What Happens When You Die?

[Nakosis]

Jesus descended into hell and lived among the damned for 30 years. He spent the next 3 years trying to convince people they didn't have to stay in hell, the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.

After the third year of trying to convince people they didn't need to remain in hell, he decided the people here were too stubborn to listen so he packed up his saddles and went home...

 

[ZenMonkey]

I think earth is hell for all the people who got it wrong.

Just hope them Christians folks were wrong about it being eternal.

The earth isn't hell. Many experience a hellish existence here but the earth isn't hell. The earth is a metaphorical furnace of refinement. Life is a process of purification through Spirit and fire. It's the same baptism Jesus went through. God shapes us into vessels of honor through the spirit (love - living waters) and through the fiery trials of life (fire). Endure in love to the end of the present age, and we'll know peace on earth and goodwill towards men. The harvest is now, and we will reap what we sow in life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't believe you can save others and I believe that only Jesus saves.

Not even Jesus, only your own deeds, if you believe in all that. Does a christian mass murderer or a rapist go to heaven, Hitler for example?

 

[godnotgod]

No man prior to Jesus had ever truly understood nor had any ever clearly perceived and/or seen God. None have lived according to the Spirit perfectly like he did.

That's distorted poppycock!

The buddhas all realized the perfection of wisdom, the highest state any human being can attain, and is called Supreme Enlightenment.

You want to place 'Jesus' on a pedestal and idolize him as a 'Special Case'; a 'one of a kind', but that is just plain ridiculous. It's a concoction about the spiritual world by man that simply is not so.

The ordinary man sees the spiritually enlightened being as 'Something Special'. He is seeing it through unrealized eyes. But the enlightened themselves will all tell you (assuming they truly are enlightened), that it is Nothing Special. In fact, those who are in the know, see the Ordinary and the Miraculous as one and the same world. There is no dual world, as the Christian believes, where the supernatural holds dominion over the natural world. That's just an error in judgment.

The truth of the matter is that THERE IS NO 'OTHER' WORLD. THERE IS ONLY THIS WORLD. THAT THERE EXISTS 'ANOTHER REALM' IS A SUBSTANTIAL, DELUSIVE IDEA!

So why do the enlightened say that Enlightenment is 'Nothing Special'? Because of their Enlgithenment, they now know that everyone is already enlightened. It is our natural state. What we now experience is an altered state of conscious awareness, which sees reality dualistically, where there is no such duality in fact. Heaven and Hell, Life and Death, Good and Evil, Jesus and Satan, are only extremes on a continuum. Christianity makes them out to be Absolutes, but that is illogical, because an absolute has no other absolute to which it can be compared. That is why it can be called 'The Absolute'. God, in fact, cannot be an absolute separate from the relative; The relative is, in reality, the Absolute itself. IOW, the dual world is simply just one world, but seen as two. It's just a mistake in need of vision correction.

 

[godnotgod]

The earth isn't hell. Many experience a hellish existence here but the earth isn't hell. The earth is a metaphorical furnace of refinement. Life is a process of purification through Spirit and fire. It's the same baptism Jesus went through. God shapes us into vessels of honor through the spirit (love - living waters) and through the fiery trials of life (fire). Endure in love to the end of the present age, and we'll know peace on earth and goodwill towards men. The harvest is now, and we will reap what we sow in life.

Basically, you're saying that life is suffering, and a test of our mettle to prove our worthiness for the reward of Heaven. God is 'testing' us by throwing (zen) monkey wrenches into our lives, in the same manner he allegedly did to Adam and Eve. But this scenario does not fit the spiritual consciousness. Why? Because it is not unconditional love. If God's love were truly unconditional, first he would have completely forgiven Adam and Eve and embraced them because unconditional love forgives completely and loves completely. But there was not even a reason to forgive A&E, since God himself is the one who deliberately placed an extremely dangerous fruit right in the path of A&E, going out of his way to make an issue of it. Of COURSE he knew they would eat of it! That's precisely what he WANTED them to do, because the Forbidden Fruit is none other than a metaphor for divine union, which, of course, God wanted to share with his children out of his pure, unconditional love. The story got twisted by the priests to make it look like a holy law had been broken, and so the focus was now on Law and Obedience, rather than Divine Union. The bottom line here is that suffering is unnecessary. You can follow that path if you wish and still arrive, but it is THE LONG WAY HOME. The short cut is right in front of us all the time but we delude ourselves with all sorts of inventions, like 'worthiness' and 'morality' as a means of getting some reward, when God has already given us everything without us having to ask. And so, there was no 'Original Sin'. A&E achieved Divine Union and all lived happily ever after, except those who did not understand, and are now hitting every bump on the road in life.

