David Sundaram

That's great and very clear - I 'get' the reason and personal benefits of such choice and have absolutely no 'objection' to you (or anyone else!) doing so. I have chosen and am advocating something that (IMO) is much more transpersonal, along the lines chosen, practiced and advocated by Jesus (IMO) and not Gautama (again, IMO) - for those who may be 'drawn' to exploring this option, obviously not 'you'. I hope you can and so choose to fully respect such choice on my part and not 'intrude' as though I was speaking to 'you' (obviously, I am speaking to 'you' here - but that is just in an attempt to induce you to desist from 'interfering' with the actualization of such choice and purpose).

Likewise, romansh. I hope, despite evidence to the contrary, that you 'get' the significance of my dissenting opinion regarding your assertions, and clarifications regarding mine.

Agreed. But it doesn't have to 'deaden questioning' etc. IMO, 'ideas' and 'beliefs' are (like) tools, which may be deployed for 'good' or 'ill' depending on the 'inner motives of the holder/believer and'or or the his/her 'foolishness'. IMO, overemphasis (i.e concern with) on 'the present' to the exclusion of its potential effect/contribution to and determination of 'the future' may be just as if not more Life betraying and/or derailing as making 'the future' the central focus (concern) of one's theories and calculations. IMO. 'wisdom' (i.e. optimal decision-making) requires 'balance' in this regard. Why? Because past-present-and-future are all dynamically connected. IMO, 'dharma practice' requires the sensibility to confront both what is means to be a human (i.e, physically 'mortal') as well as an 'angelic' (i,e. spiritually 'immortal') Being. My recommended 'corrective' here is based on my observation/assessment of what folk's here generally talk about and what they don't that there is an 'imbalance' (presumably resulting from an ignorance-based lack of appreciation and understanding of Jesus's saying and teachings) in this regard. Which 'imbalance strikes me as being quite un'Christian', given Jesus and Paul's (who I regard as the co-founders of 'Christianty') clear emphasis on the importance and value of things like 'life-after-death', 'eternal life', etc. To wit: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John Ch.11) "The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Romans Ch.8) ETC, ETC. ETC. What do folks hear think.believe will 'happen' to them after the physical bodies they are ensconced in 'die', I wonder. That they will cease to exist as souls? that they will sit around forever in a bubble of Pure Love in some 'heavenly' place? Do we (souls) have only one 'earthly life' in which to make-or-break the way to ''eternal' afterlife actualization.? Are all of Jesus's and Paul's many many references in such regard nothing more than a Pied Piper offering kids a taste of candy 'con'? I am totally non-plussed that I m getting such push-back (derision even!) from 'leading'(?) voices/members here in relation to my proposing and wanting to discuss 'reincarnation' as a phenomenon, knowledge of which may make greater sense of be facilitate successfully one's 'navigating' one's way though our present 'existential 'field' of 'earthly' actualization. As I am said, I find such ';blind' (?), to the point of even being callus sometimes, rejection of the ideas I have shared here quite un'Christian'. Where do you stand in relation to all this PaulS, I would really like to know if there's any chance of my effecting some kind of positive change here in the above regard.

What would Jesus say? Disclaimer: not claiming to know, just playing what I imagine was his kind of 'game'.

That is your choice, Romansh. I am 'shamelessly' interested in sharing and seeking to 'dia'log with others about what I think is most important in Jesus's world-view and teachings. You are right that I am not interested in relating to those who don't relate to that. I hope you will leave me to my business in said regard hereafter.

Clearly! Bon voyage, Romansch.

One man's baggage is another man's BS. Backatcha and bye-bye, Derek.

No. That is also a presumptuous (to 'fit' your own attribution) question. If you bothered to read the piece from my treatise that I quoted, you will see that I think 'current' understandings (albeit they are not 'mainstream' yet) of the phenomenon of 'reincarnation' and 'spiritual' (i.e. NON-physical) Life are quite germane to grokking the significance of Jesus's sayings which, in turn, I champion as being super-relevant to 'successfully' navigating The Flow of Life on earth. Requoting the last paragraph from that piece, which is a 'tease' aiming at getting folks to download, read, and contemplate the entirety of what I present in my treatise: "The truth (which I just present as a hypothesis to anyone who is presently still agnostic in this regard) that one may potentially either integrally actualize the condition that Jesus referenced as ‘everlasting life’ as a coherent soul or irretrievably ‘lose’ one’s beingness and potential to do so as such as a result of what one believes and so thinks, feels and does or doesn’t think, feel and do (as suggested in statements like “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” and “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it,” for instance) may, I think, be functionally comprehended and profitably applied if and as one thoughtfully considers and contemplates the implications of the following reincarnational-possibility related propositions:" Download link: https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/what_jesus_meant_2022.pdf

I think not.

