[soma]

I love this thread too because we are trying to put into words what is beyond words. I think the scriptures with their symbols, parables and stories are doing the same. The Greek Gods, The Hindu Gods, The Christian God and the stories are also symbols pointing to the different expressions of the One God that is everywhere. Their purpose is to send the mind inward to the mystical fire or light that grows our thoughts within our soul. When a fire burns its light is seen for a vast distance, but people too far away can't see it or feel its heat. This is also true for those who are too far from the soul; it is hard to describe the grace or bliss of this experience to them because it is beyond their intellect and mind. The splendors can't be described in mere words; it has to be felt by each individual who directs his mind to the soul. Therefore, this experience is not shouted out loud for others to hear, one has to enter inside oneself alone and find the secret place without pretentiousness to return to the soul and find the unity in all. The stories help us to focus and are maps to the spiritual experience that brings us closer to God.

[McKenna]

soma, on May 21 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

I love this thread too because we are trying to put into words what is beyond words. I think the scriptures with their symbols, parables and stories are doing the same. The Greek Gods, The Hindu Gods, The Christian God and the stories are also symbols pointing to the different expressions of the One God that is everywhere. Their purpose is to send the mind inward to the mystical fire or light that grows our thoughts within our soul. When a fire burns its light is seen for a vast distance, but people too far away can't see it or feel its heat. This is also true for those who are too far from the soul; it is hard to describe the grace or bliss of this experience to them because it is beyond their intellect and mind. The splendors can't be described in mere words; it has to be felt by each individual who directs his mind to the soul. Therefore, this experience is not shouted out loud for others to hear, one has to enter inside oneself alone and find the secret place without pretentiousness to return to the soul and find the unity in all. The stories help us to focus and are maps to the spiritual experience that brings us closer to God.

Beautifully written, soma. I wholeheartedly agree.

[McKenna]

I'd like to get this conversation going again, because the issue of the Resurrection is something that is very central to many Christians' faiths and it's something I personally have struggled a lot to understand.

I'm reading the book the Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright. I just read the section on the Resurrection a few days ago, and I could see both perspectives, but both also seem to have issues.

Here's the problem: It seems clear to me that something must have happened. But was it Jesus physically returning from the dead or something else?

N. T. Wright basically argued that:
-The word "resurrection" in that context always implied something physical.
-Other then-common words could have been used to mean Jesus had a non-physical body, such as "angel" or "ghost."
-Experiences of Jesus as a concrete reality stopped with Paul; they wouldn't have stopped if he was just a vision or something.
-In the passage where Paul contrasts Jesus before and Jesus after the Resurrection, the words do NOT mean "physical body" vs. "spiritual body," but rather a "soulish body" vs. a "spiritual body."
-The discrepancies in the Gospels about Easter morning and the tomb imply that the "witnesses have not been in collusion."
-Paul does not mention the tomb because it's implied when he attests that Jesus was "buried" and "raised."
-"Once you allow that something remarkable happened to his body that morning, all the other data fall into place with astonishing ease."

My problems with this argument:
-I'm a rather skeptical person in general, so I would have a hard time imagining this. If I try to picture it in my mind...it just seems ridiculous. When did the body change? What would it have looked like while it was transforming? Did Jesus just sort of wake up afterward and say, "Well that was weird..."?
-I'm not sure I accept his dismissal of the discrepancies between the Gospels.
-Why didn't people always recognize him? How did he pass through walls? (Assuming those stories are literally true, which I don't think they necessarily have to be.)
-I don't know if it makes historical sense to assume he was buried in a tomb at all, since the vast, vast majority of crucifix victims weren't.
-While the term "resurrection" at that time period did seem to imply a physical occurrence, it also implied (as he himself points out) a general resurrection of all people. So aren't these early Christians redefining the term anyway by saying a singular person has been resurrected?
-My biggest problem: What happened to his body afterward? The idea of the Ascension only really seems to make sense in the old 3-tier universe plan. With our current knowledge of outer space, it seems a tad ridiculous. He just sort of lifted into the air and took off out into the solar system? Where did he go? Or did his body evaporate? But wouldn't that defeat the purpose of it being resurrected in the first place?

