It is all ONE and God is everything and NoThing

Below is all about ONE;)

What appeals to me most about this quote is that it was written in 1287. Moses De Leon (who also wrote the Zohar) wrote this, along with some other interesting words.  Stay with me...

"God is unified Oneness. One without two, inestimable. Genuine divine essence engenders the existence of all of creation. The sublime, inner essences secretly constitute a chain linking everything from the highest to the lowest, extending from the upper pool to the edge of the universe. There is nothing-not even the finest thing-that is not fastened to the links of this chain. Everything is linked in its mystery, caught in its oneness. God is one, God's secret is one, all the worlds below and above are mysteriously one. Divine existence is indivisible. The entire chain is one. Down to the last link, everything linked with everything else, so divine essence is below as wells above, in heaven and on Earth. There is nothing else."

He also said, "Everything is mysteriously one and there is nothing not connected to this chain."

What is more interesting is that everything in modern day science is more and more pointing to that exact point, that everything is really one.

When we examine the biggest -Biology, we see evolution shows us everything is one, down to the finest creature, even on the microscopic scale...linked, and there is nothing that is not linked, not related.

When we examine something smaller- Physics, we find that everything is also made up of the same stuff, all linked, from living to non-living. We are all connected through the matter that makes up our physical forms.

When we examine the smallest-Quantum Physics, we find physicists saying very similar things.

"The whole is in every part." 

You would think that the whole would be made up of parts and a part can be taken out of the whole, but it doesn't work like that in nature. In every part Is the Whole. You can't break it up into smaller parts. It is more like a web. 

"Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe." -Erwin Shrodinger (I think his cat agrees.)

"Quantum physics thus...shows us that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated "building blocks" but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between various parts of the whole." -Fritjof Copra

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." -Sir James Jeans

When we even look at Time, one of our greatest scientific minds namely Einstein tells us that that the past, present, and future are all one. "Time separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion , although a convincing one."

Many physicists are embracing a once ridiculed notion of timelessness.

In Literature we can find John Steinbeck telling us..."all things are one thing and that one thing is all things. Plankton, a shimmering phosphorescence on the sea and the spinning planets and an expanding universe, all bound together by the elastic string of time."

In Music of course we have Bono. "We are One, but we're not the same. We get to carry each other, carry each other. One love. ;)  

So, then that only leaves consciousness... and as scientists try to unravel the mysteries of consciousness I bet they may very well come to the same conclusions. It is one. 

And maybe that is why Schrodinger's Cat and other quantum experiments like the double slit lead us to contemplate whether our observation really does effect the outcome of the observation itself. But how is where we stumble up.

If consciousness is really one as well, entangled with everything else like a web, just like everything else is a web...then simply observing would effect the outcome of the observation...because consciousness, though an immaterial thing, would be pulling on one of those strings inside the web--changing it.  

How is God Nothing? What is all this talk in about Nothing?

I'd like to clarify what I mean when I say God is everything and nothing.

When one says nothing, often what people think of immediately is when you close your eyes and there is nothing there, complete non-existence. When I say God made everything out of nothing (one might think complete non-existence and as discussed with Ryan once in the details of the Hebrew language that I remember, creation was not made from nothing --as in what people typically think of when one says nothing.

However- my nothing is very different. So, let me explain. 

#1- There is nothing which is of no information. Absolute non-existence. Personally, my view is that this quality is never so, meaning that something is always in existence. 

#2-There is something, which has some information. That is where we exist. EVERYTHING we know is at this level of something, anything really.    (This is what I think Asah in the Genesis 1 Hebrew means)

#3-Then there is NoThing which is infinite (unlimited) information. This is eternal existence (because existence must alway be, it never is not), this is what I mean when I might say God is everything and nothing. God is infinite information. But this does not make God a Thing. (This is what I think Bara in the Genesis 1 Hebrew means)

For God to be a Thing, God would have to reside in the #2 level of something. But God is not something. God is everything and nothing. (#2 and #3)

However that does not make the inverse true. Everything is not God.Because Everything is a finite number, and God is an Infinite One. Everything we can describe and measure and quantify. It is Something, it could have been anything.