We have no 'common' ground then.

Yes, I can 'see' how this makes sense to you and others. Though Jesus may indeed have said something like that, it is clear to me that he also made other statements pertaining to entering 'the kingdom of Heaven' which had nothing to do with 'simply' 'dropping' one's baggage and/or 'followers'. IMO, your above post proves the 'point' I made about many PC's who (again, IMO) 'selectively' overlook specific sayings/teachings contained in the New Testament gospels, presumably to 'suit' their own your own 'tastes' as you do yours here. I suggest you try actually relating to my verbalizations if you want to have a meaning-full con-verse-ation with me instead of 'simply' (one-sidedly!) asserting your (chosen) views. It is OK if you don't wish to do so - I just want to 'highlight' what you are doing - in my view, that is.

You yourself, Derek. If not talk 'therapy', then the chemical kind. In the Cut and Paste thread, you said: "Back on medication, which helped. And life resumed. Then early this year, feeling "cured" and wondering if I actually needed the medication I was on (paroxetine) , without consulting anyone, I began to cut down. And cut down. All went well for about six weeks, I was down to half a tablet every two days. Felt fine. Then it hit. The next 8 weeks or so were the worst of my life. The NHS crisis helpline. The Samaritans. Other organisations. At one point I simply froze and said: I need help......I meant I would need to be sectioned, taken away. But my dear wife simply thought I was asking for help getting a couple of carrier bags to my daughter's house and then collecting our two grandchildren from school. She said to ring a mate, who would drive me there. I did, he was available, he hung around for a few hours, we talked, I opened my heart a bit. He is a good mate. I just might owe him my life, who knows just how bad it can get. Good friends just might be the Dharma personified. I'm now back on medication. I've actually had face to face consultations with my GP. But my days are varied. The anxiety or whatever it is shifts and changes like a fog, lifting and dropping back - not like it has always been before, a great weight that simply engulfs you all the time." You also said: "... But I do find rambling on therapeutic. It helps."

My 'sense' is that, like many PC's, you are not (yet) appreciative of the full significance of Jesus's sayings/teachings, which is fine since we are all co-journeying parts of what the Apostle Paul referenced as 'the body of Christ' in any case. I myself am (now) in the world (hence here as well) to explicate and (re)sound Jesus's call: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world., which 'kingdom' includes states of mind and heart which (IMO) extend well beyond the parameters of personal happiness and well-being which is (generally) the 'highest' goal of 'therapy'.