Marcus Borg's basic argument was:
-It's really irrelevant in the long run whether or not Jesus was physically resurrected. The truth of Easter lies in its metaphorical meanings and implications, anyway.
-It seems kind of weird to think people could have videotaped these events. Rather, they sound like personal experiences of those involved. (See below about apparitions.)
-"Resurrection in a first-century Jewish and Christian context is a very different notion [from that of resuscitation.] Put compactly and somewhat abstractly, resurrection does not mean resumption of previous existence but entry into a new kind of existence...There is a sense in which it is...beyond the categories of space and time; the resurrected Christ can appear anywhere and presumably can appear in more than one place at the same time...To be sure, resurrection could involve something happening to a corpse, namely the transformation of a corpse; but it need not."
-The fact that Paul does not explicitly mention an empty tomb "may or may not be significant." The fact that he uses the term "buried" could just be a way of saying that Jesus really was dead.
-Paul uses the verb "appeared" four times in 1 Corinthians 15.3-8. This verb is often linked to apparitions, which tend to be paranormal experiences which are not necessarily experienced by all of those present. This is further supported by the fact that Paul's experience of the risen Christ was a vision that the people he was traveling with did not see.
-Paul does make a distinction between the 2 "bodies" - such as the seed/plant analogy. And yes, the two terms that Paul uses aren't specifically "physical body" vs. "spiritual body," but what he does say about the former (best translated "a body animated by a spirit") makes it sound like he's talking about a physical body: it's "flesh and blood," "perishable," "of the earth," "of dust," etc. On the other hand, the other body, the spiritual one, isn't.
-Many of the resurrection stories bear the marks of metaphorical narrative rather than a report of a literal event. The example he uses is the Emmaus Road story.
-People still experience Jesus today, including in dramatic ways such as "visions and mystical experiences." (His point is, I assume, that the experiences did not, in fact, stop with Paul.)

My problems with this argument:
-The use of the term "resurrection." I'm not convinced he fully placed it within its appropriate context. It seems to have meant a physical happening and I don't think he properly addresses that. This is my biggest problem with the non-physical interpretations.
-The fact that all of the Gospels had an empty tomb story, despite the discrepancies. That seems to imply an early tradition. (An early tradition of the tomb, I mean - obviously the tradition of the Resurrection is very early.)
-The fact that Paul uses the term "body" at all in describing Jesus' new state.
-The Gospels' use of stories that imply a physical body, such as Jesus eating or Thomas touching Jesus' wounds.



Okay, I'm sorry that was so long! I tried to come up with as many arguments as I could against each side, but this took me a while to write so my brain was somewhat confused by the end.

At any rate, I'd really like to have a discussion about this. It's clear which side I lean towards, but I want to hear others' opinions on any and all of the above points (from me or from Wright or Borg), as well as any other points you think ought to be included (I can add them to the lists, but I'll do it in italics in order to keep the original lists intact).

Thank you all so much in advance! I look forward to a good discussion *crosses fingers*

[JosephM]

McKenna, on Aug 22 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

(snipped for brevity)
At any rate, I'd really like to have a discussion about this. It's clear which side I lean towards, but I want to hear others' opinions on any and all of the above points (from me or from Wright or Borg), as well as any other points you think ought to be included (I can add them to the lists, but I'll do it in italics in order to keep the original lists intact).

Thank you all so much in advance! I look forward to a good discussion *crosses fingers*

In my view, it is not of great important either way. If one rests ones faith on something that can be proven false then ones faith will fall if it is proven so. However, if ones faith rests in that which has been personally revealed, it cannot be touched by the logic or arguments of men which gender doubt. Just a view to consider.

[DHatcherE]

I believe Jesus told me to love God and love my neighbor.

The crucifixion/resurrection is irrelevant to me 100%. I could not care less what exactly happened, it cannot be proven and it is not relevant so I worry not about it. The whole thing is highly suspect in my opinion and has fraud written on the face of it.

The bible records it but beyond that (and the bible is a shakey witness of the ressurection if I say so myself) no one else records it to the best of my knowledge. I know Josephus mentions it (Antiquities of the Jews) BUT that is a highly suspected fraud and as such I don't put much stock in it.

