Experiencing God

[Muffled]

Luke Skywalker is proof that Master Yoda has the Force.

I believe I am a real person and Skywalker is a character in a fictional story.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe I am a real person and Skywalker is a character in a fictional story.

...is that your 'Christian bias' at work once again?

"Only MY view is the correct view; all others are false views"

Isn't that precisely how the ego asserts, authenticates, gratifies, and perpetuates itself? How the ego foists the negative Shadow onto others, while stroking its own Persona as authentic?

It was Adolf Hitler who cleverly exploited the German national Shadow, foisting it upon the Jews as being 'untermenschen', while propping up the German racial Persona as pure, exactly the same process at work in the long conflict between Christians and Muslims, both sides being guilty.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe this body of information is not true. Of course this is my Christian bias kicking in but I happen to believe that people viewing other information simply have a bias towards falsehood.

That, of course, can be the case; however, your bias carries with it an agenda, while other views have no such agenda to be concerned about. I am not concerned with sin and salvation, heaven or hell, in saying that Jesus most likely travelled to the East during his 18 'missing' years, and that a 1st century Nazareth, where Jesus allegedly grew up, did not in fact exist.

 

[godnotgod]

...is that your 'Christian bias' at work once again?

"Only MY view is the correct view; all others are false views"

Isn't that precisely how the ego asserts, authenticates, gratifies, and perpetuates itself? How the ego foists the negative Shadow onto others, while stroking its own Persona as authentic?

It was Adolf Hitler who cleverly exploited the German national Shadow, foisting it upon the Jews as being 'untermenschen', while propping up the German racial Persona as pure, exactly the same process at work in the long conflict between Christians and Muslims, both sides being guilty.

My apologies. I was thinking 'Skywalker' was a forum member.

 

[Muffled]

...is that your 'Christian bias' at work once again?

"Only MY view is the correct view; all others are false views"

Isn't that precisely how the ego asserts, authenticates, gratifies, and perpetuates itself? How the ego foists the negative Shadow onto others, while stroking its own Persona as authentic?

It was Adolf Hitler who cleverly exploited the German national Shadow, foisting it upon the Jews as being 'untermenschen', while propping up the German racial Persona as pure, exactly the same process at work in the long conflict between Christians and Muslims, both sides being guilty.

I believe this is called a red herring.

I believe it is not in my case.

I believe it is not a bias to be able to tell fact from fiction.

 

[Muffled]

My apologies. I was thinking 'Skywalker' was a forum member.

I believe that is the first time anyone has ever thought that but I can imagine someone taking on the persona. I assure you that I am a real live person and not just someone taking on a persona.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe that is the first time anyone has ever thought that but I can imagine someone taking on the persona. I assure you that I am a real live person and not just someone taking on a persona.

it is typical of people who are unawakened to swear up and down that they are indeed awake and real. They even become quite agitated when someone suggests that they are asleep. As Ouspensky has pointed out due to a trick of nature, the sleeping person actually does awaken for a brief moment, stepping onto the Fourth Level of Consciousness, makes his protest, and then immediately returns to the Third Level of Consciousness, otherwise known as Identification, or Waking Sleep. Of course, most of mankind is living in a dream, a fiction, in which they truly believe themselves to be real people, when, in reality, they are just characters playing out a drama in a script written by others.

The very act of assuming the role of a Christian is to take on a persona, non-Christians being those upon whom the shadow is foisted.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe this is called a red herring.

The example of Hitler and his use of national Shadow to denegrate the Jews is an example of how it works on a grand scale, but the principle is exactly the same. There is no attempt to mislead you via any 'red herring'.

I believe it is not in my case.

Of course you don't. Your Persona reinforces the notion that it is not.

I believe it is not a bias to be able to tell fact from fiction.

If you could tell fact from fiction, you would not always emphasize belief, which you consistently do. You yourself referred to your own 'Christian bias'.