Although it aspires as well as it pro-claims itself to be non'sect'arian, my quibble with PC as a group-movement is the same as the one I have with other existing versions (group movements) of 'Christianity', which is that it doesn't (IMO) truly (fully?) embrace and further explore the deeper (IMO) truths and wisdom-teachings which Jesus's actual sayings convey, or that it only does so selectively, to 'suit' particular 'flag-waiving' groupie predilections, generally speaking. Here, as elsewhere, I find self-proclaimed 'Christian' understandings of what the word 'soul' references, for example in Jesus's statement “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”, to be nebulous if not totally absent. Let me ask PCs here, what do you make of Jesus's references to 'reincarnation' and 'eternal life' - life continuing beyond' the scope of our present personal bodies? Jesus clearly stated " Here is an excerpt from my treatise titled "What Did Jesus Really Mean?"to stimulate further thought and (possible) discussion in this regard: "Even in the case of relatively educated populations today, because of self imposed ‘blindness’ stemming from their desire to belong to a group-sponsored tradition and corollary wish to not ‘rock the boat’ in this regard, the vast majority of self-identified ‘Christians’ still don’t ‘see’ that the passage: “His disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias [the Greek transliteration of the name Elijah] must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:10-13) clearly indicates that Jesus personally ‘saw’ John the Baptist as having been the (prophesied) reincarnation of Elias. And, because they haven’t read and so haven’t thought about what’s been clearly stated in historical accounts pertaining to early developments in Christianity as a social movement for the same reason, said ‘Christians’ remain unaware of the fact that, like Jesus, many of early Christianity’s members (Origen being just one prominent example) also embraced the idea of reincarnation and understood it to reference a phenomenal aspect of Life’s process. So ‘Christians’ generally still continue to ignore and dismiss the implications of the fact that belief in reincarnation was only declared to be 'anathema' by the Fifth General Council of the Church in 553 C.E. in the course of the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy’s ongoing quest to establish itself as a centralized, “Souls have only one ‘chance’ of getting into ‘Heaven’ and that is by way of giving absolute credence to what we say the truth pertaining to Jesus and his teachings is and unquestioningly obeying our edicts in said regard during their (presumptively, then) one and only earthly life ” dictatorial authority." The Apostle Paul also (clearly IMO) thought in terms of 'reincarnation' (repeated earthly soul-embodiments) being a fact of Life. What else could his speaking of a 'better' resurrection in "others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection" (Hebrews 11:35) reference. Do you think he meant that some (afterlife) 'heavens' were 'better' to live in than others??? I have many other quibbles with what I perceive to the 'superficial' (at best) grasp most people here (and elsewhere!) seem to have regarding what Jesus actually said. But let me leave you with another excerpt from my treatise to stimulate deeper consideration in this regard, as well as suggest that if peeps want to move themselves as well as 'Christianity' in a really 'progressive' way, it would be best if (re)read and more deeply ponder what's actually implied in the compendium of Jesus's statements (not just other's Jesus-as-a-Santa-Claus-figure 'press' releases). "Many, thinking that being unconditionally ‘kind’ and/or unreservedly ‘generous’ in relation to others was what Jesus advocated in the ‘name’ of Universal Love, don’t realize that his ‘turn the other cheek’, ‘give him your shirt also’ and ‘walk an extra mile if and when compelled to walk’ statements (see Mathew 5:39-41) shrewdly coached physiosocially ‘powerless’ people to psychospiritually embarrass and thereby (hopefully, at least) prick the conscience of those who were being unconscionably coercive and exploitative, because of the fact that they would invite and likely incur further abuse if they overtly attempted to ‘resist’ such treatment. His endorsement of the use of ‘embarrassment’ and ‘showing people up’ (for the abusers that they are!) as tactics in service of the cause of All-encompassing Love is especially apparent in his suggestion that folks take off and give their shirts (also!) to anyone who sued them for and were being awarded their coats (for non-payment of debt, etc.), because men in his culture just wore (long) shirts, without any other ‘underwear’, beneath their (long) coats, such that they would ‘flash’ and ‘moon’ (i.e. expose their genitals and asses 😮 to) their persecutors by so doing!"

👯‍♂️We are 'on the same page', Derek (idiomatically speaking 😊)

I respect your choice(s). Your sharing accounts of considerable malaise and distress (depression, anxiety, etc.) and closing with "Well, that's it. Sorry to have taken up anyone's time. But I do find rambling on therapeutic. It helps. We live now in a very surreal world. I can barely relate to events around that actually fill the pages of our newspapers." led me to think you weren't completely 'at home' and fully comfortable/happy in your Life (yet). Hence my 'invitation' and 'offer'. ❤