I look at the life of Jesus NOT the death, I look to the religion OF Jesus rather than the one ABOUT Jesus.

Just my opinion - I could be wrong...

This post has been edited by DHatcherE: 23 August 2007 - 08:19 AM

[McKenna]

JosephM, on Aug 22 2007, 11:31 PM, said:

In my view, it is not of great important either way. If one rests ones faith on something that can be proven false then ones faith will fall if it is proven so. However, if ones faith rests in that which has been personally revealed, it cannot be touched by the logic or arguments of men which gender doubt. Just a view to consider.

True. I think that was basically Borg's argument, that it really wasn't important either way. I agree with that, and I agree it's impossible to know, but I still think it's an interesting topic of discussion Thanks for your input!

[McKenna]

DHatcherE, on Aug 23 2007, 09:19 AM, said:

I believe Jesus told me to love God and love my neighbor.

The crucifixion/resurrection is irrelevant to me 100%. I could not care less what exactly happened, it cannot be proven and it is not relevant so I worry not about it. The whole thing is highly suspect in my opinion and has fraud written on the face of it.

The bible records it but beyond that (and the bible is a shakey witness of the ressurection if I say so myself) no one else records it to the best of my knowledge. I know Josephus mentions it (Antiquities of the Jews) BUT that is a highly suspected fraud and as such I don't put much stock in it.

I look at the life of Jesus NOT the death, I look to the religion OF Jesus rather than the one ABOUT Jesus.

Just my opinion - I could be wrong...

I understand your point As I said to JosephM, I agree that it's irrelevant (although probably for different reasons than you), and that we can't know. Still, the Resurrection is important to a lot of people and I'm trying to form my own opinion.

You do state an opinion, though. You seem to say it's suspect regardless of whether or not it was physical. The usual response to this would be that the religion would never have gotten off the ground if it hadn't happened; Jesus would have just been another in a long line of would-be messiahs whose movements, when the "messiah" died, either died with them or transferred their allegiance to the messiah's brother. Yet neither of these things happened in Jesus' case; it appears that something happened that convinced his followers that he was still with them, that he was indeed the messiah, that he had divine qualities; and it made them willing to die for this conviction. These traditions appear to be very early. Therefore, it is my own personal opinion that something did in fact happen.

Either way, I agree with you that Jesus' life is the most important thing. However, I look to the Resurrection for hope and look at the Trinity as a good way of describing God (though I take it very metaphorically). Personally, I find hope and encouragement both in his life and in his resurrection. But each to his own

[JosephM]

McKenna, on Aug 23 2007, 11:03 AM, said:

(snip)
You do state an opinion, though. You seem to say it's suspect regardless of whether or not it was physical. The usual response to this would be that the religion would never have gotten off the ground if it hadn't happened; Jesus would have just been another in a long line of would-be messiahs whose movements, when the "messiah" died, either died with them or transferred their allegiance to the messiah's brother. Yet neither of these things happened in Jesus' case; it appears that something happened that convinced his followers that he was still with them, that he was indeed the messiah, that he had divine qualities; and it made them willing to die for this conviction. These traditions appear to be very early. Therefore, it is my own personal opinion that something did in fact happen.

(snip)

McKenna,
In response to the usual response you mention.....
Something indeed did happen as evidenced even at present by believers who have experienced the annointing of the holy spirit. To think that it had to be a physical ressurrection is conjecture at best but to know that which is present in us even now is what seems to me .... what not only got Christianity off the ground but sustains it even to this day. His followers knew from the miracles they witnessed and the annointing they even experienced that he had divine qualities. With or without a physical ressurection of the man Jesus, Christ exists and is the hope of our glory and is the experience of divinity in us who not only believe but know firsthand. Just a view to consider.

[McKenna]

JosephM, on Aug 23 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

McKenna,
In response to the usual response you mention.....
Something indeed did happen as evidenced even at present by believers who have experienced the annointing of the holy spirit. To think that it had to be a physical ressurrection is conjecture at best but to know that which is present in us even now is what seems to me .... what not only got Christianity off the ground but sustains it even to this day. His followers knew from the miracles they witnessed and the annointing they even experienced that he had divine qualities. With or without a physical ressurection of the man Jesus, Christ exists and is the hope of our glory and is the experience of divinity in us who not only believe but know firsthand. Just a view to consider.

