On Enlightenment

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You are wrong it's right above you... it is an explaination that the earth was created from nothing...

I take it this refers to your previous mention of Genesis? It doesn't say that earth (or heaven) were created from nothing. It claims nothing other than god created them. Without mentioning how, or from what.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cognito, Ergo Sum: Guess that depends on your definition of "spiritual enlightenment". Which, from what I see, doesn't seem to require much apart from being being able to claim such or perhaps even have a firm yet delusional belief.

vhb: Not mine, yours obviously has degrees of enlightenment as attached aphorisms (would like to see those).

CES: Self praise is no recommendation and all idols have feet of clay. Though some are without belief as you say, this is because they don't believe it themselves.

vhb: Self praise as in Demi-Gods manipulating the human? Those without belief are the Gnostics (those in knowledge pure) not needing a structure/belief system someone else matrix'ed for them.

CES: There is no "self" to begin with (in the way it is customarily believed), there is only an illusion of self. This is well known to most neuroscientists, as it was to many mystics.

You are speaking of EGO (self) and Cosmic Will. Cosmic Will is in search of an embodiment into objective form so that it can manifest a consciousness. A body must exist in order to do this. Ego is just a manifestation of the 'survival of the fittest' (BODY) aphorism. Those bodies without sophisticated ego development perish first.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cognito, Ergo Sum: Guess that depends on your definition of "spiritual enlightenment". Which, from what I see, doesn't seem to require much apart from being being able to claim such or perhaps even have a firm yet delusional belief.

vhb: Not mine, yours obviously has degrees of enlightenment as attached aphorisms (would like to see those).

CES: Self praise is no recommendation and all idols have feet of clay. Though some are without belief as you say, this is because they don't believe it themselves.

vhb: Self praise as in Demi-Gods manipulating the human? Those without belief are the Gnostics (those in knowledge pure) not needing a structure/belief system someone else matrix'ed for them.

CES: There is no "self" to begin with (in the way it is customarily believed), there is only an illusion of self. This is well known to most neuroscientists, as it was to many mystics.

You are speaking of EGO (self) and Cosmic Will. Cosmic Will is in search of an embodiment into objective form so that it can manifest a consciousness. A body must exist in order to do this. Ego is just a manifestation of the 'survival of the fittest' (BODY) aphorism. Those bodies without sophisticated ego development perish first.

Hi Vethumanbeing. I understand what you are saying and yes, like all other of nature's critters underneath it all humans are driven by certain instincts. The "ego" or "self" encompasses that little bit we can be aware of, but it all seems to arise from some other part of the psyche first. So I think you are giving the "ego" far too much credit even for this. There is no magical part of the brain where a "self" can be found seperate to the rest. It is an illusion that arises from the same process.

If there is a cosmic will, then it is all cosmic will.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
This is true and do I ever have much information regarding Cosmic Will. Ego and Personality development are separate from each other.

originally posted by: Belcastro

"Nothing ... is something."

I read until about half of page 3 of the comments in the hopes of finding ANYONE, just anyone, saying something about what you said or quoted there...
Then I gave up, left with the sad impression that either no one cares or they actually agree with that contradiction, a silent agreement.

1 Timothy 6:20,21:

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.
May the undeserved kindness be with you.

Quite a show indeed, while quoting bible verses here and there in support of your own stories about reality, God and the bible. Others happily going along and adding some of their own views to the mix. Possibly giving some atheists the idea they actually have some logic and reason on their side when their gurus propose the same contradictions:



Note Danny Kaye's usage of 2 Timothy 4:3 in the playlist below:

Yakov's Golden Elixer - The Inspector General

2 Timothy 4:3,4 (NW):

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

1st * = Or “healthful; beneficial.”
2nd * = Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

At some point every "enlightened one" is a believer. In every system, no matter how much it is supposedly based on experience, there will be a point at which a "leap of faith" is required to go further....at which point "abandon all hope, ye who enter here", and delusion follows.

Not in every system. Buddhism is less believing, more so forgetting, to help us explore nature with a cleaner slate. The Buddha warned not to take anything for granted, even if it came from his mouth, for we all have to determine the truth for ourselves.

The term enlightenment is clearly specified in some Indian religions . People might be "more enlightened" without achieving "full enlightenment" which means they are still haven't attained absolute truth. So if an self professed enlightened person starts preaching their BS, I'd raise my shields, vetting everything with the logic available to me.