Hello Derek - I just found and joined this forum a week ago and am still trying to figure out what kind of intercommunicativivity is going on here. In response to what you posted above, based on my own experience (many years ago now) dealing with and coming 'out of' a severe depression, I wonder what your 'prayers' and 'beliefs' regarding the potential efficacy of 'prayers' are. I once was a complete atheist (meaning physicalist), but having stumbled into research findings pertaining to 'psychic' (i.e. 'mind over matter') healing and therefore understanding the efficacy of 'psychic' focus and intent, hinted at in statements like: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.", I was able to generate (activate? the capacity for) my own healing and regeneration in the above regard. It has struck me that Buddhism's focus on 'suffering' (as a significant feature of Life) makes it singularly unqualified to held/deal with issues that pertain to the development/generation of (greater) 'joy' which, besides 'love', is one of the main 'pillars' of 'Christian; Life. I invite you to engage with me on this score if THE Spirit moves you to. Here is an excerpt from my treatise, titled "What Did Jesus Really Mean?", to convey the 'flavor' of what I am talking about: -------- Psychospiritual communion in a Spirit of Love and Joy is what is most relevant to actualizing the kind of Life Jesus spoke of: mental and emotional affirmation and appreciation of intimately (via mutual recognition and empathy) shared thoughts and feelings, whereby and wherein one whole-mind-n-heartedly embraces and revels in the fact that whoever or whatever one is in the presence of is a wonderfully familial being-doing aspect of The Flow of Life Itself,* any and all differences between one’s own and others’ world ly situations and/or conditions notwithstanding! Footnote*: It is because they have spousally embraced The Flow of Life Itself that Cosmically oriented and committed individuals don’t think of themselves as being ‘alone’ and no longer feel ‘i’solated, even when they aren’t with others who are especially in synch with them, the way people who haven’t yet done so naturally do. As the Apostle Paul testified: “I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from [The Love and Joy Flow of Life Itself].” (Romans 8:39); albeit, instead of the words I placed in brackets, he said “the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” because of the way in which he conceptually ‘framed’ what said [bracketed] words reference. --------- Salut, Brother!

From my treatise, titled "What Did Jesus Really Mean?", which articulates my understanding of what the words and phrases he used, like 'The Father', 'the Son', 'the kingdom of heaven', etc. actually referenced: Our Source (i.e. ‘the Father’), which creatively generates and sustains all Being, and The Entity of Creation (i.e. ‘the Son’ that Jesus mentally and emotionally completely ‘i’dentified with), which is the Totality of said Being’s Doing, are actually transpersonal features of Life, not ‘persons’ as such. ‘Heaven’ and ‘hell’ reference psychospiritual states of mind and heart, not actual spatiotemporal environments. The Flow of Creation, a/k/a Life, is such that It is ever evolving: no gestalt of Its Being-n-Doing lasts in the same ‘form’ or ‘state’ (in or out of this or any other ‘world ly’ context) forever!

Hello Skyler - it strikes me that right here, or maybe in a new thread simply titled "Questions", would be a perfect place for you raise whatever questions you have. Speaking of reconstructing your belief system, I recently came across an excellent article on 'Panpsychism' which speaks to issues implicit in Jesus's saying And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." (Matthew 10) https://www.templeton.org/news/can-the-rocks-cry-out?utm_campaign=news&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_content Enjoy!

From my book, Godspeak 2000: Everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by cus­tom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by mis­usage, I generally refer to it alter­natively, as 'Intelligence', 'Creativity', 'Life Itself' or the 'Life-Force'. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, thecore I-Am-That-I-Am, That Which Is at root within each and everyone. Full pdf (where the worldly activity of said 'God' is extensively expounded upon) is freely downloadable from: https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/godspeak2000.pdf