 

[Thief]

Jesus descended into hell and lived among the damned for 30 years. He spent the next 3 years trying to convince people they didn't have to stay in hell, the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.

After the third year of trying to convince people they didn't need to remain in hell, he decided the people here were too stubborn to listen so he packed up his saddles and went home...

I heard He descended into hell and rose on the third day.

Oh....I get it....(sarcasm)

Well ok....
But I don't think hell is what this earth is made of.
I suspect it's the consequence of our own declarations.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Basically, you're saying that life is suffering, and a test of our mettle to prove our worthiness for the reward of Heaven. God is 'testing' us by throwing (zen) monkey wrenches into our lives, in the same manner he allegedly did to Adam and Eve. But this scenario does not fit the spiritual consciousness. Why? Because it is not unconditional love. If God's love were truly unconditional, first he would have completely forgiven Adam and Eve and embraced them because unconditional love forgives completely and loves completely. But there was not even a reason to forgive A&E, since God himself is the one who deliberately placed an extremely dangerous fruit right in the path of A&E, going out of his way to make an issue of it. Of COURSE he knew they would eat of it! That's precisely what he WANTED them to do, because the Forbidden Fruit is none other than a metaphor for divine union, which, of course, God wanted to share with his children out of his pure, unconditional love.

No, I'm saying we suffer because humanity lacks understanding and resists love. God did nothing but allow us to live as we desired. God rested from all his work and handed it all over to the new lord & lady of the earth (Adam & Eve). The thing is, life operates a certain way, so there is and will always be consequence of action. You don't just learn how walk from get go, right? You stumble, strive, and fall until you learn how and are able to walk. Evil is merely the effect of not knowing how to live rightly. How much knowledge of the way life operates do you think Adam and Eve had? People's lives are destroyed for lack of knowledge and understanding. It is because humans lack knowledge and understanding that we suffer, stumble, and fall. Our mistakes have consequences. Life does not come without cost. It is illogical to conclude that newly formed beings such as Adam and Eve would know how to live and act perfectly in this world. Without prior knowledge and understanding, we have no way of making informed decisions. It takes experiential knowledge and understanding to know how to live effectively, which is the reason suffering is present in life. Humans "still" lack enough understanding and/or the moral fiber to not cause suffering ... a broken rule a consequence. Would you expect a new born baby to know not to touch fire, or to not run out into traffic, or to not walk off a cliff? Without prior knowledge, it is impossible for any newly created being to make informed decisions. We are required to learn, develop, and come to an understanding of how to live effectively.

The story got twisted by the priests to make it look like a holy law had been broken, and so the focus was now on Law and Obedience, rather than Divine Union. The bottom line here is that suffering is unnecessary. You can follow that path if you wish and still arrive, but it is THE LONG WAY HOME. The short cut is right in front of us all the time but we delude ourselves with all sorts of inventions, like 'worthiness' and 'morality' as a means of getting some reward, when God has already given us everything without us having to ask. And so, there was no 'Original Sin'. A&E achieved Divine Union and all lived happily ever after, except those who did not understand, and are now hitting every bump on the road in life.

Here I agree, except together we represent a single entity ... The body of man (Christ). What many people teach and peddle as truth causes great fear, thus making them twice as much a child of hell as themselves. Most Christians preach that unbelievers will face eternal torment in the fires of hell ... not exactly a very effective way to instill faith, trust, and security in God is it? As children, we often times take into our hearts a fear of our mortality. Replace the fear of non existence with the concept of hell and that fear increases exponentially. It causes so MUCH grief and emotional unrest. The concept of an eternal hell is what causes many to lose faith, comfort, and security in life AND in God. This is because many are taught to believe in a god who would send them to a place of eternal torment simply because they happen to make mistakes, or for being imperfect, or for not being able to believe a certain way ... as if they (we) have a choice. This kind of fear is tormenting and grievous. It is hell itself! I've been there. Fear causes torment, but perfect love casts out fear.