 

[Muffled]

it is typical of people who are unawakened to swear up and down that they are indeed awake and real. They even become quite agitated when someone suggests that they are asleep. As Ouspensky has pointed out due to a trick of nature, the sleeping person actually does awaken for a brief moment, stepping onto the Fourth Level of Consciousness, makes his protest, and then immediately returns to the Third Level of Consciousness, otherwise known as Identification, or Waking Sleep. Of course, most of mankind is living in a dream, a fiction, in which they truly believe themselves to be real people, when, in reality, they are just characters playing out a drama in a script written by others.

The very act of assuming the role of a Christian is to take on a persona, non-Christians being those upon whom the shadow is foisted.

I believe this comes across as psycho babble to me. It means nothing to me.

I believe I do take on the persona of Jesus but then it isn't me it is Jesus. I believe I do not take on a Christian persona but at one time in the past I may have.

I believe that the physical person is temporary but that is the one that is most in control. The spiritual person is a different person and goes on after death and I doubt he has anything to say on this site.

 

[Muffled]

The example of Hitler and his use of national Shadow to denegrate the Jews is an example of how it works on a grand scale, but the principle is exactly the same. There is no attempt to mislead you via any 'red herring'.



Of course you don't. Your Persona reinforces the notion that it is not.



If you could tell fact from fiction, you would not always emphasize belief, which you consistently do. You yourself referred to your own 'Christian bias'.

I believe I understand what you are saying but the truth is that I am not working a persona but simply saying what my experience is.

I believe I do not need a persona or a bias to be able to tell fact from fiction. However having Jesus as my source gives me the ability to be correct when others are not.

I believe it appears to you that I emphasize belief but I am just following RF rules. I believe you can see me stating everything as categorically true when I say I believe.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe this comes across as psycho babble to me. It means nothing to me.

It's just because you don't yet understand it.

I believe I do take on the persona of Jesus but then it isn't me it is Jesus. I believe I do not take on a Christian persona but at one time in the past I may have.

Your Persona is neither Christian nor 'Jesus'; it's just an aspect of your personality, and works in tandem with your Shadow. Persona is simply how you want others to see you; ie, your ideal image of yourself, while Shadow is a collection of negative images that you don't want to identify with.

I believe that the physical person is temporary but that is the one that is most in control. The spiritual person is a different person and goes on after death and I doubt he has anything to say on this site.

Or perhaps they are one and the same, the spiritual aspect manifesting itself as a physical person in time. That, of course, was the nature of Yeshua, who had two natures; a divine nature and a human nature in the same body. Then again, it was Yeshua who pointed to man and said that 'the kingdom of God is within you', implying that the divine nature is to be found within all human beings. This was precisely the message of both the Buddha and Yeshua, but Christianity has mucked things up, attempting to paint a picture of Yeshua as being the only one who has this divine nature within.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe I understand what you are saying but the truth is that I am not working a persona but simply saying what my experience is.

I believe I do not need a persona or a bias to be able to tell fact from fiction. However having Jesus as my source gives me the ability to be correct when others are not.

I believe it appears to you that I emphasize belief but I am just following RF rules. I believe you can see me stating everything as categorically true when I say I believe.

That is exactly your Persona and Shadow at work. You see yourself as being on the 'right' side; of being 'correct', with divine authority in the image of 'Jesus' to back you up. That is your positive image of yourself which is your Persona, while your Shadow dumps the negative image of incorrectness onto others. It's just that you are unaware that these two aspects of your personality are doing these things.

You claim you do not need a bias even though you have already admitted that you have a 'Christian bias'. I suppose that you think your Christian bias is the correct bias, however.

 

[Muffled]

It's just because you don't yet understand it.



Your Persona is neither Christian nor 'Jesus'; it's just an aspect of your personality, and works in tandem with your Shadow. Persona is simply how you want others to see you; ie, your ideal image of yourself, while Shadow is a collection of negative images that you don't want to identify with.



