Jesus is not coming back soon.

[Dontaskme]

There is nothing here to come back to.

There is only here. Everywhere else is here too. There's no outside or inside of here. Here is just everywhere at once.

Nothing can leave and return to what nothing has ever entered.

Here is/was all a dream.

[Impenitent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN69GC2amTg

-Imp

[Walker]

It took Thomas Wolfe a whole book to explain why You Can’t Go Home Again.

“Again” adds a dimension to this thread title.
“Jesus is not coming back soon, again.”

Pausing to see if that lights up a new road or an old road, again.*

Mysterio says ... get in.
Impressive framing in the first scene, but the highway system obviously has a drainage problem.

*The Kraken must be asleep, for now.

[dattaswami]

There is nothing here to come back to.

There is only here. Everywhere else is here too. There's no outside or inside of here. Here is just everywhere at once.

Nothing can leave and return to what nothing has ever entered.

Here is/was all a dream.

‘Jesus’ comes back means God comes to this world in human form in every human generation to preach and uplift the human souls here through His excellent divine knowledge.


The names like Rama, Krishna, Jesus etc., belong to the external human body, which has taken birth. Such names are generated only after the birth of these human bodies. Therefore, such names are certainly the names of the external human bodies only, which are like the shirts. When the human bodies perish, these names also must perish. But these names exist as eternal names even after the disappearance of these human bodies due to death. The reason is that these names were directed towards the inner Lord even during the time of existence these human bodies.

A person is carrying vegetables for selling. You call him by the name “ Vegetables”. The person is not vegetable and the vegetables are not the person also. But the possessor of the vegetables is called by the name of the possessed material. Similarly, when the name “ Krishna or Jesus” was called, this name was directed towards the internal Lord also. Therefore, even if the human body perished, since the Lord is eternal, Krishna or Jesus is also eternal. When Krishna said that He will come again and again, whenever necessary ( Yada Yada hi….Gita), it means the eternal Lord present in the human body will come again and again through different human forms. Similarly, when it is told that Jesus will come again, it means the Lord present in that human body will come again. Here the names Krishna and Jesus indicate the Lord and not the human body.

When some body says that He will come again after 20 years, it does not mean that he will come in the same shirt. Even in the case of the ordinary human beings the name indicates the inner eternal soul also. When people say that Subba Rao died, it means that the name indicates the external human body. People say that Subba Rao’s last journey is today. It means that the name indicates only the external body, which is going to be cremated in the burial ground on that day. In these sayings the name indicates the external human body. But after one-year people say that today is the yearly ceremony of Subba Rao. When you have stated that Subba Rao finished his last journey one year back, how can you bring Subba Rao again after one year? Here the name indicates the inner soul. Therefore, even in the worldly terminology the name indicates both the external body and inner soul according to the context.

Therefore, when you say that Jesus was crucified and killed, the name indicates the external human body. When you say that Jesus will come again on final day of destruction of this world, the name indicates the inner Lord. Thus, the same name indicates the external or internal item according to the context. When you say that Krishna danced in Brundavanam, the name indicates the external human body. When you say that Krishna will come again and again whenever necessary, the name indicates the inner Lord. If you realise this discrimination, you have no quarrel with any religion. When you say that Jesus or Krishna will come again, it means that the inner Lord is going to come in different human bodies again. When you are drawing the picture of Jesus or Krishna, the picture represents the external human body only and not the inner Lord.

You can never draw the picture of the inner Lord because He is beyond the realm of imagination. You cannot say about the existence of two unimaginable Lords. When the Lord is unimaginable, He can be only one. If you say that there are two entities, it means that both the entities are imaginable. Therefore, you have to accept that there is only one unimaginable Lord or God. The external human bodies are different and cannot be one. When I say that Krishna is Jesus, it means that the Lord in the body of Krishna and in the body of Jesus is one and the same. It does not mean that the two different bodies are one and the same.