Man has corrupted the image of our heavenly Father suggesting that if we don't believe this and that, we'll burn in hell. The church has utilized this corrupt and beastly image to fill their pockets through fear, holy wars, and violence making themselves thieves and robbers. People who believe the lie honor the image perpetrated by the church ignorantly, and because of fear they have been made blind. They have been cast into outer darkness because they don't allow the light and love of God to light their path. The type of "faith" the eternal torment proponents show in our heavenly father is spiritless, blind, empty, and desolate. It's an abomination, shameful, vile, and detestable. They have been robbed of true faith, trust, and security in our heavenly father, and they in turn peddle the same fear the enemy has tricked them into believing ignorantly.


This abomination of desolation is standing in the holy places. It has been for ages. It stands in the temples (churches) of God and in all who have been deceived by the enemy. Christ came to save the world from this desolation, to strengthen our faith in love, and to give us life - that we might live abundantly through love. That's the gospel. "Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" Neither did Jesus. Jesus sowed that which is beautiful, virtuous, and good in life. Hell is none of these. We're not being saved from an eternal hell, but from the ignorance, the spiritual emptiness, and fear so many live in. We are saved by grace through faith and by faith working through love. Perfect love casts out fear, so in order to realize our salvation (freedom) in life, we need to first embrace, honor, and have faith in love. God is love, and those who love know God, and have been born of God.

 

[ZenMonkey]

That's distorted poppycock!

The buddhas all realized the perfection of wisdom, the highest state any human being can attain, and is called Supreme Enlightenment.

You want to place 'Jesus' on a pedestal and idolize him as a 'Special Case'; a 'one of a kind', but that is just plain ridiculous. It's a concoction about the spiritual world by man that simply is not so.

I never suggested they never attained great wisdom. I merely suggested they could not claim to have lived a perfect life. All we need is love. There is great wisdom in love, but it isn't enlightenment. It's who we were born to be. Love is who we are. We are all born to become Christ's (anointed ones). I have great reverence for the Buddha and the many other Avatars that have graced this world, even as I revere Jesus. They had their measure of Spirit (love), and they cast their light upon many, even to this day. What's not to revere about these lights? Yes, I place Jesus on a pedestal, even as you place Buddha on a pedestal. They were both lights in a darkened world, but Jesus knew the fullness of love. Love is all we truly need to feed our spirit. We don't need to forsake self, or ego, or mind. All we need do is truly embrace love. The rest will fall into its proper place.

 

[godnotgod]

I never suggested they never attained great wisdom. I merely suggested they could not claim to have lived a perfect life. All we need is love. There is great wisdom in love, but it isn't enlightenment. It's who we were born to be. Love is who we are. We are all born to become Christ's (anointed ones). I have great reverence for the Buddha and the many other Avatars that have graced this world, even as I revere Jesus. They had their measure of Spirit (love), and they cast their light upon many, even to this day. What's not to revere about these lights? Yes, I place Jesus on a pedestal, even as you place Buddha on a pedestal. They were both lights in a darkened world, but Jesus knew the fullness of love. Love is all we truly need to feed our spirit. We don't need to forsake self, or ego, or mind. All we need do is truly embrace love. The rest will fall into its proper place.

Your comments about Jesus's life are consistent with the general image that he is a moral role model for man. This is where the image of Buddha is quite different, because for one, the image of the realized Buddha is neither moral nor that of a role model. The image of Jesus as having lived a 'perfect life' is nothing more than a square peg forced to fit a round hole, again, as a means of placing him on a pedestal in what is called Idolatrous Love, which is not real love at all.

As I said, Enlightenment is 'Nothing Special', so how could I be placing the Buddha upon a pedestal? Besides, Buddhism tells us that each one of us is the Buddha himself; that the Buddha nature is within each one of us, which also reflects Yeshu's mystical teaching that the 'kingdom of God' is within, and 'I and the Father are one'.

Much of the rest of the teachings are embellishments. Yeshu was a Nazarene, though he did understand the orthodox teachings as well. He even made a point of that when he said: 'You search the scriptures hoping to gain eternal life, but it is these that testify about me.', which also reflects his mystical view. Moral role models have nothing to do with it. Enlightenment is beyond the duality of moral Good and Evil.

If one has realized the perfection of wisdom, love and compassion are essential elements of that realization. We are not talking here about philosophical matters. The Buddha's Enlightenment was full and complete.