Or perhaps they are one and the same, the spiritual aspect manifesting itself as a physical person in time. That, of course, was the nature of Yeshua, who had two natures; a divine nature and a human nature in the same body. Then again, it was Yeshua who pointed to man and said that 'the kingdom of God is within you', implying that the divine nature is to be found within all human beings. This was precisely the message of both the Buddha and Yeshua, but Christianity has mucked things up, attempting to paint a picture of Yeshua as being the only one who has this divine nature within.

I believe a striped lion is not understandable because it doesn't exist. One can say striped lion until one is blue in the face but it will still be nonsense.

I believe it does not imply that for everyone but only for those in the Kingdom.

I don't believe I have read anything that suggest the Buddha thought there was a divine nature within and saying Christians have mucked things up by correctly understanding what Jesus taught shows that you do not understand what He taught.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe a striped lion is not understandable because it doesn't exist. One can say striped lion until one is blue in the face but it will still be nonsense.

It can be demonstrated that striped lions do not exist, but this is in the sphere of ordinary existence. What I have referred to that you call 'nonsense' is experience in the invisible silent world, and I say it again: you call it nonsense because you have no direct experience amd therefore no understanding of it, and such an understanding cannot come via ordinary logic and reason.

I believe it does not imply that for everyone but only for those in the Kingdom.

You can believe what you want and put words into Yeshu's mouth, but that is not what he said: he did not differentiate between those in 'the kingdom' and others. Neither did the Buddha, whose teachings were that the Buddha nature (ie; 'Original Mind') is within ALL sentient beings everywhere, a major tenet of Buddhism. Orthodox Christianity has relegated the divine nature only to Jesus, a corruption of his true message. What he DID say is that 'Unless you turn and become as little children, you will not enter into Paradise', which is to say that one must turn inwards to the divine nature within and away from one's social indoctrination into worldly ways.

I don't believe I have read anything that suggest the Buddha thought there was a divine nature within and saying Christians have mucked things up by correctly understanding what Jesus taught shows that you do not understand what He taught.

What Buddha found within and what Yeshu points to is exactly the same universal consciousness. Why would that consciousness be different from one man to another? And why would that same consciousness be different from that of the consciousness of Jesus? When Jesus says that 'the kingdom of God is within you', he means it is none other than the same kingdom of God that is within himself. You want to make Jesus a 'Special Case'. The divine nature is within Everything universally, and in reality, is Nothing Special. It is only Something Special for those who have not yet come to realization.

Buddhistic teaching points to the seed essence of Buddha nature within everyone, which must be awakened and nurtured into full unfolding. Please note that this nature is not that of a personal self, but of a universal consciousness found within all things.

Anyway, bottom line is that 'Jesus' got his learnin' from the Far East, like it or not!

 

[Muffled]

It can be demonstrated that striped lions do not exist, but this is in the sphere of ordinary existence. What I have referred to that you call 'nonsense' is experience in the invisible silent world, and I say it again: you call it nonsense because you have no direct experience amd therefore no understanding of it, and such an understanding cannot come via ordinary logic and reason.

You can believe what you want and put words into Yeshu's mouth, but that is not what he said: he did not differentiate between those in 'the kingdom' and others. Neither did the Buddha, whose teachings were that the Buddha nature (ie; 'Original Mind') is within ALL sentient beings everywhere, a major tenet of Buddhism. Orthodox Christianity has relegated the divine nature only to Jesus, a corruption of his true message. What he DID say is that 'Unless you turn and become as little children, you will not enter into Paradise', which is to say that one must turn inwards to the divine nature within and away from one's social indoctrination into worldly ways.

What Buddha found within and what Yeshu points to is exactly the same universal consciousness. Why would that consciousness be different from one man to another? And why would that same consciousness be different from that of the consciousness of Jesus? When Jesus says that 'the kingdom of God is within you', he means it is none other than the same kingdom of God that is within himself. You want to make Jesus a 'Special Case'. The divine nature is within Everything universally, and in reality, is Nothing Special. It is only Something Special for those who have not yet come to realization.