I don't disagree with you at all; apparently I didn't make that clear. My point was simply that it seems to me that something did happen (as you say as well) and I label this "the Resurrection"; which brings us back to my original post yesterday, on whether it was physical or something else. I know it really is irrelevant - I definitely agree with Marcus Borg on that - but I just think it's an interesting thing to debate, since both sides seem to make good points.

[soma]

I feel the people who wrote about it from their perspective were right. There are those who related to Christ on the physical plane and saw the physical resurrection, then there were those who saw Christ resurrect spiritually on another plane. The people who read it also decipher on what plane they relate to Christ; therefore, Christ is very approachable from all directions.

[JosephM]

McKenna, on Aug 23 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

I don't disagree with you at all; apparently I didn't make that clear. My point was simply that it seems to me that something did happen (as you say as well) and I label this "the Resurrection"; which brings us back to my original post yesterday, on whether it was physical or something else. I know it really is irrelevant - I definitely agree with Marcus Borg on that - but I just think it's an interesting thing to debate, since both sides seem to make good points.

Hi McKenna,

Yes you did make yourself very clear and I know you agree. I was responding to the "usual response" that you mentioned that other people make and providing a possible explanation to their response. No misunderstanding here.

Love and Peace,
JM

[McKenna]

soma, on Aug 23 2007, 11:10 PM, said:

I feel the people who wrote about it from their perspective were right. There are those who related to Christ on the physical plane and saw the physical resurrection, then there were those who saw Christ resurrect spiritually on another plane. The people who read it also decipher on what plane they relate to Christ; therefore, Christ is very approachable from all directions.

That's a good way to look at it

JosephM, on Aug 23 2007, 11:15 PM, said:

Hi McKenna,

Yes you did make yourself very clear and I know you agree. I was responding to the "usual response" that you mentioned that other people make and providing a possible explanation to their response. No misunderstanding here.

Love and Peace,
JM

Ah, I apologize

[fatherman]

McKenna,

Revisiting this thread is meaningful to me. There are so many different and compelling ideas expressed here. I want to add a perspective that I gained a few years ago when I first read "Autobiography of a Yogi". This is the autobiography of an influential Indian Yogi whose teaching and writings played a large role in the spread of yoga and meditation in the U.S.

One issue I really struggled with was that Jesus' resurrection was recorded so long ago. It seems so singular in the historical and religious records of humanity. It's hard to know what really occurred with any event that past 2 millennia ago...especially one as inexplicable and indescribable as resurrection! Something much more recent would be a lot more compelling to me. Enter India!

India, for thousands of years, has been an environment for spiritual development. It has produced some of the most advanced spiritual men and women of all time. In his book, Paramahamsa Yogananda records his own encounters with living saints and shares some of his own saintly experiences. The phenomena he describes include telepathic communication, healings, visions, physical manifestation of food, levitation, saints who could appear in more than one place at the same time, and resurrection. The difference between Yogananda’s book and the Gospels, however, is that Yogananda does his readers the service of explaining how these phenomena occur. Read chapter 30 “The Law of Miracles” if you like http://www.crystalcl...nda/chap30.html

So, if you can accept a 20th century account of resurrection (which is described in chapter 43 “The Resurrection of Sri Yukteswar” http://www.crystalcl...nda/chap43.html, then it is not hard to accept Jesus’ resurrection.

The remaining question for me is still, why does it matter or does it matter? Here’s why it matters to me.

First, this is Jesus’ final lesson in a series of lessons. You see, when Jesus teaches he speaks it, and then he does it. He says, “Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.” Jesus is teaching us to die so that we can live. This is something that Jesus is always trying to get across in his recorded teachings. Jesus (as did the Buddha) taught that we have to die while we live in order to be free from bondage. We begin by letting go of our attachments (bonds) to wealth, hurtful behaviors, hurtful thoughts, other people, suffering, the past, the future, etc. so that we can experience the now, so that we can experience each other without pretense, so that we can experience God without pretense, and so that we can return fearlessly to the Source of our creation.