[Dontaskme]

Therefore, even if the human body perished, since the Lord is eternal, Krishna or Jesus is also eternal. When Krishna said that He will come again and again, whenever necessary ( Yada Yada hi….Gita), it means the eternal Lord present in the human body will come again and again through different human forms. Similarly, when it is told that Jesus will come again, it means the Lord present in that human body will come again. Here the names Krishna and Jesus indicate the Lord and not the human body.

This is typical of human story telling as and through the 'thought sphere' which has no actual location in nature except as illusory concept, which is extraneous to the physical brain.

'Telling' is a fictional story. It's claim without a claimer. It's a writer without an author. It's a thought without a thinker.

Life or Nature is one single solitary unitary movement. Babies and animals cannot separate themselves from whatever is happening there inside and outside of itself. But there is no inside and outside at all. What creates the division between the inside and the outside is the movement of thought.

Thought is a self-protecting mechanism, artificially born out of the movement of thought itself; in other words, self-consciousness is an illusory imposition, because in all actuality, nothing is ever born, and nothing ever dies. What has created the space between creation and destruction, or the time between the two, is 'thought'.

In nature there is no death or destruction at all. What occurs is the reshuffling of atoms. If there is a need or necessity to maintain equilibrium and the balance of energy in this universe, death occurs.

Nature's way of creating something new is to destroy the old. Nature is a killing machine. The destructive force of nature, and the humanitarian movement are born from the same source. So for the body (nature) there is no birth or death, because nature has no way of experiencing that it is alive or that it will be dead tomorrow.

The body of nature is already at extraordinary peace.
The 'thought' that you are different from ( a tree) is a superimposed artificial sense of feeling separation, caused by 'thought'.
That feeling doesn't exist in animals and babies at all. In nature, nothing changes. It's perfectly at peace in every moment. The demand for change springs from this human artificially created self-consciousness, an illusory separation from the singleness of the whole unitary movement of nature.

Nature's interest is only to create perfect species. It does not use any model...certainly, none born of 'thought' conceptually known as (Lord or God or Krishna or Jesus ) except in this artificial conception, a realm belonging to the illusory dream state of duality...where there is NONE.

Every species is unique. That which does not fit into the scheme of things, nature discards it and starts all over again.

[dattaswami]

Therefore, even if the human body perished, since the Lord is eternal, Krishna or Jesus is also eternal. When Krishna said that He will come again and again, whenever necessary ( Yada Yada hi….Gita), it means the eternal Lord present in the human body will come again and again through different human forms. Similarly, when it is told that Jesus will come again, it means the Lord present in that human body will come again. Here the names Krishna and Jesus indicate the Lord and not the human body.

This is typical of human story telling as and through the 'thought sphere' which has no actual location in nature except as illusory concept, which is extraneous to the physical brain.

'Telling' is a fictional story. It's claim without a claimer. It's a writer without an author. It's a thought without a thinker.

Life or Nature is one single solitary unitary movement. Babies and animals cannot separate themselves from whatever is happening there inside and outside of itself. But there is no inside and outside at all. What creates the division between the inside and the outside is the movement of thought.

Thought is a self-protecting mechanism, artificially born out of the movement of thought itself; in other words, self-consciousness is an illusory imposition, because in all actuality, nothing is ever born, and nothing ever dies. What has created the space between creation and destruction, or the time between the two, is 'thought'.

In nature there is no death or destruction at all. What occurs is the reshuffling of atoms. If there is a need or necessity to maintain equilibrium and the balance of energy in this universe, death occurs.

Nature's way of creating something new is to destroy the old. Nature is a killing machine. The destructive force of nature, and the humanitarian movement are born from the same source. So for the body (nature) there is no birth or death, because nature has no way of experiencing that it is alive or that it will be dead tomorrow.