IMO, which opinion I submit in the form of a logical argument, a one can only organically 'know' what one actually experiences. The 'problem' built into such 'knowledge' is that, because of the 'power' of 'Mind', we experience whatever we imagine (image-in) to be 'real' and, barring awareness of contradictory 'facts' (i.e. experiences) which contradict said 'knowledge', regard it to be 'true'. We therefore have to construct theories which make sense of and synthesize our experience(s) as conscious beings, hopefully ever being 'open' to the idea of there being ever more experience-integrating syntheses possible in such regards. Here is an excerpt from my (freely downloadable from https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/godspeak2000.pdf) book titled Godspeak 2000 which shares my synthesis facts pertaining to (our) Earthly existence (as of the end of 1999): "2:6 Efforts to creatively resolve our dilemmas and diffi­culties have been confounded by distorted formulations of the truth which are cherished and maintained by those who are fearful of Life’s flux, because they provide them with a ‘sense’ of order and certainty. Many who are awed by the momentous effects of psycho­spiritual dynamics, for ex­ample, postulate and believe in the potency of petitionable movers and governors, above and beyond the range of ‘normal’ being. With conviction, they pity and proselytize people of different persuasion. Zealots even go so far as to condemn and treat as damned anyone who will not acknowl­edge and uphold what they brandish as supreme. Ostensibly rational others, on the other hand, codify the existence of invariant ‘natural’ laws and forces, and believe them and nothing else to be determining. They self-righteously regard as stupid, even treat as insane, anyone who doesn’t talk and act as if what they imagine to be paramount is con­trolling. 2:7 The trouble is, though they make much of their differences, members of both such schools of thought erroneously agree. At most they dispute among themselves whether the rules or rulers they’ve mind-enthroned are biased in relation to particular values or personages and, if so, for what purpose(s) and to what degree. In the end, they are similarly hamstrung by the common assumption they make, for all who believe in the absolute dominance of other forces then think of Life as one or another sort of script being staged and act puppet-like within it accordingly. 2:8 The potentially liberating and amendatory truth (which, for the forementioned reasons, many don’t appre­ciate) is that everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by cus­tom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by mis­usage, I generally refer to it alter­natively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am, That which is at root within each and everyone. (Though the full import of this cause of all causes may yet escape you, the following review and analysis of our catalog of scientific knowledge should at least make its fundamental character obvious.) 2:9 Even the simplest cases of what’s called gravitational attraction provide perfect illustration, if viewed without prejudice. Bodies of matter-energy must move themselves, for nothing 'really' pushes or pulls them one towards the other. And they must perceive both presence and relative location, else they could not attempt to move as they do, with an acceleration pro­portionate to the mass and proximity and in the direction of coexisting others. 2:10 Electromagnetic and nuclear interactions, where repulsion occurs as well, are additionally revealing. Ongoing scientific investigation has led us to understand the fact that sense perceptions are basically ‘gross’ acknowledgments, and that everything is fundamentally a wave-form and nothing is actually solid at core. So, besides there being no substantive means to constitutionally 'link' those bodies which form conglomerates, there is no real ‘boundary’ that so called objects bump into when they apparently bounce off one another. The only inference this permits, if one has enough courage and faith in Life not to [imaginatively] 'invent' extrinsic agency as a false postulate, is that the movements that bodies make and the stations they take [actually] result from the impulses and choices of discerning, autogenic ‘interiors’. 2:11 The direction and purpose of such inherent power and intentionality can be deduced from the cumulation and trend of results which have so far occurred. Pro­gressively, the creative essence of Being has conspired to form an array of what, because of our material orientation, we’ve called ‘sub-atomic particles’; these have interacted and engaged in such ways as to produce ‘electrons’, ‘protons’ and ‘neutrons’ which, in turn, have combined to create the various ‘atoms’ and ‘molecules’ we have become familiar with; and these, through more concerted effort, have coalesced into cellular and multi-cellular units, in stages, generating ever more complex aggregations of body,a mind and spirit—the whole hierarchy and procession we know as Life. 2:12 In ascending sequence, with prior developments integrated and built upon, ‘bodies’ have become more coordinated, ‘spirits’ more potent, ‘minds’ more perceptive, resident Intelligence more designful and adept. Even what some call ‘simple’ single-celled organisms are architectural masters capable of cognizing, culling and compiling environ­mental ingredients so as to reproduce themselves and further their particular line of development. Each succeeding level of integration further demonstrates the aim of the impetus inherent within all being—that is, to seek and establish cooperative affiliation with suitable others in order to enhance creativity and increase the degree of intelligent actualization. 2:13 Life’s evolutionary accomplishments in such pursuit are extremely varied in range and infinitely diverse; and, because of the involuted nature of their interconnectedness and interdependence, the ways in which its many forms and levels are related cannot be simply stated. Generally speak­ing, however, one might say that ‘lesser’ combina­tions of body, mind and spirit tend to be incorporated by, and serve to sustain, those more comprehensively developed.a With their more energized spirits, more mobile bodies and more dimensional minds, for example, animals prevail over vege­tation for the most part; and the more capable among them prevail over the rest. 2:14 Members of our species stand at the peak of a fantastic living pyramid, borne by the earth and sustained by energy continually streaming from the sun. Cresting a progression that has taken place over aeons and ages,a we have emerged ascendant, capable of much more than great physical dexterity and coordination. Our laughter and our tears demonstrate, in dimensions of Mind and Spirit, how far beyond its other earthly manifestations Intelligence has devel­oped in the process of becoming human. 2:15 We are in a preeminent position because our Intel­ligence is more capable. Knowing the habits and tendencies of animals, we can hunt and herd them for everything from milk and manure to skins and meat. Knowing the proclivities of plants and trees, we can sow and reap them for food, shelter and variety of drink. And, knowing the patterns and affinities of atoms and molecules, we can manipulate and reorder them to fulfill practically every structural possibility we desire. 2:16 What’s more, because we can categorize and communicate aspects of experience using sounds and word-symbols strung together in sentences and paragraphs, knowledge gained by any member of our species is poten­tially available to everyone. We can thereby transcend limitations inherent in the ‘me’ of self and the ‘here and now’ of immediate perception. And because we can logically contemplate concepts of ‘before’ and ‘after’ and system­ati­cally correlate effects with causes, projecting any imaginable ‘if’ into the latent potentials of every possible ‘then’, we can also transcend the circumstantial limits of prior experience and conditioning. In sum, because we can broadly compre­hend the significance of past patterns, current trends and future portents, we are capable of knowingly choosing the path to optimal actualization." There is much more in the book relating to the topic, of course. I hope the above excerpt stimulates readers here to delve into it.