However even if you have a zillion bits of information of something....in comparison to an infinite source of information, that tells us very little about what/who it is, because really we are only seeing the fingerprints--not the one who made them.

It tells us some things, but then it really tells us nothing. 

I would say God does not exist. God is existence.  Nothing (#1) would exist without God. We exist, because we are something.  I think it is a very important distinction to understand, for myself anyway. God is not a separate quality, distinct from everything else, but is everything. Understanding God is also NoThing, #3 is also very important in my view as well, because God is out of the bounds of description and definition. 

In researching more about quantum physics, learning more about how 'nothing' in nature works is also very interesting. 

What is also interesting is that in physics they have determined that despite what Stephen Hawking thought to be true, that information would be destroyed into nothing (#1) in the black hole,  is in fact not correct and that information is not destroyed. Information is not destroyed. That is a very significant aspect of nature. Nature doesn't allow information to be destroyed into nothing (#1).

 Because nothing (#1) never happens.

In nature, we see that in quantum physics the popping of 'virtual particles' which we understand to be more like a fluctuating wave are ally popping, they never just stop, they never just let nothing (#1) be, they always pop to try to become something. Virtual particles are almost here, but not quite yet. On the other side of our something, our everything...is not nothing (#1), but NoThing (#3).

It takes far more energy for nothing to exist in our level of existence than for our something to exist. Did you know that? It is true, scientifically. Nothing works very hard to keep itself hidden from our existence. 

That tells us that whatever this nothing is, it has an extremely high level of energy. It is not nothing (#1) of no information. Since, we see that even black holes do not destroy information. That question is resolved. 

Energy may very well be the simplest form of information and as we know, information is not destroyed. So, this nothing from which the virtual particles pop seems more to me like nothing (#3) of infinite information. But as they bind with other particles and conform to this existence and become one with this existence, drawing itself into our existence, they then become something, anything. 

But then they are no longer in the infinite, they are in the finite. But they are still "fastened to the infinite-to the chain above as well as below." 

.................................................................................................................................................................................

Articles like this are fun, but the problem with them is that they always like to say "we got something from nothing." However defining this nothing seems to be the issue. 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/

If it really is nothing, then the empty box would be just that anempty box. That is nothing (#1). 

But it never is an empty box, it is always popping and spewing with virtual particles of extremely high energies. When time is shorter and shorter, meaning the closer we get to no time...the energy levels get higher and higher. Extremely high. They have done this again and again. We can infer that in no time, the energy would be infinite, but we don't know this. I think it is though. 

This popping energy is energy, not nothing. It is information, not nothing. At least not in the sense that people are accustomed to thinking of nothing and not in the sense that articles like this always use the term nothing, without defining it. 

Now, mathematically I've heard that since the particles annihilate each other, a positive and a negative, they equate to zero. While mathematically that is true...zero, in my view, should not be erroneously equated to be nothing (#1). Zero and infinity have a very interesting relationship. And zero is not nothing, it is a number that helps us to understand what is happening. 

I think this is a injustice, because when people read articles like this they think of nothing (#1), and I don't think that is correct. It is nothing (#3). 

       

The Tree of Life and Darwin

The Tree of Life in the Genesis account reveals an eternal life or inner life. 


What is interesting is that there is a another tree of life...this tree is not a manipulation or hijacking of the tree of life from the Bible. 

This is Darwin's Tree of Life revealing biological life. 

This was called a tree not because of the Bible, but because when one literally diagrams biological life one literally draws a tree. 

This diagram could have taken any shape, but it does not. 

A TREE shape then is very significant in understanding the PHYSICAL layer, but also the SPIRITUAL layer. 

Layers to Reality. How many do you think there are?

I tend to think there are many layers to reality.

I would say the one we dwell in and experience most is the Physical Visible layer. However there is a Physical Invisible layer underneath this layer which includes molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, quantum particles, virtual particles.