Buddhistic teaching points to the seed essence of Buddha nature within everyone, which must be awakened and nurtured into full unfolding. Please note that this nature is not that of a personal self, but of a universal consciousness found within all things.

Anyway, bottom line is that 'Jesus' got his learnin' from the Far East, like it or not!

I believe If it is invisible, nothing can be shown; if it is silent, nothing can be said. What one ends up with is nothing.

I believe I agree that I do not have your experience but I expect you to be able to relate your experience in an understandable way not with meaningless words like silent and invisible.

I believe that statement goes both ways. There is enough information on the Kingdom of God so that one does not have to look at this statement alone.

I believe this is not true. The divine nature can be in me if I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior otherwise it is not and that is what the church teaches.

I do not believe this interpretation is consistent with the verse so show why you think it is.

I do not believe this is true. I believe the Buddha is referring to a man's spirit and not a universal spirit. A man's spirit can be found within also but a man's spirit is not the Divine Spirit.

However I believe Jesus is not talking about man's spirit but the Spirit of God which is shared by all who have Jesus as Lord and Savior.

I believe Jesus is a special case and needs not to be made so.

Here lies the deficiency in the word "in" because God is in everything but only resides in a person the way our spirits reside in us if He wishes.

I don't believe this is the case.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe If it is invisible, nothing can be shown; if it is silent, nothing can be said. What one ends up with is nothing.

It's nothing to you because you have too much doctrine in the way and are not truly listening.

I believe I agree that I do not have your experience but I expect you to be able to relate your experience in an understandable way not with meaningless words like silent and invisible.

"Before Abraham was, I Am" refers to the silent, invisible world of Being that Yeshu dwells in.

I believe that statement goes both ways. There is enough information on the Kingdom of God so that one does not have to look at this statement alone.

What Yeshu and the Buddha point to that is within man does not come and go. It is always present. We only THINK we are separated from it.

I believe this is not true. The divine nature can be in me if I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior otherwise it is not and that is what the church teaches.

Well if you will only use your head you will see clearly that what the church teaches is crap. The gifts of the Incarnation were given to man UNCONDITIONALLY, and even before he was born. Men's teachings (ie; the Church) have corrupted the original teachings as a means of controlling the human spirit. God has never left man, not even for a single moment. That you must accept Jesus as lord and savior comes from the corruption of Yeshu's teachings via Rome and Paul. Divine Love is unconditional by nature. Men have twisted it into a conditional contract by creating the blood sacrifice of Jesus as a necessary means for 'salvation'.

I do not believe this interpretation is consistent with the verse so show why you think it is.

The meaning is self-evident. To 'turn' means to 'turn away from' what has corrupted your mind, and that is the world, and to turn inwards to the kingdom of God, or the divine nature within. It's simple. To 'become as little children' means to see things without judgment. This state of mind is called 'innocency', and does not refer to the morality of guilt or innocence, but rather to an unblemished pure state of mind, BEFORE society has placed its first marks upon your spirit. Taoism call it the Uncarved Block (of wood); Buddhism refers to it as 'Original Mind'. The west refers to it as metaphysic, what one knows before the mind conceptualizes about it.

I do not believe this is true. I believe the Buddha is referring to a man's spirit and not a universal spirit. A man's spirit can be found within also but a man's spirit is not the Divine Spirit.

The spiritual nature is the same in man as it is in the divine. Man makes the mistake of splitting it into two, the Ordinary and the Miraculous. They are not two separate things, but one and the same, and that is why Yeshu and the Buddha both pointed to the divine nature within all men. To call it 'the kingdom of God' is to call man's nature divine. It's unmistakable. Jesus did NOT say: 'the kingdom of God is within ME, but only the kingdom of man is within YOU'.

However I believe Jesus is not talking about man's spirit but the Spirit of God which is shared by all who have Jesus as Lord and Savior.