Personally death seems more peaceful than the spiritual world I currently perceive but who knows whats at the end of the rainbow.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A man said to the Buddha, “I want Happiness.” Buddha said, first remove “I”, that’s ego, then remove “want”, that’s desire. See now you are left with only Happiness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Not in every system. Buddhism is less believing

Reincarnation, wheel of samsara, a mind body duality and so on. Buddhism is as steeped in belief as any other religion.

The Buddha warned not to take anything for granted, even if it came from his mouth, for we all have to determine the truth for ourselves.

Yes, of course. Take nothing for granted, find out for yourselves. Though if you happen to find contrary to the teachings, then you are wrong and Buddha is right lol.

The term enlightenment is clearly specified in some Indian religions .

Lets hear it.

People might be "more enlightened" without achieving "full enlightenment" which means they are still haven't attained absolute truth.

No belief in that claim at all...?

If someone claims to have a form of "consciousness" that allows them to be "enlightened" relative to those who don't have it, and especially if they proclaim to understand the mysteries of existence itself, then perhaps they need to do a little more than make airy fairy claims (which anyone can do) before being accepted. Experience shows a likelihood, with a frequency of around 100%, that they will be charlatans. Either knowingly, or because they are delusional. That includes Buddha himself (if he really existed).

So if an self professed enlightened person starts preaching their BS, I'd raise my shields, vetting everything with the logic available to me.

Absolutely.

A man said to the Buddha, “I want Happiness.” Buddha said, first remove “I”, that’s ego, then remove “want”, that’s desire. See now you are left with only Happiness.

Really that's about as profound as telling people not to "sin". It's the millenniums old pop psychology of its day.

Sooner or later we will all have to give in to those chemical and electrical processes that will cause within us a desire for drink and food. In fact, we might become very attached and quite partial to this notion, of eating and drinking. Ah desires...never reach enlightenment that way.

The Dalai Lama needs to reign in his ego and curb his desires regarding Tibet, obviously never be enlightened that way. He should know better. You'd think with so many incarnations as the same person, he'd realise that.

So the great doctors, humanitarians, philanthropists would be full of ego obviously, simply a desire of the "I" to help based on attachment to humanity. Should simply give up such desires and attachments and become enlightened instead.

Then again without that initial desire for "enlightenment" people wouldn't care enough to ever consider it. So it seems to be off on the wrong foot to begin with...So perhaps we all just need to be emotionless and uncaring automatons to be enlightened?

What about the most basic desire there is? Without that, our species would be extinct. These ancient systems are based on the (very likely) mistaken notion of consciousness/soul/whatever as something separate. A discreet unit in itself, basically "magic". Understandable for 2,500 years ago, as they were ignorant of science and of all of the underlying processes (and the effects billions of years of evolution might have had), less understandable now though.

The "I" is an illusion, a result of the neural processes, yet in a strange way Buddhism creates further illusion. It is not possible to exist without want/desire.

The "enlightened ones" who believe their mind doesn't rely on the physical (the mind is a result of the processes of the brain), but also divide their psyche up into different and competing aspects, seem to end up the fruitiest of the lot. So obviously delusional and the very antithesis of what the term "enlightened" might imply that it is laughable. Yet people revere them (well, many do at least).

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

heh well sorry to intrude between you two, but I will say in a reply what in your post is not a "full picture" in my opinion. But you are not wrong and I am not right, it is not about that! I don't want to argue or anything like that, but just explaining and sharing a bit of my prospective. If not now, maybe it will shed a bit of light to someone reading in the future.

Buddhism and all others pure non duality teachings (Zen, Bon, Esoteric hinduism - advaita vedanta, tao, etc) are in vain as long as they are talked or conceptualized about. So, yes, even reincarnation, duality of mind and body and all other stuff can be a blind belief, but as long as it stays that a person's mind is still very attached.

Complete non attachment is a requirement, so desires and all beliefs should fall off in a devoted practitioner after correct understanding of "emptiness" and a lot of practice and in order to gain samadhi and other conscious states and explore and learn during meditation or non-meditation. Because true meditation is non meditation.

Who is meditating?
what is really "happening" during "meditation", who is the observer?

rhetorical questions....

So in my opinion, we have a lot of old masters who had achieved that in many different ways, religions and times. And such people never teach that something is wrong or something is right in my experience, from what I understand about them, they are above that and are not even in "the game" of right and wrong...

So what should we do?

I think that real absolute non dual truth is like an ocean and we each are a river ("I") and the desires are steering it and until that is not resolved and clearly understood true emptiness will not be recognized in meditation and very little progress can be made during effortless natural non-meditation.

