The Kingdom of Heaven is within you

[Augustus]

Someone at RF reminded me recently that the Kingdom of Heaven is within

Luke 17:21
King James Bible
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

That is a beautiful reality to meditate on, but what does it mean? When I think of a Kingdom I think of a civilization. Surely it doesn't mean we have a bunch of Angels, structures, and departed souls living within us does it?

While modern thought sees freedom as an external condition based on the relationship between a person and their governance/social situation many religious/philosophical traditions whether they be Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism or whatever are about finding inner freedom.

In Christianity, love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, etc. are further examples.

You can't control what happens to you, but you can control how you allow it to affect you. If you love your enemy (figuratively), it means they can do you no harm, as harm only relates to what you are afraid of happening. Early Christian martyrs would be examples for this.

While external freedom is granted by others, internal freedom cannot be taken away by anyone except yourself.

 

[godnotgod]

While external freedom is granted by others, internal freedom cannot be taken away by anyone except yourself.

Herein also lies the difference between the orthodox believer, who generally looks to an external authority figure for 'salvation', and the mystic, who looks inward to find spiritual awakening and freedom. These two refer to the playing of two different life games: The Religion Game on the one hand, and The Master Game on the other.

 

[rusra02]

Someone at RF reminded me recently that the Kingdom of Heaven is within

Luke 17:21
King James Bible
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

That is a beautiful reality to meditate on, but what does it mean? When I think of a Kingdom I think of a civilization. Surely it doesn't mean we have a bunch of Angels, structures, and departed souls living within us does it?

I think the context supplies a clue. "On being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness; nor will people say, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.” The Pharisees as a group were enemies of God and Christ. I believe Jesus was saying that he as the future King of God's kingdom was in their midst or among them. Regarding this Insight vol.2 p.167 states: "Commenting on this text, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible observes: “Although frequently cited as an example of Jesus’ ‘mysticism’ or ‘inwardness,’ this interpretation rests chiefly upon the old translation, ‘within you,’ [KJ, Dy] understood in the unfortunate modern sense of ‘you’ as singular; the ‘you’ ([hy·monʹ]) is plural (Jesus is addressing the Pharisees—vs. 20) . . . The theory that the kingdom of God is an inner state of mind, or of personal salvation, runs counter to the context of this verse, and also to the whole NT presentation of the idea.” (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 2, p. 883) Since “kingdom [ba·si·leiʹa]” can refer to the “royal dignity,” it is evident that Jesus meant that he, God’s royal representative, the one anointed by God for the kingship, was in their midst."

 

[Windwalker]

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible observes: “Although frequently cited as an example of Jesus’ ‘mysticism’ or ‘inwardness,’ this interpretation rests chiefly upon the old translation, ‘within you,’ [KJ, Dy] understood in the unfortunate modern sense of ‘you’ as singular; the ‘you’ ([hy·monʹ]) is plural (Jesus is addressing the Pharisees—vs. 20) . . .

This does not get rid of the sense of the actual Greek word entos, meaning inside, not "among" (which entos is never translated as). The plural "you" does not negate the meaning of inside individuals. God is in all of us. Plural you. "God is inside you", he says to the group of individuals before him. "Look within yourselves" - plural you.

The only reason this verse is translated "among you" or "in your midst" is because it contradicts a theological view that God is wholly external to creation. If in his setup to this statement where he is saying don't look here or there for the kingdom (somewhere external), and then says it's "among you", that is a direct contradiction to his just stating don't look outside yourself. The entire context is "don't look here or there outside yourselves, look within yourselves". The kingdom is inside you, and me, and all of us.

The theory that the kingdom of God is an inner state of mind, or of personal salvation, runs counter to the context of this verse, and also to the whole NT presentation of the idea.” (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 2, p. 883) Since “kingdom [ba·si·leiʹa]” can refer to the “royal dignity,” it is evident that Jesus meant that he, God’s royal representative, the one anointed by God for the kingship, was in their midst."

As I said, they see it as a contradiction to their theology, and it is. That should make them question their theology then, the way Jesus was trying to get the Pharisees to question their own understanding, rather than trying to make the words say something they can't. They are in effect the Pharisees still being challenged by Jesus' insight into this, trying to help them see God is no further from you than your own breath and being.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

John 17:21-23 that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me. (22) The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; (23) I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you loved me.