If the kingdom of God is already within all men, then there is no distinction between different kinds of spiritual natures. There is only one spiritual nature. You want to separate and divide and go against Yeshu's teaching, which unifies all men into the universality of the kingdom of God. Yeshu did NOT say: 'the kingdom of God is only within those who have accepted me as their personal lord and savior, and NOT within those who have not.' You are believing in corruptions added later by the charlatan that was St. Paul.

I believe Jesus is a special case and needs not to be made so.

He himself said he was not a special case, by pointing to the kingdom of God in all men. The kingdom of God within Yeshu is not different than that within all men. There are not two kingdoms, but One. The way the Buddha said it was that, like himself, all sentient beings have the same Buddha nature, and are capable of the exact same Enlightenment he himself realized. Light is light, and one is not any more 'special' than another. What is Ordinary is, in fact, none other than The Miraculous itself. Some see it; others don't.

Here lies the deficiency in the word "in" because God is in everything but only resides in a person the way our spirits reside in us if He wishes.

You defeat your own argument: the fact that the kingdom of God is within (all men) obviously means He wishes it to be that way. 'The Kingdom of God' is ALREADY the case.

I don't believe this is the case.

Well, you're belief is incorrect. Most men have personal views shaped by their social indoctrination. Both Jesus and the Buddha are prompting another kind of view; that of Universal Consciousness. In Buddhism, this difference became apparent via the development of the Hinayana and the Mahayana schools. Compassion for the suffering of all of mankind is the mark of Universal Consciousness. They go hand in hand, as the one develops right along with the other. The seeking of personal salvation is considered the lesser of the two vehicles. 'Mahayana' literally means 'Big Boat Buddhism': get EVERYONE into the boat so that we ALL are saved and reach the other shore together as One.

 

[Muffled]

It's nothing to you because you have too much doctrine in the way and are not truly listening.

"Before Abraham was, I Am" refers to the silent, invisible world of Being that Yeshu dwells in.

What Yeshu and the Buddha point to that is within man does not come and go. It is always present. We only THINK we are separated from it.

Well if you will only use your head you will see clearly that what the church teaches is crap. The gifts of the Incarnation were given to man UNCONDITIONALLY, and even before he was born. Men's teachings (ie; the Church) have corrupted the original teachings as a means of controlling the human spirit. God has never left man, not even for a single moment. That you must accept Jesus as lord and savior comes from the corruption of Yeshu's teachings via Rome and Paul. Divine Love is unconditional by nature. Men have twisted it into a conditional contract by creating the blood sacrifice of Jesus as a necessary means for 'salvation'.

The meaning is self-evident. To 'turn' means to 'turn away from' what has corrupted your mind, and that is the world, and to turn inwards to the kingdom of God, or the divine nature within. It's simple. To 'become as little children' means to see things without judgment. This state of mind is called 'innocency', and does not refer to the morality of guilt or innocence, but rather to an unblemished pure state of mind, BEFORE society has placed its first marks upon your spirit. Taoism call it the Uncarved Block (of wood); Buddhism refers to it as 'Original Mind'. The west refers to it as metaphysic, what one knows before the mind conceptualizes about it.



The spiritual nature is the same in man as it is in the divine. Man makes the mistake of splitting it into two, the Ordinary and the Miraculous. They are not two separate things, but one and the same, and that is why Yeshu and the Buddha both pointed to the divine nature within all men. To call it 'the kingdom of God' is to call man's nature divine. It's unmistakable. Jesus did NOT say: 'the kingdom of God is within ME, but only the kingdom of man is within YOU'.



If the kingdom of God is already within all men, then there is no distinction between different kinds of spiritual natures. There is only one spiritual nature. You want to separate and divide and go against Yeshu's teaching, which unifies all men into the universality of the kingdom of God. Yeshu did NOT say: 'the kingdom of God is only within those who have accepted me as their personal lord and savior, and NOT within those who have not.' You are believing in corruptions added later by the charlatan that was St. Paul.



