that you may die in Me and I may eternally
live in you.

                   Baha'i Faith.  Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, Arabic 7


The Man of the Way wins no fame,
The highest virtue wins no gain,
The Great Man has no self.

                   Taoism.  Chuang Tzu 17


Torah abides only with him who regards himself as nothing.

                   Judaism.  Talmud, Sota 21b


Where egoism exists, Thou art not experienced,
Where Thou art, is not egoism.
You who are learned, expound in your mind
       this inexpressible proposition.

                   Sikhism.  Adi Granth, Maru-ki-Var, M.1, p. 1092


Yen Yan asked about perfect virtue.  The Master said, "To subdue one's
self and return to propriety is perfect virtue.  If a man can for one day
subdue himself and return to propriety, all under heaven will ascribe per-
fect virtue to him."

                   Confucianism.  Analects 12.1.1




Mark 8.34-36: To bear the cross and sacrifice oneself for others, one must
first deny the self and its desires.  Cf. Matthew 10.24-25, p. 821; 23.12, p.
545; Luke 14.26, p. 959; Philippians 2.6-11, p. 616; Romans 8.9-17, p. 576;
Acts 6.8-7.60, pp. 887f.  John 12.24-25: Cf. Matthew 16.24-25, p. 875.  Sota
21b: Cf. Abot 2.4, p. 771.  Maru-ki-Var, M.1: Cf. Diamond Sutra 9, p. 933.




The pursuit of learning is to increase day after day.
The pursuit of Tao is to decrease day after day.
It is to decrease and further decrease until one reaches the point of
     taking no action.
No action is undertaken, and yet nothing is left undone.

                   Taoism.  Tao Te Ching 48


If you do not deny yourself completely, restoration through indemnity is
impossible.  Indemnity conditions can be realized only by completely deny-
ing yourself.  The standard of absolute denial should be established tow-
ard the individual, the family, the race, the world, the cosmos, and God.

                   Unification Church.  Sun Myung Moon, 4-3-83


Would one die while living, thus crossing the ocean of existence.

                   Sikhism.  Adi Granth, Suhi Chhant, M.5, p. 777


In the evening do not expect [to live till] morning, and in the morning do
not expect evening.  Prepare as long as you are in good health for sick-
ness, and so long as you are alive for death.

                   Islam.  Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 40


I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ
who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in
the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

                   Christianity.  Bible, Galatians 2.20




Tao Te Ching 48: Cf. Tao Te Ching 16, p. 840; 19, p. 294; 22, p. 549; Chuang
Tzu 6, p. 584.  Sun Myung Moon, 4-3-83: Indemnity and Self-denial are necessary
because of the Fall; see Divine Principle I.3.2.1, p. 547n.  Cf. Luke 14.26, p.
959.  Galatians 2.20: Cf. Romans 8.9-17, p. 576; 12.1, p. 754; Ephesians
2.8-10, p. 756.  Mumonkan 46: The issue is grasping and dependence upon the
body and sense experience, and fear of going beyond its limits.  See Seng
Ts'an, p. 223.




Remember, those who fear death shall not escape it, and those who aspire
to immortality shall not achieve it.

                   Islam (Shiite).  Nahjul Balagha, Khutba 43


Seek not for life on earth or in heaven.  Thirst for life is delusion.
Knowing life to be transitory, wake up from this dream of ignorance and
strive to attain knowledge and freedom.

                   Hinduism.  Srimad Bhagavatam 11.13


You, who sit on the top of a hundred-foot pole, although you have entered
the Way you are not yet genuine.  Proceed on from the top of the pole, and
you will show your whole body in the ten directions.

Mumon's Comment: If you go on further and turn your body about, no place
is left where you are not the master.  But even so, tell me, how will you
go on further from the top of a hundred-foot pole? Eh?

                   Buddhism.  Mumonkan 46


A monk asked Baso, "What is the Buddha?"  Baso answered, "No mind, no
Buddha."

                   Buddhism.  Mumonkan 33


"All states are without self."  When one sees this in wisdom, then he be-
comes dispassionate towards the painful.  This is the path to purity.

                   Buddhism.  Dhammapada 277-79


       "The body, brethren, is not the self.  If body were the self, this
body would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of body, 'Let my
body be thus; let my body not be thus.'  But inasmuch as body is not the
self, that is why body is subject to sickness, and one cannot say of body,
'Let my body be thus; let my body not be thus.'

       "Feeling is not the self.  If feeling were the self, then feeling
would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of feeling, 'Let my
feeling be thus; let my feeling not be thus.'