The body of nature is already at extraordinary peace.
The 'thought' that you are different from ( a tree) is a superimposed artificial sense of feeling separation, caused by 'thought'.
That feeling doesn't exist in animals and babies at all. In nature, nothing changes. It's perfectly at peace in every moment. The demand for change springs from this human artificially created self-consciousness, an illusory separation from the singleness of the whole unitary movement of nature.

Nature's interest is only to create perfect species. It does not use any model...certainly, none born of 'thought' conceptually known as (Lord or God or Krishna or Jesus ) except in this artificial conception, a realm belonging to the illusory dream state of duality...where there is NONE.

Every species is unique. That which does not fit into the scheme of things, nature discards it and starts all over again.

Buddha kept silent about God indicating that God is unimaginable. This means that the existence of God is accepted but the imaginable possibility is not accepted. But, the followers of Buddha took that the existence of God is also not accepted. The reason is that anything exists if it is imaginable only. That which is unimaginable does not exist. This is the norm of the psychology of general public. Buddha also propagated that the creation does not exist with respect to God. Therefore, the followers of Buddha have taken that neither God nor the creation exists. This resulted in Shunyavada, which means that nothing exists.

This is the result of misunderstanding of Buddha and the result is misinterpretation. When Shankara came, this was the situation and every one became an atheist of extreme nature. Generally, atheist negates the existence of God but not the existence of the creation. The followers of Buddha are extreme because not only God but also the creation is negated. The followers of Shankara accept the existence of God but negate the existence of creation. The atheists are vice-versa, who accept the existence of creation but negate the existence of God. The followers of Buddha negate the existence of both God and creation. The followers of Ramanuja and Madhva accept the existence of both God and creation. Thus, there are four categories:

1. The followers of Buddha negate both God and creation
2. The atheists negate God but accept creation
3. The followers of Shankara accept God but negate creation
4. The followers of Ramanuja and Madhva accept both God and creation

Neither Buddha nor Shankara nor Ramanuja and Madhva misunderstood truth. But, their followers and atheists have misunderstood truth and misinterpreted truth. The truth is that God exists but is unimaginable. The creation does not exist with respect to God but exists with respect to the souls. The soul can not negate the existence of the world because it is a part and parcel of the world. If the soul negates the world it negates itself, which is meaningless. Therefore, you cannot give a single statement about the existence of the world. You cannot demand us to say whether the world exists or does not exist. A single angle is impossible in the case of creation. You cannot conclude about the existence or non-existence of the world. Such a situation is represented by Mithya, which means neither it is existent nor non-existent. It is a special case. This is the concept of Shankara about the world (Sadasat Vilakshana). This is the concept of Buddha, Ramanuja and Madhva also because all these four are incarnations of the same God.

The total concept is known to all the four incarnations. But according to the then existing situation, a convenient part of the concept is stressed. This does not mean that the other part of the concept is negated. The silence about the other part of the concept is due to the requirement of the then existing situation. If the total concept is stressed, people may not digest. Therefore, based on the relevant requirement, the relevant part is only stressed. This mechanism is called as psychology, which must be followed by the teacher. This serves the purpose and the first generation of the followers were always rectified. But, the other generations of the followers of the same school always misunderstand due to the absence of the original preacher of the school. To clarify the misunderstanding, God appears again and again. This process is continuous and God also gets the opportunity of continuous engagement.

When Shankara came, the Buddhists negated both God and world. The immediate requirement was to establish the existence of God. The reason is that there is no dual possibility regarding the existence of God. God always exists. But, the world has the dual possibility. In one sense, with respect to God, world does not exist and the same world exists with respect to soul in other sense. Therefore, even if the existence of world is denied, it is correct with respect to God. But, the existence of God should not be negated in any sense. Therefore, Shankara accepted the non existence of the world and in such case it must be with respect to God. Shankara never touched the angle of souls here. If the world is unreal, there must be somebody to realize the absence of this world. That somebody must be God only because the world is unreal for God only. Therefore, the awareness of God only is referred by Shankara and not the awareness of the soul in this context.