He himself said he was not a special case, by pointing to the kingdom of God in all men. The kingdom of God within Yeshu is not different than that within all men. There are not two kingdoms, but One. The way the Buddha said it was that, like himself, all sentient beings have the same Buddha nature, and are capable of the exact same Enlightenment he himself realized. Light is light, and one is not any more 'special' than another. What is Ordinary is, in fact, none other than The Miraculous itself. Some see it; others don't.



You defeat your own argument: the fact that the kingdom of God is within (all men) obviously means He wishes it to be that way. 'The Kingdom of God' is ALREADY the case.



Well, you're belief is incorrect. Most men have personal views shaped by their social indoctrination. Both Jesus and the Buddha are prompting another kind of view; that of Universal Consciousness. In Buddhism, this difference became apparent via the development of the Hinayana and the Mahayana schools. Compassion for the suffering of all of mankind is the mark of Universal Consciousness. They go hand in hand, as the one develops right along with the other. The seeking of personal salvation is considered the lesser of the two vehicles. 'Mahayana' literally means 'Big Boat Buddhism': get EVERYONE into the boat so that we ALL are saved and reach the other shore together as One.

I believe If I listen to silence there is nothing to hear. If I look at the invisible there is nothing to see. I don't need doctrine to see the logic in that.

I believe Jesus is still in the body but it is true that the Spirit of God is invisible but not true that He is silent all the time. Considering that He is hearing our prayers it would seem highly unlikely that He dwells in silence.

I believe it is two different things. A person's spirit is always dwelling in a person but the Spirit of God only dwells in believers.

I believe I do use my head and receive guidance from Jesus and find the teachings to be a mixed bag.

I do not believe that is true in every case. Sometimes God gives incarnation unconditionally and sometimes for reward or punishment.

I believe this is not the case and that Paul is not corrupt but writes according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I believe there is no evidence that there is any corruption in this.

I believe the idea that something is self evident begs the question and I do not find it to be as you think it is.

I believe my spirit is finite but Gods Spirit is infinite so they are not the same.

I believe there is no need to pray for that which already exists.

I don't believe Jesus teaches this and I don't believe that it is true and I don't even know if the Buddha taught it.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe If I listen to silence there is nothing to hear. If I look at the invisible there is nothing to see. I don't need doctrine to see the logic in that.

There is nothing to see or hear via your sensory perception. The mystical experience is beyond the five senses. The spiritual world is that which cannot be seen or heard, and dwells in the realm of Silence and the Invisible. You don't hear or see anything because you are still attached to your BELIEFS, which are based upon thought, and thought is based on Reason, Logic, and Analysis, none of which work in the world of the spirit. IOW, you are not truly listening because your beliefs are in the way.

When Jesus said 'Before Abraham was, I Am', there is nothing about Being that can be seen or heard. Being, which Jesus is referring to, is a state of conscious awareness, that is silent and invisible. It just knows, without words, without thinking. To 'see' and 'hear' what is in the world of Silence and the Invisible is to know, via your Being, That which Is, because 'That which Is', is none other than YOU. This is called 'divine union'. This is why the Hindus tell us: 'Tat tvam asi'; "Thou Art That", and why Deepak Chopra tells us: "The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a Single Reality."

I believe Jesus is still in the body but it is true that the Spirit of God is invisible but not true that He is silent all the time. Considering that He is hearing our prayers it would seem highly unlikely that He dwells in silence.

You are projecting and anthropomorphizing.

I believe it is two different things. A person's spirit is always dwelling in a person but the Spirit of God only dwells in believers.