       "Likewise perception... the [volitional] activities... and consc-
iousness are not the self.  If consciousness were the self, then con-
sciousness would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of
consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be
thus'; but inasmuch as consciousness is not the self, that is why
consciousness is subject to sickness, and that is why one cannot say of
consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be
thus.'

       "Now what do you think, brethren, is body permanent or impermanent?"
       "Impermanent, Lord."
       "And is the impermanent painful or pleasant?"
       "Painful, Lord."
       "Then what is impermanent, painful, and unstable by nature, is it
          fitting to consider as, 'this is mine, this am I, this is my
          self'?"
       "Surely not, Lord."

       "So also is it with feeling, perception, the activities, and consc-
iousness.  Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future,
or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, lowly or eminent,
far or near--every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
insight--'this is not mine; this am not I; this is not my self.'

       "Every feeling whatever, every perception whatever, all activities
whatsoever, every consciousness whatever [must likewise be so regarded].

       "Thus perceiving, brethren, the well-taught noble disciple feels
disgust for body, feels disgust for feeling, for perception, for the acti-
vities, for consciousness.  Feeling disgust he is repelled; being repell-
ed, he is freed; knowledge arises that in the freed is emancipation; so he
knows, 'destroyed is rebirth; lived is the religious life; done is my
task; for life in these conditions there is no hereafter.'"

                   Buddhism. Samyutta Nikaya iii.68




Mumonkan 33: Implicit in this koan is the instruction to deny not only the
self but also any object of attainment--even the Buddha himself; see Sutta
Nipata 1072-76, p. 532; 919-920, p. 553; Sutra of Hui Neng 2, p. 90.  The
third of the Four Noble Truths speaks of the eradication of desire or
striving, even striving after enlightenment.  Compare Mumonkan 30, p. 116,
which asserts the seeming opposite.  Dhammapada 277-79: The self is right-
ly denied because it truly does not exist; this is the Buddhist teaching
on no-self (anatta).  See Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532; 919-920, p. 553.
Samyutta Nikaya iii.68: Matter (the body), sensation (feelings), cognition
(perception), volition (the activities), and the consciousness which de-
pends upon them are called the five aggregates (skandhas).  The Buddha
taught that these aggregates, which are commonly thought to constitute the
self, are not the self.  They are impermanent and unreal, and so is the
self which is thought to consist of them.  Cf. Majjhima Nikaya i.142-45,
p. 929; Diamond Sutra 14, p. 888; Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532.

Transformational concepts are also found in these religions. In Christianity we are told to renew our minds daily. Transform your minds from the things of this world unto the things of heaven. A transformation is very important. In my view, I would call this spiritual evolution. 

We find this concept in Hinduism and Buddhism as well as Judaism. It is a fundamental goal. To free oneself from suffering in Buddhism, one must transform. In Hinduism likewise. At this link you find Judaism and thoughts of self-transformation

http://daatelyon.org/category/self-transformation/

I encourage all my readers to research those five areas mentioned above to learn more about how the four major religions mentioned are very similar at their core. 

 

Spinoza and my views

Spinoza is an interesting character. I have to say I agree somewhat with his views of God and Law, but not the Soul.

"What God is, for Spinoza, is Nature itself—the infinite, eternal, and necessarily existing substance of the universe. God or Nature just is; and whatever else is, is “in” or a part of God or Nature. Put another way, there is only Nature and its power; and everything that happens, happens in and by Nature. There is no transcendent or even immanent supernatural deity; there is nothing whatsoever outside of or distinct from Nature and independent of its processes."

http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/septemberoctober/feature/why-spinoza-was-excommunicated

I agree with much of this paragraph except that I do think it is transcendent, but that it is all inward, internal. There is no outside force. It is an all pervading force. I also do think the spirit is a very real aspect of nature, an invisible force that does actually connect all things to each other and it is this connection that I would call God. So, while I agree nature is all there is, I think there is more to nature than we realize. 

While Spinoza's God is not one to give worship to or thanks, for myself I think it is important and humbling and does reconnect you to the wholeness of everything. You are connecting than to the spirit that is in all of us, all of nature and is the most fundamental form allowing everything to exist. 

But I do agree with his statement. "Love your fellow human beings and treat them with justice and charity. This is all that is essential to the “true religion.” Everything else is just superstition."

I would say it is Love and Compassion which is true religion and this is what is at the essence or heart of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism and when this is not practiced, it becomes a lie and any religion without Love and Compassion is a lie. 