But in keeping with the topic at hand, the great difference between Jesus and Buddha is that Jesus is said to have conquered death as evinced by his 'resurrection' and 'ascension' both of which are untenable, while the Buddha simply awakened to the fact that life and death are illusory, and that the infinite was always available in the here and now. There is no death to conquer, nor anyone to conquer it. A truly realized being knows that what we call 'death' is essential to life, and vice-versa, and would ACCEPT life/death rather than making a big deal of trying to overcome them. The notion of conquering is nothing more than the thinking of unrealized men.

And so Chopra says: 'I just return to where I've always been', which is the eternal present moment.

Again, I stress the important difference between Salvation and Awakening.

 

[Nakosis]

I heard He descended into hell and rose on the third day.

Oh....I get it....(sarcasm)

Well ok....
But I don't think hell is what this earth is made of.
I suspect it's the consequence of our own declarations.

Yes just a little creative story.

I suspect we are the master of our existence to a degree. God created the environment and we are free to create/eek-out our existence after whatever manner seems appropriate to us.

To the topic at hand... I believe that the cycle of birth and death will continue for an indeterminate amount of time until God has decided the game has run long enough. At which point this universe will not exist, time will end and the illusion of separateness/duality will cease.

I also believe that at some point a new universe/environment will be created and a new game will begin. There maybe many universes that all exist simultaneously.

However none of that matters to me in this life. This is where my consciousness is and the universe I have to deal with. I act as I choose to act and deal with whatever the resultant consequences may be.

We create heavens, we create hells, we create facsimiles of God to entertain ourselves. I don't think God judges at all. We judge ourselves and we judge each other and sometimes pretend to know what God is thinking.

I

 

[ZenMonkey]

Your comments about Jesus's life are consistent with the general image that he is a moral role model for man. This is where the image of Buddha is quite different, because for one, the image of the realized Buddha is neither moral nor that of a role model. The image of Jesus as having lived a 'perfect life' is nothing more than a square peg forced to fit a round hole, again, as a means of placing him on a pedestal in what is called Idolatrous Love, which is not real love at all.

As I said, Enlightenment is 'Nothing Special', so how could I be placing the Buddha upon a pedestal? Besides, Buddhism tells us that each one of us is the Buddha himself; that the Buddha nature is within each one of us, which also reflects Yeshu's mystical teaching that the 'kingdom of God' is within, and 'I and the Father are one'.

Much of the rest of the teachings are embellishments. Yeshu was a Nazarene, though he did understand the orthodox teachings as well. He even made a point of that when he said: 'You search the scriptures hoping to gain eternal life, but it is these that testify about me.', which also reflects his mystical view. Moral role models have nothing to do with it. Enlightenment is beyond the duality of moral Good and Evil.

If one has realized the perfection of wisdom, love and compassion are essential elements of that realization. We are not talking here about philosophical matters. The Buddha's Enlightenment was full and complete.

Speak for yourself. I idolize no one, but I do aspire to be like Jesus, even as you aspire to be like the Buddha. Jesus inspired me to love. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He was truly anointed, just as we can be anointed, becoming the way, truth, and life ourselves. The difference between many of us and him is in his faith in love (God) and his love for humanity. He lived a perfect life never faltering in his love for both God and man. I know you disagree, but whatever ... that's your prerogative. I find it curious that I revere your Buddha and others like him, while you find contempt in my reverence for Jesus calling my love for him idolatrous. I love the Buddha. I love the Baha'ullah, I love the Dali Lama and every light that has helped light my path and the path of others. Keep your contempt for Jesus (a fellow human) and I'll continue in the love he showed me, and in my love for my fellow man.

 

[godnotgod]

Speak for yourself. I idolize no one, but I do aspire to be like Jesus, even as you aspire to be like the Buddha. Jesus inspired me to love. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He was truly anointed, just as we can be anointed, becoming the way, truth, and life ourselves. The difference between many of us and him is in his faith in love (God) and his love for humanity. He lived a perfect life never faltering in his love for both God and man. I know you disagree, but whatever ... that's your prerogative. I find it curious that I revere your Buddha and others like him, while you find contempt in my reverence for Jesus calling my love for him idolatrous. I love the Buddha. I love the Baha'ullah, I love the Dali Lama and every light that has helped light my path and the path of others. Keep your contempt for Jesus (a fellow human) and I'll continue in the love he showed me, and in my love for my fellow man.