Second, Jesus’ ultimate mission was to provide God an opportunity to reveal God’s own true nature to humans. This is the story that compels me to be a Christian and not a Hindu or a Buddhist. This is the story of a God who desires to know his own creation and for his own creation to know him so deeply that he was willing to become one of us. She was willing to become vulnerable, subject to emotion, subject to ridicule, subject to pain, and ultimately to be broken. Jesus, in his life, showed us the nature of God. And Jesus, in his death and resurrection, showed us the nature of God as well. Death is never the final act of God. God is an eternal process of death and rebirth. We know this process as Life. In other words, God is not only the creator of life, God IS life.

[JosephM]

fatherman, on Aug 27 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

(snip)
The remaining question for me is still, why does it matter or does it matter? Here’s why it matters to me.

First, this is Jesus’ final lesson in a series of lessons. You see, when Jesus teaches he speaks it, and then he does it. He says, “Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.” Jesus is teaching us to die so that we can live. This is something that Jesus is always trying to get across in his recorded teachings. Jesus (as did the Buddha) taught that we have to die while we live in order to be free from bondage. We begin by letting go of our attachments (bonds) to wealth, hurtful behaviors, hurtful thoughts, other people, suffering, the past, the future, etc. so that we can experience the now, so that we can experience each other without pretense, so that we can experience God without pretense, and so that we can return fearlessly to the Source of our creation.

Second, Jesus’ ultimate mission was to provide God an opportunity to reveal God’s own true nature to humans. This is the story that compels me to be a Christian and not a Hindu or a Buddhist. This is the story of a God who desires to know his own creation and for his own creation to know him so deeply that he was willing to become one of us. She was willing to become vulnerable, subject to emotion, subject to ridicule, subject to pain, and ultimately to be broken. Jesus, in his life, showed us the nature of God. And Jesus, in his death and resurrection, showed us the nature of God as well. Death is never the final act of God. God is an eternal process of death and rebirth. We know this process as Life. In other words, God is not only the creator of life, God IS life.

Fatherman,

In your first paragraph quoted, don't you think it is possible that Jesus talking about losing our life was referring not to physical death but as Paul put it 'dieing to the carnal nature or flesh' so we might be alive to the spirit?. If so what has this to do with the "physical" ressurrection of Jesus? Perhaps he was physically but why does it matter? God is a Spirit. Is our faith on that which is written by men and could be myth or does it rest in the true foundation of the Church (hearing not from flesh and blood but the Father directly) or something else?

In your second paragraph you state that "death is never the final act of God" and that "God is an eternal process of death and rebirth". Isn't it rather that death is not an act of God (in Him is only Life) and God is eternal (the unborn not subject to birth and death) and there is no death and rebirth in Him but only life. Perhaps you did not mean as I read your words?

Love and Peace,
JM

[fatherman]

Quote

In your first paragraph quoted, don't you think it is possible that Jesus talking about losing our life was referring not to physical death but as Paul put it 'dieing to the carnal nature or flesh' so we might be alive to the spirit?.

Yes. And both Jesus and the Gospel writers were not averse to using a dramatic act of some sort as a metaphor for their teachings.

Quote

Is our faith on that which is written by men and could be myth or does it rest in the true foundation of the Church (hearing not from flesh and blood but the Father directly) or something else?

We had a family gathering this weekend. As with most family gatherings, certain stories get retold. A favorite story among my mother and her sisters is the story of the Penny. Their mother (my grandmother), had a habit of picking up pennies and saving them in her pocket. When she met you, she would pull a penny out of her pocket and give it to you. When she died, all of her children began finding pennies in the most unusual places. They interpreted this as the presence of their mother...and still do to this day. This gives the hope, faith, and comfort.

Are they truly pennies from heaven...so to speak? Or have they simply devised a story that brings them hope and comfort? In the end it doesn't matter, because what they wanted was hope and comforted. Most people in need of hope, faith, and comfort aren't too picky about where it comes from.