Your presumptions are erroneous, Romansh. I am not attracted to or suggesting that we reinterpret said text so that they fit in with current understandings. There is great wisdom said texts which will continue to be underappreciated if they are only understood as traditionally interpreted. If you (bother to) read my treatise you will see that the my 'interpretations' derive from my understanding of other (non-Biblical) ancient scriptures, like those of Hinduism (The Bhagavad Gita, for example), as well as 'scientific' compilations which are not (yet) appreciatively accepted in the context of (Western) 'mainstream' materialistic and (hence) atheistic philosophy and derivative thinking. Check out Michael Newtons books Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls which present and collate reincarnational case histories garnered via hypnotic regression sessions, for example. Also the writings of Brian Weiss, M.D.m for example. I offer additional quotes from my treatise to hopefully induce you to genuinely delve into what I present therein before so presumptuously asserting (again) that the 'advances' in Western understanding of how the universe works you reference are completely definitive in relation to the spiritual/soulful matters under discussion: "[As logically argued in the preceding chapter,] The Entity of Life (which is The Flow of Creation), of which you and I and everyone else ‘in’ existence is a ‘vital’ part, is the outworking and feedback-infusing dynamic of The omnipresent, Love and Joy focused Essence of Life (which is Creativity Itself!), such that said living Essence and living Entity operationally ex‧press and (thereby) ex‧peer‧ience Love and Joy (which is the ‘nature’ of said Essence) in every possible way to the utmost possible degree together. Here now, in order to begin explicating the true meaning of Jesus’ otherwise esoterically mystical statements, let me infuse what the words ‘being’ and ‘doing’ seminally denote with what the words ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’ nominally represent: Every aspect of Life (i.e. of Being-n-Doing) is an emanation of Life’s omnipresent Essence (d/b/a Source) that, by virtue of Its Power, is endowed with (1) the capacity to be conscious to some degree, which consciousness, or presence of ‘mind ’, enables ‘it’ to ex·peer·ience whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is therefore capable of perceiving (i.e. registering) and so possibly responding to, and (2) the motive‧ation, or ‘spirit ’, to ex·press ‘itself ’ by way of causing, (generating, transmitting, propagating, etc.) whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is thereby motivated to ‘make’ in response thereto. In full zoom perspective, every nodal and multi-nodal feature of Life may be ‘seen’ to be a subsidiary soul, or gestalt of Life, which is facultatively imbued with ‘mind ’ and ‘spirit ’ by, and consequently both experiences and expresses ‘itself ’ in relationship to and with other nodes of Life ‘in’ the matrixial framework* of, a (supranodal!) Soul, which is the Mind-n-Spirit constellation (which many regard and relate to as having personal attributes, though all personal attributes actually derive from It**) of That which is All That Is. [Footnotes: * “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28) ** As channel-spoken and recorded in Ch.10 of The Bhagavad Gita: “I am the Seed of all being, … no creature moving or unmoving can live without Me.”] Orthodox materialists [blithely!] dismiss such idea as being no more than an example of wishful thinking because they believe that consciousness (i.e. ‘mind’) and motivation (i.e. intention, will, or ‘spirit’) are just epiphenomena which derive from the electro-chemical activity of molecular-chain linked ‘neural’ circuits, and that any differential discernment and directional movement must therefore simply be the result of innately unconscious and involitional matter-energy configurations (such as photons, atomic particles, molecules, DNA gene sequences and amalgams thereof) all just auto mechanistically responding to the influence of equally mindless and innately purposeless tempero-spatial (nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational) power-‘fields’. They therefore ‘see’ what we know as Life as being no more than the composite cause-effect result of everything and everyone in the Universe just ‘acting out’ essentially soul less, theoretically completely mathematically delineable scripts. Embedded in