Except that I have no contempt for Jesus whatsoever. 'Jesus' is a myth, but I do give credence to Yeshu, upon whom the Jesus myth was added.

You said you placed Jesus on a pedestal. Is that not idolatry?

Sorry, but no, I do not aspire to 'be like Buddha' in terms of following some role model. If you understood Buddhism, you would know that Buddha is not an external idol; it is an internal experience, which is why Buddhists say that, if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him; that is to say, if you see something becoming the Buddha, it is not the Buddha. You are already the Buddha, just as you already are in possession of the gifts of the Incarnation. The key is that the buddha nature, the Christ nature, is within. These are not two different things, but the notion of a Jesus bodily resurrecting and ascending IS different. It is saying that a historical Jesus performed these miracles, which is just so much fluff added to the story of Yeshu, who did NOT teach bodily resurrection; who did NOT teach blood sacrifice, and neither did the historical Buddha.

It is typical of those who idolize Jesus that they become personally upset when they think their idol is being attacked, because it is really about them, and not 'Jesus'. Idolatrous Love is one of the Five Egotistical States of Apparent Love, well understood in psychology. More on this later.....

(Please re-read the last part of post 1229, as I added more as you were posting your response to it.)

 

[ZenMonkey]

Except that I have no contempt for Jesus whatsoever. 'Jesus' is a myth, but I do give credence to Yeshu, upon whom the Jesus myth was added.

You said you placed Jesus on a pedestal. Is that not idolatry?

Sorry, but no, I do not aspire to 'be like Buddha' in terms of following some role model. If you understood Buddhism, you would know that Buddha is not an external idol; it is an internal experience, which is why Buddhists say that, if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him; that is to say, if you see something becoming the Buddha, it is not the Buddha. You are already the Buddha, just as you already are in possession of the gifts of the Incarnation. The key is that the buddha nature, the Christ nature, is within. These are not two different things, but the notion of a Jesus bodily resurrecting and ascending IS different. It is saying that a historical Jesus performed these miracles, which is just so much fluff added to the story of Yeshu, who did NOT teach bodily resurrection; who did NOT teach blood sacrifice, and neither did the historical Buddha.

It is typical of those who idolize Jesus that they become personally upset when they think their idol is being attacked, because it is really about them, and not 'Jesus'. Idolatrous Love is one of the Five Egotistical States of Apparent Love, well understood in psychology. More on this later.....

(Please re-read the last part of post 1229, as I added more as you were posting your response to it.)

Yes, people get upset when they are insulted. Idolatrous love? Get real. Jesus is real to many many people, despite what YOU might believe. I place the Buddha, the Dali Lama, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and others on a pedestal also. I idolize none of them, but they are lights to the world. It's not that they were more than us, or that they had more than us, or that they were special. It's that they honored what they had been given and used it to serve others. Yes, that's honorable and I will continue to hold these in high regard.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, people get upset when they are insulted. Idolatrous love? Get real. Jesus is real to many many people, despite what YOU might believe. I place the Buddha, the Dali Lama, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and others on a pedestal also. I idolize none of them, but they are lights to the world. It's not that they were more than us, or that they had more than us, or that they were special. It's that they honored what they had been given and used it to serve others. Yes, that's honorable and I will continue to hold these in high regard.

Compared to what?

No insult was ever intended. It's just the fact of the matter, whether you like it or not.

Placing people on pedestals is to make them special.

Honoring what is given and serving others is nothing special. It is our natural inclination. A big deal should not be made of it.

The fact that 'Jesus' is 'real' to millions is due to what they BELIEVE; it is a matter of BELIEF; there is no 'real' Jesus standing right in front of them.

The same cannot be said of the Buddha, because it is not about a PERSON, but about an inner EXPERIENCE wherein one discovers that they themselves are the Buddha.

Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special; after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special. The Ordinary is none other than the Miraculous, and vice versa. Not a big deal in the spiritual world.

So here is how Idolatrous Love works:

THE FIVE EGOTISTICAL STATES

1. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO


This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another being. [ie; 'Jesus', etc]. The pretention to divinity as 'distinct' has left my organism and is now fixed onto the organism of the other. The affective situation..is that the 'other' has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, and am against everything that is opposed to them. I no longer love my own organism except in so far as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalise his Ego). [or martyring oneself for the idol]. As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolised being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in them, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

excerpted from: Zen and the Psychology of Transformation, by Hubert Benoit

IOW, believers project their egos onto the idol without realizing they are doing it, and by treating their belief as if it were fact.