Underneath this layer I think there is a Spiritual Visible layer and underneath this the Spiritual Invisible layer.

Above the Physical I think there is a Conscious Visible and then a Conscious Invisible layer.

Above the Conscious Invisible layer I think there is a Soul Visible Layer.

7 layers in total.

Sometimes consciousness experiences the other layers and sometimes not.

Soul Visible Layer———————-immaterial

Conscious Invisible Layer———immaterial

Conscious Visible Layer———immaterial wrapped in material

Physical Visible Layer————-immaterial wrapped in material

Physical Invisible Layer———immaterial

Spiritual Visible Layer——-immaterial wrapped in material

Spiritual Invisible Layer——immaterial

I think that reality is born out of the absence of (random/chaos/darkness) and existence of (non-random/order/light) the Spiritual Invisible Layer, and gushes outward like a geyser gushing of water forming all the other layers.

*Because of the absence of the Spiritual Invisible Layer (when it closed) the random/chaotic/dark physical world emerged and is an EXTERNAL quality. This is the illusion of Separateness, externally.

*But because of the existence of the Spiritual Invisible Layer (when it opened) non-random harmony/order/light manifested within the physical. An INTERNALquality. This is the truth of Oneness, internally.

I think the Spiritual Invisible Layer closes and opens like breathing.

I think that the spirit existed prior to all the other layers. However the soul exists because of the consciousness layer. The Soul Visible Layer then circles back around to the bottom or the Spiritual Invisible Layer, where it once again becomes invisible and unites again with the spirit.

For myself, highest consciousness like that of a human (scientists say biological life can not become any smarter than we are now based on the fact of energy needs) can connect to the Spiritual Invisible Layer and in that sense we also have a Spirit (umbilical cord) to the One.

All animals (consciousnesses) in my view have a soul, however only humans have a spirit.

This reality is then linear and circular.

Consciousness Visible is the layer where we see the brain and the actions and words of a living animal. The Consciousness Invisible is the harder problem, the energy/image formed from the brain’s chemistry/electricity/memory/experiences/choices…which in my view form the Soul.

The Soul Visible layer is where we find ghosts. But they always return to the Spiritual Invisible layer.

The Spiritual Invisible layer is where everything is ONE, the grand mystery. To where everything returns and gushes. This is "God". This is the "System of Energies", which I think has ethical values embedded into the very fabric of being. This is more of a pantheistic view of things.

However, the Spiritual Visible layer is where we might see “God”, or a “prophet” or “an Angel” or “Messiah” or a Miracle. It is the manifestation closest to the Oneness and therefore most truthful, most loving, most hopeful.

Because the soul manifests from the consciousness which manifests from the physical, our own soul is trapped in this physical world for as long as we live and therefore can become disillusioned, weary and deceived or denied. The soul is our horizontal walk where as the spirit is the vertical walk, direct contact to the Oneness.

In answer to a blogger's question of why Genesis has stars, sun made after the Earth

Because this blogger rejected my comment to leave on his post in answer to this guy's question, I have posted it here instead. Apparently, to most Christians my ideas are still witchcraft and I shall be burned at he stake. 

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/09/stephen-hawking-proves-the-existence-of-god-2/

zuma August 4, 2013 at 8:48 am

Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.

In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.

The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:

a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:

Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.

b)The creation of sun:

According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:

Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.

As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.

c)The creation of stars:

Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”

The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.

As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.

The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.

How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?

I think Christians come in three groups. One is the group where they take the moral teaches, but don't read many passages literally. The other group takes the moral teachings and the passages literally superficially (which is what you have done above). The other group takes the moral lessons and the passages literally with deeper understanding.

I fall in the last group, but I would also call myself a Buddhist, a Jew, a Sufist, a Hindu, a Kabbalist, and a Naturalist as well as a Spiritualist. I think there are truths in many teachings and BS as well.

For the explanation, I will give summed up version of what took me four years of study and of which I consequently wrote a book about entitled The Ancient Genesis. Now, the book could have been inspired by a higher power, by just men or be complete rubbish. I will not argue that point. What I will say is that when one reads, one needs to read carefully, be it of any literature to understand context of culture, context of history and context of intention.