This is what I think the Buddha meant when asked about those who do not know Buddhism and what would happen to them and he replied, 'there is no other religion.' This is because at the core, all true religions are the same. Love and Compassion. Everything else is just details that often separate us into groups. 

But we are not separate, and even the physical world which we see which looks very separate is not separate, it is all one, in my view. 

I also agree with his views on the Laws. They were written by men and passed down from generation to generation. They were written to keep order, to promote prosperity, unity, happiness, and health. In many ways, at their heart, the laws are good. But when they come into conflict with love and compassion I would have to disagree. 

I do think men are inspired by the spirit that connects all of us and all things to each other and that it is possible to becomes more intuitive about nature and life by listening to this spirit. In that sense, some of the writings which we call spiritual or religious may have come, but I do think that one has to use their good judgment.

I also find it interesting that all four major religions speak of uniting as one. In Christianity Christ says "to become one with Father as I am one."  In Buddhism and Hinduism there is also a sense of becoming one with the nothingness, or one with Nirvana. There is a sense of denying the self and becoming less selfish, less separate to live in harmony, compassion, and love as one. In Christianity we are also taught to deny ourself and We find this common thread of love, compassion and oneness in many writings of religions.

In Kabbalah we also find a writing that says, "Everything is mysteriously one." Kabbalist Lucia may have written that, but I'm not sure. 

To me it seems the essentials are Love, Compassion, and Oneness.

As far as the soul, I obviously have vastly different views from Spinoza. I think there is a spiritual essence to nature at its very fundamental fabric which is invisible much like the quantum physics of things and I think it is at this level where everything is connected and one. 

I also think that consciousness is linked or connected to this oneness, this fundamental fabric. So, we are all one physically by quantum physics, but spiritually as well. Or perhaps this fundamental vibration that pervades all things in a quantum physics sense is also what one might call the spirit, that which continues and had no beginning or end and which is everything and all of us. 

But I do think there is a essence which is you or me which does exist after physical death. Like a vibration of energy or nature's echo left behind. I do think some people are more sensitive to seeing this vibration or echo and this is what people might call a ghost or a spirit. 

How long does it linger? 

I would also say that even Christ spoke about "your body is the temple of God." So, the idea of God dwelling within isn't really a new concept. God for the most part in many teachings is in fact internal. 

Christians have heard of the "All consuming fire." Well, it is consuming ALL. That means everything and everywhere. This idea of everywhere is found in many spiritual teachings, not just Christianity. 

So, I don't think my views differ so much from true teachings actually. I think where my views differ is from what has become mainstream or polar notions which most people can understand. 

But understanding and truth are two different things and I think truth is often beyond our understanding. 

Nature and Consciousness

It is just strange to think about that right now you can contemplate this rock outside, this universe, this sun and the arm on your body and even the brain with which out of you are contemplating....and yet nothing in nature can do that expect that which has a brain (that we know of). 

Actually, I think our brains are an exact reflection of nature itself. We often hear "Is it a coincidence that maths can represent nature and our own brains are capable of maths too?"

But all the skills our brains can do can be found in nature.

We have spacial skills/intelligence, and there is space in nature to perceive.

We have kinesthetic skills and all of nature moves its particles, chemistry, biology. 

We have musical skills and nature is made of all kinds of sounds and patterns of sounds to perceive.

We have linguistic skills and nature is made up of all kinds of communication. Two hearts put next to each other will start beating in sync. Electrons perhaps communicate instantly with each other across the universe according to some studies. Even bacteria communicate. 

It seems to me that on every level of nature: Quantum, Physical, Chemistry, and Biology we can find all the skills that we find in our brains as well.

Our brains are even wired for random vs nonrandom patterns. People say creative vs logical, but that is not true. Recent studies show both sides of the brain can do both...but it is How the information is organized or coming into our brains. 

So, is it any wonder that in nature we find both random and non random processes.

We have interpersonal skills, and all of nature has relationships. Gravity is the relationship of two massive bodies. Etc...one ting works because of its relationship to another thing. 

We have interpersonal skills, knowing oneself, and all of nature seems to want to duplicate itself. From DNA and even to physical things. I mean why do we have lots of water molecules, why not just one. Conformity seems important to nature. Even virtual particles (from my reading) seem to pop in and conform in a sense, because if they don't they can't remain. 


It makes sense that our brains would reflect nature since they came out of nature...so in understanding our own minds and consciousness I think we will understand more about nature too. 

So, then what of consciousness....I would like to see more studies in science actually.  

But one more thing, If our brains came from nature and are a part of nature, and our brains have consciousness...then nature in a sense is conscious -or at least a part of it, because it is a product of nature and is nature itself.