 

[Thief]

Compared to what?

No insult was ever intended. It's just the fact of the matter, whether you like it or not.

Placing people on pedestals is to make them special.

Honoring what is given and serving others is nothing special. It is our natural inclination. A big deal should not be made of it.

The fact that 'Jesus' is 'real' to millions is due to what they BELIEVE; it is a matter of BELIEF; there is no 'real' Jesus standing right in front of them.

The same cannot be said of the Buddha, because it is not about a PERSON, but about an inner EXPERIENCE wherein one discovers that they themselves are the Buddha.

Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special; after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special. The Ordinary is none other than the Miraculous, and vice versa. Not a big deal in the spiritual world.

So here is how Idolatrous Love works:

THE EGOTISTICAL STATES

1. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS
BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO


This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another being. [ie; 'Jesus', etc]. The pretention to divinity as 'distinct' has left my organism and is now fixed onto the organism of the other. The affective situation..is that the 'other' has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, and am against everything that is opposed to them. I no longer love my own organism except in so far as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my
life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed onthe idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order
to immortalise his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with
joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolised being rejects me to the point
of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in them, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

excerpted from: Zen and the Psychology of Transformation, by Hubert Benoit

I might agree to some of this.
But watch out for that 'factual statement' stuff.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Compared to what?

No insult was ever intended. It's just the fact of the matter, whether you like it or not.

Placing people on pedestals is to make them special.

Honoring what is given and serving others is nothing special. It is our natural inclination. A big deal should not be made of it.

The fact that 'Jesus' is 'real' to millions is due to what they BELIEVE; it is a matter of BELIEF; there is no 'real' Jesus standing right in front of them.

The same cannot be said of the Buddha, because it is not about a PERSON, but about an inner EXPERIENCE wherein one discovers that they themselves are the Buddha.

Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special; after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special. The Ordinary is none other than the Miraculous, and vice versa. Not a big deal in the spiritual world.

I hold many people in a very high regard. I place them on a pedestal of respect because they have earned my respect. This is true for Jesus, the Buddha, the Baha'ullah, Gandhi, The Dali Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, etc. As I mentioned prior, they don't possess anything we don't possess ourselves. The difference is in how they live in service to others. They became lights in a world of darkness. Jesus is worthy of my honor and my respect, and so he has it without reservation ... as do the others I mentioned. That's a fact whether you like it or not. Deal with it. The point is that I'm not a Buddhist, yet I respected the Buddha and what he represented. Likewise, I'm not a Christian, but I respect Jesus and what he represents. You call me an idolatrous because of my love for him. THAT'S insulting! I honor Jesus by honoring love. You honor the Buddha by following his teachings. Neither you or I are idolizing anyone. I love deeply and my love is not idolatrous, but then you're perfectly free to accuse me of such idolatrous love if it makes you feel better about yourself.

So here is how Idolatrous Love works:

THE FIVE EGOTISTICAL STATES

1. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO


This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another being. [ie; 'Jesus', etc]. The pretention to divinity as 'distinct' has left my organism and is now fixed onto the organism of the other. The affective situation..is that the 'other' has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, and am against everything that is opposed to them. I no longer love my own organism except in so far as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalise his Ego). [or martyring oneself for the idol]. As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolised being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in them, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

excerpted from: Zen and the Psychology of Transformation, by Hubert Benoit

IOW, believers project their egos onto the idol without realizing they are doing it, and by treating their belief as if it were fact.

I'm not interested in your practices, your beliefs, your arm chair psychology, or your philosophy. I've tasted your fruits even in this thread and they are spoiled. I want nothing to do with them. I myself prefer to live my life with passion and with love for others. Call my love for others what you will, but I'll not be changing my heart because you happen to think I'm wrong for the love I do hold in it. Love is all I need to feed my spirit. I'll feed my mind with life experience. I'll get to where I'm getting when I get there. Until then I'll have to suffer people like yourself who think themselves to be enlightened ... all while you try to teach others that which causes you to stumble yourself. I know love. That's all I claim. The rest is trivial, but interesting to ponder.