Quote

In your second paragraph you state that "death is never the final act of God" and that "God is an eternal process of death and rebirth". Isn't it rather that death is not an act of God (in Him is only Life) and God is eternal (the unborn not subject to birth and death) and there is no death and rebirth in Him but only life. Perhaps you did not mean as I read your words?

Joseph, I don't know. I honestly don't. I know what is written in the Bible, but I'm not entirely sure what it means. I believe that Life is not just one thing...it is a cycle of birth, living, and dying. Every moment, every plant, every creature is bound to this cycle. Even our own bodies are dieing, living, and being reborn (physically) throughout the day. Every 7 years or so we've essentially grown a whole new body (down to the bones!). It's just that eventually death begins to overtake birth and living. And so we die. Being more of a panenthiest myself, I tend to see God as both source and manifestation of all (both the creator and the creation). So because we die, God dies. Because we are born, God is born. And while we live, God lives. But, as always with God, there is more. God is infinite. God is not fully bound by time and space, and therefore is not fully bound to the cycle of life. And neither are our souls.

Our bodies, as are all matter, are a collection of atoms held together by the intent of a greater force. When God chose to create us in God's own image, I believe he implanted the knowledge of his intent...the seeds of our own creation. When we nurture this seed, we grow and we participate in our own continual process of creation. As our consciousness of this creative intent is raised, we gain mastery over ourselves as creations. Jesus gained a level of mastery in which he was able to continue to emminate his physical presence even after his body was dead. Physical resurrection? Yes. Did he reanimate his dead tissue and walk our of the grave? He certainly helped his dead, stinking friend Lazurus do just that...but I'm not sure if this is the same thing. I don't know.

So I think there are many scopes of dying, but they are all essentially the same. Jesus did the whole thing. Jesus died to 'the carnal nature or flesh'. Jesus died to the bonds of wealth, family, and security. Jesus died to hatred, harm, brokenness, ignorance, and suffering. Jesus died on the cross. But all along he was being reborn: to the infinite nature of the soul, to the love of all people, to compassion, to wholeness, to wisdom, to freedom, to eternal life.

[JosephM]

fatherman,

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.

I share much of your view concerning creator and creation being one and the same and enjoyed your story. Perhaps where I may see differently is where I see life as one continuous sequence with multiple chapters and no death and rebirth per se. I say this because I do not see us as physical beings subject to life and death having a spiritual experience but rather as eternal living spirit having physical experiences.

Is God physical life? Perhaps yes in that God is present in ALL and I concur with your accessment of creator and creation. Yet does God experience physical death? I think not. Perhaps because the source of life never dies and form merely changes in appearance.

So from my perspective there is no death and resurrection is merely an illusion of the mind. Or as it is recorded Jesus said... "That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit". God is a spirit and all that is seen is created from Spirit or that which cannot be seen. Therefor it seems to me that since the physical is created and temporal and the Spirit is eternal that the physical must be illusory in nature when viewed from that perspective. Consequently, I reckon myself already dead to the flesh but alive unto God (Spirit) So there is no death and rebirth and one merely passes from life unto life. Just a different point of view to consider and look from.

Love and Peace,
JM

[fatherman]

Joseph,

I haven't totally sold myself on God experiencing death/rebirth and so on...especially God the Source. The Source is everflowing, everliving. The cycle of life is an idea I am playing with a bit. I think there is something to it, but I'm not quite sure what yet. You are wise to be suspect of it! I'm suspect of it as well!

Quote

Therefor it seems to me that since the physical is created and temporal and the Spirit is eternal that the physical must be illusory in nature when viewed from that perspective.

This is another idea that I play with. But there is something about it that always bothers me. I'm a mind living in a body, not a body with a mind. True. I'm a spirit that uses this mind, not a mind that uses this spirit. True. I'm a spiritual being having a human experience, not a human having a spiritual experience. True, true, true. And therein lies the issue. Why would I, Spirit David, choose to have a human experience only to transcend it back to my spirit experience? I came here to have a human experience...right? In the world of matter and flesh, matter and flesh is not illusory. It is the current state of reality. Is it the ultimate reality? No...but it is a reality nonetheless.

It would be like going on vacation to Disney World and trying to find a job while I'm there in order to continue working, or going on a mission trip to recieve social services. Or maybe it's a little like a fetus attempting to leave the womb before term.