You are superimposing your own personal belief onto what Yeshu actually said. That is not what he said. He said that 'the kingdom of God is within you', period. Once again, he did NOT say that the kingdom of God is to be found only within believers. Now, if you couple this statement with 'Unless you turn and become as little children, you will not enter into Paradise', it becomes crystal clear that 'Paradise', AKA 'the Kingdom of God', are within, and to get there, one must 'turn' inwards, toward the Paradise, or Kingdom, within. Facing outward toward society and its indoctrinations does not get you into Paradise. Understand? Society bombards the individual with all sorts of reinforcements to the ego, and not to the spirit, which is why Jesus's words sometimes seem harsh. The same is true in the East:

"Beautiful words are not truthful; truthful words are not beautiful"
Tao te Ching

Society creates the individual dwelling in existence, ie; in time and space, ie; 'Abraham'. The spirit creates the individual in Being, outside of time and space, ie; 'Yeshua'.

I believe I do use my head and receive guidance from Jesus and find the teachings to be a mixed bag.

I do not believe that is true in every case. Sometimes God gives incarnation unconditionally and sometimes for reward or punishment.

I believe this is not the case and that Paul is not corrupt but writes according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I believe there is no evidence that there is any corruption in this.

Either God's Love is unconditional or it is not. Most people say it is unconditional, as compared to human love, which many times is given with some ulterior motive in mind or expectation. God's demand that his Son die on a cross as payment for man's original sin is totally conditional. Can you see that, or not? Unconditional Love would have entailed complete forgiveness for the so-called 'original sin' of Adam and Eve. The FACT is that there was no such 'sin'. God wanted Adam and Eve to eat of the so called 'Forbidden Fruit' simply because it was a symbol fo God Consciousness, an unconditional gift to man out of pure divine love. As you recall, the serpent told Eve that God did not want them to eat of the Fruit because their eyes would be opened and they would then 'see as God sees'. This is none other than Higher Consciousness, the source of Absolute Joy, which God wanted to share unconditionally with man. Fact is, the priests corrupted the orignal story as a means of obtaining tribute from their terrified congregations.

I believe the idea that something is self evident begs the question and I do not find it to be as you think it is.

Then tell me what the passage in question actually means.

I believe my spirit is finite but Gods Spirit is infinite so they are not the same.

Where does one begin and the other leave off?

I believe there is no need to pray for that which already exists.

If it already exists, then all one need do is to turn toward the Paradise within and enter, as He said. This applies to everyone; the good, the bad, and the ugly.

MATTHEW 5:45
...that ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven. For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
KJ21

Being unaware of its internal reality does not mean it is not there; does not mean one is separated from God.

In Plato's Cave Allegory, the prisoners in the cave did not know of the Sun above, outside the cave. That did not mean the Sun did not exist. Not until one of the prisoners broke free and went topside to experience, first-hand, the reality of the Sun, did it's existence become apparent. However, the rest of the prisoners still did not believe the escaped prisoner's story. They themselves would have had to go topside as well.

I don't believe Jesus teaches this and I don't believe that it is true and I don't even know if the Buddha taught it.

Did both Jesus and the Buddha speak to many at one time? Why do you think Mahayana Buddhism came about if Hinayana Buddhism was already doing its job? Jesus taught love and compassion for others, not just concern for one's own personal salvation. The Buddha stressed the importance of Original Mind dwelling in all sentient beings. All of this points to Universal Consciousness, rather than what is known as the more limited Self -View.

C'mon, now. Use your head: For Jesus to say that the kingdom is within, he was pointing to ALL men, and for Buddha to say that all sentient beings are capable of Enlightenment, he meant ALL sentient beings. ALL means Universal. IOW, ALL men have within them the kingdom of God, and all men are capable of realizing the enlightened state, which is to realize that one is already in Paradise.

 

[godnotgod]

One important thing should be noticed: Jesus did not say that you are in the kingdom of God; he said the kingdom is within you. Think about what the difference means.

 

[Agondonter]

Geeesss! I hate that expression!

It is ridiculous to say such things about people that don't have your experience, or that have a different experience, or debate your experience, or don't believe it, etc.


It is the same as calling every person on this DEBATE site, - that doesn't agree with you, - swine.




*

That you hate the expression does not make it less valid now than it was 2000 years ago. Your "pearls" are not mine and I am no more interested in them than you are interested mine. What's so difficult about that?