the above-articulated soul full☺ model of Life, however, is the possibility that, when and as the fantastically complex aggregation of associated beings which constitute the vehicular platform for one’s earthly experience and expression eventually disintegrates (in other words, when one’s body ‘dies’), the gestalt of one’s mind-n-spirit characterized soul-constellation may nevertheless continue to function as a disembodied psychospiritual entity which ‘lives on’ in the ‘bosom’ (idiomatically speaking☺) of the superordinate, eternally-ongoing because supraphysical (i.e. not temperospatial) Mind-n-Spirit composed Matrix of All That Is. This is the logic that gives rise to otherwise nonsensical scriptural exhortations such as “Labor not for the ‘meat’ which perisheth, but for that ‘meat’ which endureth unto everlasting life” (John 6:27), for instance. Accounts of (so-called) ‘out of body’ and ‘near death’ experiences provide evidence that, though souls generally don’t wander away from the bodies they are ‘attached’ to (i.e. ‘associated’ with) while one is in a ‘normal’ waking state, they can, and in certain circumstances indeed do, operationally range well beyond the parameters of said bodies and therefore, arguably at least, aren’t just a function of said bodies’ beingnesses. Transcripts of hypnotic regression sessions wherein subjects coherently recall and report past-life and between-life experiences (those documented in Michael Newton, Ph.D.’s books, for example) also lend credence to the metaphysical proposition that personal psychospiritual gestalts, or vital aspects thereof, ‘survive’ the ‘death’ of one’s body and continue to live on in a non-physical realm and may ‘reincarnationally’ enter into partnership-associations with ‘new’ bodies from ‘there’ in order to programmatically execute their ‘innate’ Love and Joy maximization imperative and complete their maturational journey in said regard by way of so doing. For anyone wishing to investigate and contemplate the phenomenon of reincarnation further, the reports and commentary contained in Brian Weiss, M.D.’s various books are additionally corroborative and explanatory. [Note: Unlike instrumentally measurable and mathematically describable, hence ‘reliably replicable’, phenomena stemming from what are regarded as being physical ‘laws’, there is much confusion and unresolvable speculation pertaining to psychospiritual (hence metaphysical) phenomena which are subjectively actualized happenings that can’t simply be replicated at will – ‘higher order’ mental focus and spiritual motivation are not amenable to ‘exact’ description or ‘precise’ experimental control. I must therefore leave it to readers to consider and sort out what strikes them as being relevant data and reasonable explanations pertaining to (what is called) ‘reincarnation’ with the caveat that a great deal of what has been bandied about in connection with the subject strikes me as just being ‘loose’ gossip and speculation which, to the degree it is seriously entertained, may wastefully divert attention and energy away from the goal of actualizing the best possible Love and Joy experience and expression in the ‘framework’ of one’s present physiosocial context. I only reference the above sources of information to introduce readers who may not be familiar with the subject to reports and analyses thereof which fairly convincingly support the proposition that souls (i.e. psychospiritual gestalts) can and do ‘transmigrate’ because I think Jesus’ statements referencing ‘the way’ to ‘the Father’, ‘everlasting life’, etc. must be interpreted with such and related ideas in mind for what he meant thereby to be meaningfully understood and wisely utilized.] The truth (which I just present as a hypothesis to anyone who is presently still agnostic in this regard) that one may potentially either integrally actualize the condition that Jesus referenced as ‘everlasting life’ as a coherent soul or irretrievably ‘lose’ one’s beingness and potential to do so as such as a result of what one believes and so thinks, feels and does or doesn’t think, feel and do (as suggested in statements like “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” and “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it,” for instance) may, I think, be functionally comprehended and profitably applied if and as one thoughtfully considers and contemplates the implications of the following reincarnational-possibility related propositions:" Much more follows, of course.