Basically the jist is this. Learn some Hebrew and Phonetician and also ancient and modern day Hebrew culture.

When you do you will understand these basic principles:

1-Yom which is defined as a day in Genesis can mean A Period of Time. (There is a lot of references and support for this in my book). Further common sense might lead one to ask how is a day defined before the Earth or Sun are said to even exist...in Day 1 and Day 2, and some of Day 3.

2-Bara is for spiritual creation only in Genesis 1. Period. This word is translated in the English as created (s). After much much study I have come to realize this to be the true case. This occurs in Day 1 when the building blocks of everything arose. This occurs in Day 5 for the life of water animals. This occurs in Day 6 for the life of humans. (There is further understanding of why it only happens for water life supported in my book and notes, but basically land animals evolved from water life and so what was given to them in Day 5 eventually evolved into the land animals in Day 5 later.

3-Asha is for physical processes in Genesis 1 only. Period. This word is translated as made in English.

4-What Asha means than is to take the parts and build. Example. I have a hammer, nails, and wood. I now can build a house. There are scientific mechanisms that can explain every Asah process, because Asah is a physical process.

5-God does bring about many things in Genesis 1 Without the use of made or create, without the use of Asha and Bara.

Why use Asah and Bara then if God's words alone can bring about plants from the ground, etc. This is because those words give us more insight, more information, into what is actually happening. The focus is not that something is coming ....or has come, but  how and its relevance.

So, with some basic understanding let us go back to your question....

Why is the sun and stars mentioned in Day 4 when the Earth is mentioned in Day 3, clearly a day earlier.

Not only does that not make sense in terms of cosmological evolution, it doesn't make sense in terms of common sense. If a day is in fact the sun going up and down in accordance to the Earth, which clearly these people would see ....then how can you even have  day in Day 3 for the Earth BEFORE the appearance of the sun?

So, either the writer was very stupid, or he did this deliberately. I chose to think the later.

The basic answer is because before the Earth, the stars and sun did not have relevance, they would not have been seen. The word MADE which is actually Asah brings additional understanding as it means to give purpose, to give direction to give .

It means  natural processes used to guide, form, make, command, and direct information...using, guiding, preparing, maintaining, making

What the *intention* of this passage is is that: In this period of time, the sun and stars were now given purpose and relevance to the Earth, are being maintained in relation to the Earth.

*It does not mean that the sun and stars were created from nothing spontaneously and instantly in this moment and appeared suddenly right after the Earth.*

The rabbi Nahimandies (he lived 500 years ago so is not informed by modern day science) calls asah, ‘creation by in-formation’ and he calls bara ‘creation from nothing’. (As seen in his commentaries and in the back of my book)




Where did our numerical symbols come from?

Does anyone else find the symbol of numbers fascinating?

The shape of the zero was very clever indeed. When you draw it...it starts as nothing, becomes a point and then takes a shape and then the point returns to nothing, the point at which it came. The numerical shape returns to itself, returns the shape of zero, returns to nothing.

Now, I find it confusing that eight uses the zero doubled up. That number really should have been another symbol.

I find it more confusing that the number ten, twenty, and so on use the number zero at all. There is no zero involved in ten or twenty. There is a one involved in ten. One row of ten. There is a two involved in twenty. Two rows of ten. But why zero?

Then we have infiniti. The horizontal figure eight. This makes sense as it is zero. It is nothing, becoming something and returning to nothing again. But because it is infinite, it does it again. Like a cycle. This makes a lot of sense.

So, who was behind the symbol of zero and infiniti and who was behind the symbol of eight and ten, and twenty, and so on?

Well, as it turns out the symbol we use today for zero came from the Hindu symbol of zero. This is interesting, because their concept of nothingness is still relevant today, especially given the new developments of what nothing means in quantum physics, in the true reality of nature.

Hindus only, within the context of Indo-European, have consistently used a zero.