It's a nice idea. Nothing more, really. About the most I can agree upon is that we're all part of the same universe, made up of the same elemental substances - that any part of you could have been part of me, etc. Otherwise, we are separate entities at a level removed from our singular, "universal" existence. There is only a certain level at which "oneness" makes any sort of sense. Beyond that we are proven - even by the fact that we each have unique motor function alone - to be separate "things".

 

[wizanda]

Otherwise, we are separate entities at a level removed from our singular, "universal" existence.

We're all interconnected on so many levels...

When Princess Diana died or when 9/11 occurred, they have computers set on random in universities, these showed dramatic fluctuations implying that our consciousness can affect the things around us.

When they did experiments on a mass of people praying or meditating, this was seen to lower crime rates and affect healing.

When working as a chef, the amount of times it happened, that everyone would want the same specific food on the same day.

There is only a certain level at which "oneness" makes any sort of sense.

This depends on what people mean by Oneness, personally meaning any sort of unifying resonance; so we go to a football match or party, and part of the good feeling is the close association of many on a single focal point.

even by the fact that we each have unique motor function alone - to be separate "things".

There is a fascinating study by Rupert Sheldrake on the interconnectedness we all feel, like knowing who is phoning before picking it up, a dog sensing its owners are on their way home, and that knowing when someone is staring at us walking down the street.

So considering every time some female is staring, i start walking funny, and then have to realize why; not even sure we've got a completely separate motor function.

Plus when we make love, some of us feel each others emotions, suppose depends on how empathic we are, to how much we feel the world around us.

 

[godnotgod]

It's a nice idea. Nothing more, really. About the most I can agree upon is that we're all part of the same universe, made up of the same elemental substances - that any part of you could have been part of me, etc. Otherwise, we are separate entities at a level removed from our singular, "universal" existence. There is only a certain level at which "oneness" makes any sort of sense. Beyond that we are proven - even by the fact that we each have unique motor function alone - to be separate "things".

Please demonstrate via example, just one area where we are separate from the UNI-verse.

 

[Windwalker]

About the most I can agree upon is that we're all part of the same universe, made up of the same elemental substances - that any part of you could have been part of me, etc.

Atoms, that's it? What about societies and cultures? What about ecosystems? Do we not have shared spaces in which we are all connected to each other and not 100% autonomous disconnected little island universes unto ourselves? Aren't we interconnected in very great and deep ways into the fiber of our own unique selves?

Being "One" does not demand fusion and sameness. Unity demands differentiation exists. Here's where most people become very confused. They either say it's all differentiated "many" (dualism), or it's all undifferentiated sameness or "oneness" in how they use it (monism), but there is 3rd called nonduality where there is a natural harmony between these opposites. Instead of seeing only two dimensions, nonduality sees three. Oneness in nonduality, does not exclude duality. Oneness in monism however does, denying the many in favor of the one. Dualism denies monism. Monism denies dualism. Nonduality embraces both and holds both as true.

 

[rusra02]

I do not believe God is inside all of us, and especially not in hardened enemies of God.

 

[Super Universe]

Or maybe that the One Soul that is God, is manifesting Itself as you and I, and Everything else. The only reason you think you 'have a soul', is because of the ego: 'I, me, mine'.

We're not one. There is no "oneness". I know people like that idea, that we're all part of God, and we are, but we're not all "one". We're all unique. We're supposed to be individuals. God doesn't want a series of robots, all the same.

The only reason I think I have a soul is because of ego? Ego needs to be equal to position/knowledge. You shouldn't think you are in charge if you are a subordinate and you shouldn't act like a subordinate if you are in charge.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Please demonstrate via example, just one area where we are separate from the UNI-verse.

I could argue that your consciousness doesn't even really exist as part of the universe. It is an ephemeral "thing" floating around within the actual physical matter of your brain. It has no substance, no "matter", and yet we also have to argue that it does, indeed, exist. But it is not really, intrinsically, a "part" of the universe. When all that energy no longer traverses the pathways of the physical mater of your brain, there is nothing to suggest that your "consciousness" still exists in any form. It's gone. An object of this universe, and yet not of it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Atoms, that's it? What about societies and cultures? What about ecosystems? Do we not have shared spaces in which we are all connected to each other and not 100% autonomous disconnected little island universes unto ourselves? Aren't we interconnected in very great and deep ways into the fiber of our own unique selves?