Hello Paul (and others here) - I think the 'books' (scriptures) that are presented in the Bible are best viewed and interpreted as historical-mindset generated artifacts. Given the obviously exceptional depth and breadth of his comprehension , I myself advocate attempting to meaningfully interpret and understand Jesus's actual (as reported by witnesses) statements, not what is said by others about him (or anyone/anything else for that matter). I find discussions here generally don't do this - which is at odds with the fact that great 'homage' is accorded him. For example, what did Jesus actually mean when he said: "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Matthew 16:25-26) What do folks here think the word 'soul' here references, I wonder? I have not heard anyone here talk about this. This is so central to Jesus's philosophy and message (IMO), I devoted most of my treatise titled "What Did Jesus Really Mean?" (available as a free download from my website) to 'splaining it. Be that as it may, I submit that the 'dominating', 'wrathful' and 'vengeful' aspects of "God's" and Jesus's character you speak about are clearly projections that emanated from the mindsets of people around Jesus in his time (as well as a great many since, of course). I hope you and others readers here find the opening paragraphs of my treatise (quoted below) to be convincing in this regard: "From his saying “This is my body” when breaking bread and “This is my blood” when pouring wine at what has since been referenced as The Last Supper with his disciples (see Matthew 26), it is clear that Jesus rationally grasped as well as mystically (that is, transpersonally) identified with the Oneness of Creation. If what he meant to communicate by way of such sayings had been truly apprehended, such utterances may indeed have been foundational in establishing an ecologically sane, holistically Life-augmentative civilization. That was not to be the case, however. Because the beliefs of most if not all of those around him at the time were hypnotically rooted in projections that God (to wit, the progenitive Source and Sustainer of Life) was a singular, supremely dictatorial ruler who had especially favored mankind by ‘giving’ them ‘dominion’ over all other earthly creatures (see Genesis 1:26-28), analogous to the way kings of old ‘granted’ lords of old the right to govern less powerful folk living in their territories (as long as said lords remained loyally subservient in relation to said kings, of course), the people around him simply did not register and so could not even begin to comprehend the implications of the fact that such sayings by Jesus actually referenced the matrixial interconnectedness and interdependency of all being. Making matters worse, as they then also construed his references to being “the Son of God” literally, instead of ‘remembering’ the factuality of above-referenced Oneness of Being as they were directed to (in Luke 22), when would-be followers subsequently gathered together for a ceremonial meal of bread and wine (which observance later became ritualized as The Sacrament of Holy Communion), they just imagined and believed the bread and wine to be miraculously transformed (literally transubstantiated!) into the flesh and blood of Jesus himself* who they idolized and proceeded to worship and pledge allegiance to as the “King of kings, and Lord of lords” (I Timothy 6:15 16) 'heir' of said ‘supreme’ God. Footnote*: Though such belief and practice is generally, presently at least, simply accepted without significant thought, question or discussion as ‘normal’, it generated quite a bit of controversy when the movement now known as ‘Christianity’ was just getting started as a result of its connoting a kind of cannibalism. Presumably, what is called ‘magical thinking’ (nowadays) led members of the movement to suppose that such ingestion would result in their physically ‘absorbing’ Jesus’ spiritual characteristics and thereby attain personal ‘communion’ with him."

Hello Elizabeth (and others here) - you may (and of course you may not) find what I present in my (88 page double-spaced text) treatise titled "What Did Jesus REALLY Mean?" path-en-light-ening. It is subtitled "A Refreshing Rearticulation of Honest to God Truth". It is aimed at 'updating' (you might say, 'upgrading') traditional Christian world-view based understandings. No charge, no registration required download link: https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/what_jesus_meant_2022.pdf About myself: I am 80 years old, born and raised in India, of a British mother and an Indian father. My degrees include a Bachelors in Physics from Williams College, a Masters in Teaching from Harvard University, and a Doctorate in Counseling Psychology from Columbia University. I has served as a science teacher, administrator, psychotherapist and spiritual mentor and counselor. My website: https://davidsundom.weebly.com