 

[ZenMonkey]

@ godnotgod - The Buddha was a pretty smart fella. If you think yourself enlightened, while you view others less enlightened than yourself, then that's a sure sign of ego masturbation. There's only life and love. There is no Christ consciousness. There is no enlightenment. There is only life and love, and where they will lead humanity if and when embraced. Christ means anointed of love. We've all been blessed with love, but not all live through it. That's why I hold those who do in high regard. They are lights.

 

[godnotgod]

I hold many people in a very high regard. I place them on a pedestal of respect because they have earned my respect. This is true for Jesus, the Buddha, the Baha'ullah, Gandhi, The Dali Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, etc. As I mentioned prior, they don't possess anything we don't possess ourselves. The difference is in how they live in service to others. They became lights in a world of darkness. Jesus is worthy of my honor and my respect, and so he has it without reservation ... as do the others I mentioned. That's a fact whether you like it or not. Deal with it. The point is that I'm not a Buddhist, yet I respected the Buddha and what he represented. Likewise, I'm not a Christian, but I respect Jesus and what he represents. You call me an idolatrous because of my love for him. THAT'S insulting! I honor Jesus by honoring love. You honor the Buddha by following his teachings. Neither you or I are idolizing anyone. I love deeply and my love is not idolatrous, but then you're perfectly free to accuse me of such idolatrous love if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Does your love teach you to become more and more defensive by the minute? What is it you are trying to defend? You sound as if you have a personal attachment to 'Jesus', just as the essay I posted says those who practice idolatrous love are attached to their idol, hating those who, in their minds, are against their idol. Do you think I am 'against' Jesus?

I don't think my pointing out idolatrous love is an accusation. It's just a condition, that's all.

You were never a contemporary of Jesus as you are/were Mother Theresa, etc. All you have is a handed down story that you believe is true, for whatever personal reasons you hold. But my primary focus here is the afterlife, and you seem to think Jesus holds the key for mankind. All of the doctrine about Jesus and salvation and the afterlife is just that: doctrine, and belief in that doctrine. I just want to know how it is possible that for a man to die for other men somehow provides a place in a heavenly afterlife. All this can possibly be is belief, as one would actually need to die and go through the experience to know that for certain. Chopra is not saying anything like this; what he is saying is that the experience of 'returning to where I always am' occurs in this present moment, not in some imaginary future, and that this experience can be verified by anyone willing to do the inner spiritual work.

I'm not interested in your practices, your beliefs, your arm chair psychology, or your philosophy. I've tasted your fruits even in this thread and they are spoiled. I want nothing to do with them. I myself prefer to live my life with passion and with love for others. Call my love for others what you will, but I'll not be changing my heart because you happen to think I'm wrong for the love I do hold in it. Love is all I need to feed my spirit. I'll feed my mind with life experience. I'll get to where I'm getting when I get there. Until then I'll have to suffer people like yourself who think themselves to be enlightened ... all while you try to teach others that which causes you to stumble yourself. I know love. That's all I claim. The rest is trivial, but interesting to ponder.

Just because I never professed my passion and love in these threads does not mean I don't have them as well, perhaps to a far greater degree than you. It's just that I am not compelled to advertise them as you seem to be as a means of proving something.

Did I ever claim to be enlightened? No! Did I ever deny love? No! You see? Your so-called 'love' makes mistakes in judgement.

The point is not whether I or you love others. The question is what happens after you die.

You're not interested in what I have to say because you are in denial of its veracity. Do you even have a clue as to how the ego projects itself onto others, in this case, onto an idol? If you can let down your defenses for a few moments and really look at what is being said, you might unlearn something.

 

[godnotgod]

@ godnotgod - The Buddha was a pretty smart fella. If you think yourself enlightened, while you view others less enlightened than yourself, then that's a sure sign of ego masturbation. There's only life and love. There is no Christ consciousness. There is no enlightenment. There is only life and love, and where they will lead humanity if and when embraced. Christ means anointed of love. We've all been blessed with love, but not all live through it. That's why I hold those who do in high regard. They are lights.

No, the Buddha's Enlightenment was not about being intellectually smart, but about seeing things as they are, just as Yeshu did. There is no difference between the Realtiy that the Buddha saw and that which Yeshu saw, but there is a huge difference between what the Buddha saw and what the mythical 'Jesus' claims to have seen. 'Jesus' is a myth overwritten onto Yeshu. The mythical Jesus talking about drinking his blood and eating his flesh is not the words of an enlightened man. They are the words of ignorant men. Yeshu never spoke those words. St. Paul put them into his mouth.