But we can see that the Hindus did not use the two-zero format for the eight originally. That evolved later during Medieval times. I have to say that was a mistake. The symbol doesn't make sense.


What about ten, twenty and so forth?
Even though it doesn't make sense to me to use a zero, because there is no zero in the number quantity, of course this makes sense so that place values are used and therefore we can write any number using just ten symbols.

But it may have been better to isolate zero as its own symbol, and use a different symbol for ten, twenty. Perhaps like this 1~ or 2~ to mean ten and twenty. 11~ would mean one hundred and ten.

I just don't like the combination of something and nothing I guess. But, the place value was an important step.


What about infiniti? The symbol apparently came to us by John Mallis in 1655.

Wallis did not explain his choice of this symbol, but it has been conjectured to be a variant form of a Roman numeral for 1,000 (originally CIƆ, also CƆ), which was sometimes used to mean "many", or of the Greek letter ω (omega), the last letter in the Greek alphabet.(wiki)

How did Morality happen?

Morality is not absolute in detail because it is not the same for all living things. We see morality altering from species to species in how they behave. But, some kind of morality evolved to sustain life.

It may be an absolute part of a conscious being, but varies in its detail.

Can energy achieve higher order without life? without consciousness? without morality?

Was morality an accident that let us survive? or was it inevitable so that we would survive, into higher consciousness... so that energy could reach fuller entropy? 

Is Consciousness Inevitable?

Consciousness, is it inevitable?

When we look at energy we see it runs toward entropy and likes to take the fastest path there. So, from that we have determined that energy goes into order and higher organization in fact to reach the fastest path to entropy. More energy will be used up. 

However- this seems to mean that high organization of particles is inevitable then. Though you can say this accident happen or that random thing...it seems eventually the higher organization will occur. Then, Consciousness occurs in this higher organization of things...consciousness is like a by product of this higher order of particles....and it seems inevitable to me because nature goes from random to non-random and chaos to order and because nature keeps moving forward building upon itself and is persisting toward the fastest path to entropy. But then it is also inevitable. So, my question now is on one hand consciousness seems inevitable and on the other hand there are many 'accidents or random things that occur' before it happens. So it is like an inevitable accident?

Or perhaps the game is set up to allow for random and accidents, but in the end consciousness will eventually prevail.

Are morals independent or absolute or what?

Morality is an independent reality?

Morals don't exist for an individual. They are a Collective. Just like particles interacting with the environment do so as a collective. Then they conform.

 Morality and ethics are a collective. If you take any group you look at you cannot then look at it with you on it from an external force onto an inward one. You have to see how the people in the group feel and think . From the inside to the inside. If those people are feeling oppressed or hurt or they feel pain about this sacrificing of children then for that group it is not good. If no one in the group had any feelings or care about a sacrifice of a child, even the child itself then is it morally wrong for the group? If they were say robots with no care of their death? For them then that would not be immoral. But that is because morality is contingent upon the collective. Nature works as a collective.

I then came across this article which seems to think somewhat like  I mentioned:

"Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics. The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law." -http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/laughlin.cfm

I would add this law comes from the collective, how the parts work together and this is really how morals and ethics evolve as well.

Of course this is Laughlin who Kruass criticized, but I agree with Laughlin here. 

I completely disagree that without science you can't have morals or ethics. Compassion and how you feel, empathy and being selfless has nothing to do with science. You might be able to understand better what it is or where it came from...but yes you have to understand consequences to have some judgment of it, but you don't need science for that either. You simply need reason/logic/understanding a sequence of events. This is not science. Again science may help us understand what logic and reason is or where it came from, but it is not science itself. Reason and emotion determine your ethics and morals. Science simply helps us understand how and why of all of it.

As a mother Bonobo looks at her baby, she follows her instincts and her compassion and the level of teaching of care giving from her small community. She knows nothing of science. She is merely following her emotions and level of reason.

As an outside judgment of humans we can look at them and judge, but they are judgers of their own culture and own behavior. What they have deemed acceptable will pass and what is not will not in their group. That is their moral and ethic code.

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.