For everything there is a season...


That having been said, I believe that the human experience is far better when the spirit is awake and in control. The human mind that is not tamed by the spirit will be subject to the tyranny of the ego.

[JosephM]

fatherman, on Aug 27 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

Joseph,

I haven't totally sold myself on God experiencing death/rebirth and so on...especially God the Source. The Source is everflowing, everliving. The cycle of life is an idea I am playing with a bit. I think there is something to it, but I'm not quite sure what yet. You are wise to be suspect of it! I'm suspect of it as well!
This is another idea that I play with. But there is something about it that always bothers me. I'm a mind living in a body, not a body with a mind. True. I'm a spirit that uses this mind, not a mind that uses this spirit. True. I'm a spiritual being having a human experience, not a human having a spiritual experience. True, true, true. And therein lies the issue. Why would I, Spirit David, choose to have a human experience only to transcend it back to my spirit experience? I came here to have a human experience...right? In the world of matter and flesh, matter and flesh is not illusory. It is the current state of reality. Is it the ultimate reality? No...but it is a reality nonetheless.

It would be like going on vacation to Disney World and trying to find a job while I'm there in order to continue working, or going on a mission trip to recieve social services. Or maybe it's a little like a fetus attempting to leave the womb before term.

For everything there is a season...
That having been said, I believe that the human experience is far better when the spirit is awake and in control. The human mind that is not tamed by the spirit will be subject to the tyranny of the ego.

Hi fatherman,

Enjoyed very much reading your response. the territory seems familiar here.

To your question, "Why would I, Spirit David choose to have a human experience only to transcend it back to my spirit experience"?. Excellent conundrum. Perhaps in time it will dawn upon David in his search that David only exists as a conditioned fictional character as in a movie or dream. Perhaps something is so attached to David that it confuses David for itself. Perhaps David will discover what is already known but as if forgotten that he has been waking up from one dream and entering another all the while having dreams within his dream. Perhaps, in his search for true identity David will discover there isn't anything to discover because David is phenomena. Perhaps there he will find his true nature which was never lost in the first place and wake up from this dream once and for all, complete and in need of nothing. Then there will be no question to ask or physical experience to discover that which was known from the beginning. All that was desired in the physical experience was there all along. It was all like a big cosmic joke and there is nothing left to be done. There will be no David and no Joseph because there is only One Spirit. Jesus said it well when he said "I pray Father that they may be One even as we are One."

Perhaps One will find that the universe is not so big after all and we which are many are not so many and minuscule. You are correct David that matter and flesh aren't illusory (as long as you abide in the world of form). To the manifest this is reality, to the unmanifest this is illusory (deceptive) in nature. ie your hopes of peace in this world are illusory. The peace of God is beyond mind. (not of this world) You are in the world but not of the world. The mind creates opposites which are illusory. The moment you call something beautiful, you create ugly. The moment you create good, you make evil. It is all based on the illusory nature of the mind. Yes, it can be trained but only when it is transcended does one experience reality. Perhaps this is all good just for a laugh by the both of us, nevertheless you might find it interesting to ponder. Keep in mind, these are all just words/concepts and inherrently prone to error.

The Pauli cannon summation of the essence of all of Buddha's teaching says it well...
Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned, itself alone is,
all else has always been, is, and always will be just a state of make-believe fiction,
a state of delusion worn like a costume with multiple fabricated viewpoints,
with each self-sustaining itself in a self-perpetuated state of self-ignorance,
until each decides to come to closure through self-enlightenment and self-awakening

Warmest Wishes and hope you enjoy
love and Peace,
JM

[fatherman]

Bless you for your beauty, Joseph. It is a testament to a greater reality for me today.

Realization of the day:

Spirit David coming to Earth for a human experience but never awakening, never remembering would be like going on vacation to Disney World to sleep in the hotel the whole time. WAKE UP AND GET YOUR ASS ON SPACE MOUNTAIN, DAVID!

This post has been edited by fatherman: 28 August 2007 - 06:29 AM

[McKenna]

Thanks for the responses, JM and Fatherman! I really enjoyed reading that discussion