No, I never claimed to be enlightened while others are not enlightened. I said, if you recall, that everyone is already enlightened, but most simply do no realize it.

No, there is not only 'life and love'; there is life and death and love and hate, and all of that is just double vision in a singular world. Enlightenment is Absolute Joy, transcendent of all dualities, beyond relative joy and relative suffering, beyond life and death, beyond love and hate, but this Enlightenment, this Absolute Joy, is right here, right now, as it has always been right here, right now. The Ordinary and the Miraculous are not two, but one. This is one world, and we don't know of any other that we go to because someone died on a cross. That is the same kind of thinking that says God is angry and sends locusts, disease, floods and angels of death to punish us. It's just based on fear and ignorance, that's all.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Does your love teach you to become more and more defensive by the minute? What is it you are trying to defend? You sound as if you have a personal attachment to 'Jesus', just as the essay I posted says those who practice idolatrous love are attached to their idol, hating those who, in their minds, are against their idol. Do you think I am 'against' Jesus?

I don't think my pointing out idolatrous love is an accusation. It's just a condition, that's all.

When provoked, I react in kind. It's to be expected. I'm defending the love people have for whomever they have it. Jesus is viewed to be Lord by many ... me included, but what that means to me may differ than what it means to others. You have not only called them idolaters, but you accuse their love for others to be false. I could care less if you bash their beliefs, but we're speaking of individuals and their emotional standing ... not beliefs. Beliefs are a dime a dozen and they matter little. People do matter and what they feel for others is real.

You were never a contemporary of Jesus as you are/were Mother Theresa, etc. All you have is a handed down story that you believe is true, for whatever personal reasons you hold. But my primary focus here is the afterlife, and you seem to think Jesus holds the key for mankind. All of the doctrine about Jesus and salvation and the afterlife is just that: doctrine, and belief in that doctrine. I just want to know how it is possible that for a man to die for other men somehow provides a place in a heavenly afterlife. All this can possibly be is belief, as one would actually need to die and go through the experience to know that for certain. Chopra is not saying anything like this; what he is saying is that the experience of 'returning to where I always am' occurs in this present moment, not in some imaginary future, and that this experience can be verified by anyone willing to do the inner spiritual work.

There is no work to be done ... only a feeding of what is already ours, a nurturing of what we already possess. t's a process and one that is not grievous. It comes quite natural to us. It's like reconnecting to our youth. We exist and there will never be a time that we do not exist. When we die, we remain as we are spiritually until we are further developed. People like the Buddha, Jesus, the Baha'ullah, etc. have shown us how to find inner peace through spirituality, but each offer only degrees from the methods used to attain it. Some people work really hard to attain what is already there's, while others simply nurture what we already posses. It's easy to feed the good seed. The more we feed the good seed, the more it grows and the more it grows, the more the weeds diminish. That was Jesus' method. Many others try to remove the weeds first instead of letting them grow together and feeding that which will remove them for us.

Just because I never professed my passion and love in these threads does not mean I don't have them as well, perhaps to a far greater degree than you. It's just that I am not compelled to advertise them as you seem to be as a means of proving something.

Instead you boast enlightenment and Christ consciousness. I know love, just as we all do. It's peace in my mind, but that does not mean I won't or shouldn't return what is given me by others. Insult me and try to negate my feelings for others and I will defend my self. simple right? Perfectly justified also.

Did I ever claim to be enlightened? No! Did I ever deny love? No! You see? Your so-called 'love' makes mistakes in judgement.

You boast about something you know nothing about then. I assumed that since you make claims of what it is to be enlightened that you yourself are enlightened. Are you lying when you pretend to know what it means to be enlightened? I can claim what I know and I do claim what I know. Can you do the same? If not, then maybe it would be best to be who you are and speak of what you do know instead of speaking of things you know nothing about.

The point is not whether I or you love others. The question is what happens after you die.

You're not interested in what I have to say because you are in denial of its veracity. Do you even have a clue as to how the ego projects itself onto others, in this case, onto an idol? If you can let down your defenses for a few moments and really look at what is being said, you might unlearn something. [/COLOR]

Then stay on topic instead of judging others for the love they have for those they feel connected to. What was it Chopra said about death? I'm all for getting back to topic. I believe existence extends beyond the physical. Can I prove it? No, but you can't prove it all ends either. It's one of those trivial things I made mention of.