Being "One" does not demand fusion and sameness. Unity demands differentiation exists. Here's where most people become very confused. They either say it's all differentiated "many" (dualism), or it's all undifferentiated sameness or "oneness" in how they use it (monism), but there is 3rd called nonduality where there is a natural harmony between these opposites. Instead of seeing only two dimensions, nonduality sees three. Oneness in nonduality, does not exclude duality. Oneness in monism however does, denying the many in favor of the one. Dualism denies monism. Monism denies dualism. Nonduality embraces both and holds both as true.

Sure, living in the same space, or under the same cultural/moral structures, a group could classify themselves as a united front, acting "as one". But its no more than an idea, in the end. And what I was referring to is the "spiritual" one-ness that so many people allude to. For which there is only circumstantial evidence - and is mostly held up by those who are hopeful that we are connected by more than just common ideas/ideals. And I admit that we are all part of the same universe, all made up of the same building blocks, all part of the same lineage of beings, etc. Those aren't in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not I can tap into your brain, or you into mine - or that we can exchange anything outside of real, physical substance or non-physical ideas/emotions. I can't be you... you can't be me. The imagination is the only place where you can suppose what it would be like to not be tethered to your body.

To my mind, the human consciousness is a combination of energy signals bouncing around an array of physical storage cells. Each person's is formed independently of any other's, to the point that the physicality of your brain is entirely different than the physical aspect of mine. We are each a unique interface, to a unique storage of data. Your interface wouldn't necessarily work with my data, and vice versa. In other words, I feel that the true thing that humans identify as "self" - this conglomeration of physical elements and energetic activation - is ultimately trapped within the organic material of our bodies. We like to pretend we have the ability to "reach outside", but more often than not I would say that most occurrences where someone feels that thy have can probably be attributed to intuition, or your subconscious putting the pieces together for you - so that it seems as though "you read someone's mind", or you "predicted an event".

 

[allfoak]

Someone at RF reminded me recently that the Kingdom of Heaven is within

Luke 17:21
King James Bible
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

That is a beautiful reality to meditate on, but what does it mean? When I think of a Kingdom I think of a civilization. Surely it doesn't mean we have a bunch of Angels, structures, and departed souls living within us does it?

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."


As Above, So Below -- and what is true of the Macrocosm, is also true of the Microcosm.
That man was Created in the image and likeness of God, means that all that is within God, is also within each of us.
All of Creation is imbued with the polarities of male and female and the offspring of Mother/Father God, the Son of God, The Logos.

Does this not change the nature of religion and what we know about ourselves?

Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe

A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram.

Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.

The researchers, from the University of Southampton (UK), University of Waterloo (Canada), Perimeter Institute (Canada), INFN, Lecce (Italy) and the University of Salento (Italy), have published findings in the journal Physical Review Letters.

A holographic universe, an idea first suggested in the 1990s, is one where all the information that makes up our 3-D 'reality' (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its boundaries.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html#jCp


Study reveals evidence that the universe is a hologram

Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 041301 (2017) - From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology

 

[allfoak]

The vision of John in the book of Revelation is a vision of himself and the transformation of the body.
His vision of heaven was inside of himself.
So the end times scenario and the coming of the messiah is something that can happen to all of us.
The end times scenario is because it is a transformation, it doesn't come easy.
The coming of the promised messiah is a meeting with the Logos, the Son of God, who resides within.
The book is a detailed explanation of how it is done.

 

[Windwalker]

Sure, living in the same space, or under the same cultural/moral structures, a group could classify themselves as a united front, acting "as one".

It's a little more that a single unified front. People are part of each other, and we are made up of others. The "we" space is both made up of the "I" space, and becomes part of the "I" you identify as. In this regard, you are not a 100% "you". You are a collective in your individual skin sack. Self identity, includes the other in you.

But its no more than an idea, in the end.

It's actually an objective reality.

And what I was referring to is the "spiritual" one-ness that so many people allude to. For which there is only circumstantial evidence - and is mostly held up by those who are hopeful that we are connected by more than just common ideas/ideals.

This is of course a poor understanding of what this is. Firstly, it's experiential. That's not circumstantial evidence. That's tangible, real data. What you do is listen to what those who have experienced this describe, cross-culturally, and then you can map it out and see actual objective data and consider that as real evidence. Maps into these types of experiences have been created by legitimate researchers. Additionally, it can be reflected in what goes on in the brain, so it's not "just being hopeful". Something real is happening. Your idea it's just "wishful thinking" or something like that, does not hold up to the actual research.

What is in dispute is whether or not I can tap into your brain, or you into mine - or that we can exchange anything outside of real, physical substance or non-physical ideas/emotions.

I don't think there is a dispute at all. Does anyone claim we can? I don't use the word "Oneness" to mean I can read your mind. Who is claiming this? That's not what oneness describes. That's telepathy.

I can't be you... you can't be me. The imagination is the only place where you can suppose what it would be like to not be tethered to your body.

Yes, imagination is what is going on here. Where did you get this idea that "oneness" means I'm suddenly another person in their skin sack? I don't know any mystic that claims that!

To my mind, the human consciousness is a combination of energy signals bouncing around an array of physical storage cells. Each person's is formed independently of any other's, to the point that the physicality of your brain is entirely different than the physical aspect of mine.

You're confusing consciousness with thought patterns. Everyone has consciousness. Our mental realities constructed linguistically will of course vary from person to person. Every blade of grass is unique, and not unique. They all use photosynthesis however to get food for themselves.

We are each a unique interface, to a unique storage of data. Your interface wouldn't necessarily work with my data, and vice versa.

Yes, but we do communicate our unique datastores using common interfaces. We use hermeneutics to translate what is communicated from one vessel to our own. No one is claiming unmediated access into others brains!

In other words, I feel that the true thing that humans identify as "self" - this conglomeration of physical elements and energetic activation - is ultimately trapped within the organic material of our bodies.

"I feel" being the operative words here. Mystics on the other hand experience that we are more than just our thoughts about ourselves, or others thoughts about us. We experience a connection that transcends just our individual skin sacks, yet that does not translate into some magical mind-reading thing.

We like to pretend we have the ability to "reach outside", but more often than not I would say that most occurrences where someone feels that thy have can probably be attributed to intuition, or your subconscious putting the pieces together for you - so that it seems as though "you read someone's mind", or you "predicted an event".

I'm thinking your understanding of what mystical experience needs some improvement. What you have been talking about is not "oneness" but magical thinking.

 

[Vinayaka]

Just a question ... What exactly is 'the kingdom of heaven'?

For example, is this article accurate? The Kingdom of Heaven

 

[allfoak]

Just a question ... What exactly is 'the kingdom of heaven'?

For example, is this article accurate? The Kingdom of Heaven

No not exactly.
This is the literal view.
The best description we have is John's vision in the book of Revelation.
But understand that this vision was not of a place but an experience.

 

[Windwalker]

Just a question ... What exactly is 'the kingdom of heaven'?

For example, is this article accurate? The Kingdom of Heaven

I would in my views compare it to Nirvana or Moksha.

 

[godnotgod]

We're not one. There is no "oneness". I know people like that idea, that we're all part of God, and we are, but we're not all "one". We're all unique. We're supposed to be individuals. God doesn't want a series of robots, all the same.

The only reason I think I have a soul is because of ego? .

All snowflakes are unique, but all share the oneness of their existence, that is water.

The 'you' that thinks it has a soul is an illusion. Once that is realized, oneness is the case by default. 'God' is the One, manifesting Itself as the myriad forms of creation. It's all just One Big Act.

 

[godnotgod]

I could argue that your consciousness doesn't even really exist as part of the universe. It is an ephemeral "thing" floating around within the actual physical matter of your brain. It has no substance, no "matter", and yet we also have to argue that it does, indeed, exist. But it is not really, intrinsically, a "part" of the universe. When all that energy no longer traverses the pathways of the physical mater of your brain, there is nothing to suggest that your "consciousness" still exists in any form. It's gone. An object of this universe, and yet not of it.

There cannot be an 'object of this universe', since the universe is Everything that can possibly exist. IOW, The Universe is not only an absolute, it is The Absolute, since there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared.

Even if consciousness were an emergent factor of the brain, the brain is interconnected to your body, and your body totally interconnected with the environment and to the entire Universe. Only your ego thinks it is a bag of skin separate from the Universe, that it can bulldoze the universe about in the sense of 'self and other', where no such reality exists in actuality.

The reality is that all material reality comes out of consciousness, and not the other way around, a hard pill to swallow for the lingering materialists hanging around since the sensational discoveries of Quantum Physics have overturned the applecart of Newtonian 'billiard ball' Mechanics.