Merging the object, subject and experience into one thing is a bit what is it about, from duality to non duality in my opinion. This is one step we need to figure it out somehow and practice in correct way.

And how we go about it is up to us. But what all such people claim we need to do is clear and written in many esoteric teachings. And in my opinion we need to find what suits us and develop.

Practice makes perfect.
Books and words are only pointers to the truth, just like gurus. Beliefs are only confusion to the truth and have nothing to do with it.

The truth is "in" "you" and "outside" "you", the truth is everywhere exactly the same - non duality.

This is an experience all highly self-realized masters discovered and shared through many different religions and times. And for me it is hardly a coincidence. I think there are no such things. : )

So sorry, but I disagree, true old buddhism is nothing about beliefs and so goes for all other similar non dual teachings in my opinion.
There are many different pure esoteric teachings in different religions and are only about learning what is "emptiness" (dharmakaya in buddhism) and understanding it by "own experience", not beliefs or books or listening to guru - this is ALL in vain, just pointers to the truth that is everywhere and all the time.

For instance I think Milarepa (tibetan buddhism - mahamudra -> for me one of the best teachings or tradition that stayed pure even today) said something like this: in the beginning everything comes, in the middle everything goes and at the end everything stays

Everything written is just an opinion. Take from it what you want.

: )

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: 5StarOracleThe Soul is our consciousness. It must be restored in white robes.

The Spirit (which must be born again in Christ) is what connects us with God via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The Body is the flesh. It must be resurrected after death.

This is my understanding of it too.

IF you are new age orientated you could call the Spirit the higher self, your soul is the ego. The body I think, doesn't need elaboration.

I am still trying to understand what is meant by saying the body must be resurrected. Is this a nod to reincarnation? Can I take it literally and demand I must be placed in the coffin when I die and placed in an upright position.?

MY take upon enlightenment is someone who is aware and can feel the Spirit within themselves. Most of start out enlightened upon birth. The innocence of youth, our ability to experience existing in the here and now. As we become older the Maya becomes stronger and our perception of reality changes enough that our Spirit diminishes and our ego takes over.

All it takes usually to get your Spirit going is enough trauma. If you stare long enough into your own mortality you'll find the idea of death being it, no God, no afterlife, no resurrection an uncomfortable reality as you become aware of Spirit. You see, trauma causes our ego to recede. Give enough trauma and the thing left glowing very dimly is your Spirit. This is our connection to the divine or God.

We all have this, animals too. There is a link between your aura and how strong your Spirit is. If your Spirit is grown, this is what is called becoming close to God. An analogy that explains this is the game Osmosis. You begin as a small life form and grow by absorbing others to become bigger. There is usually a thing called the attractor that you and the other lifeforms are revolving around and as you become bigger the more the pull of the attractor influences you. Its the same with us.

The larger your Spirit, which will grow when you receive love and give it, when you engage in helping others, when contemplate deeply and when you meditate, the more you will experience Gods grace or synchronicity. This is why we are told to ask God with a humble heart and from a place of love. How many times I wonder, people ask with a Spirit that resembles a lighter that is out of gas? They blame their unanswered calls on a silent universe and reject God, which in turn diminishes their already feeble Spirit. It becomes a vicious circle.

Enlightenment is a natural state and anyone can get it, religion isn't needed. The line above about who is observing when we meditate hits the nail on the head.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The "I" is an illusion, a result of the neural processes, yet in a strange way Buddhism creates further illusion. It is not possible to exist without want/desire.

Buddhism teaches that our endless wants and desires is the source of all suffering. Achieving today's wants and desires from your presumed "I", doesn't bring happiness but a lessened state of suffering until we crave even more wants and desires tomorrow. For example nicotine disrupts the normal relationship between the neurotransmitter acetylcholine and the receptors acetylcholine binds too. If we stop feeding nicotine to the addicted brain, is it is the "I" that wants nicotine or a small part of the brain that we presume is the "I", that is sending signals demanding nicotine to stop the suffering. Does appeasing todays nicotine demand lessen suffering when we stop using nicotine the following day.

Likewise if a tv commercial has successfully reprogrammed part of your brain to fire certain neurons from predefined stimuli, is that your "I" that wants a new Iphone. Meditation is about focusing the mind, ridding it of all the unnecessary burdens forced on it from the senses. Lessening the interference from an endless barrage of useless thought. So we can realize our true essence, our true inspiration.

The "enlightened ones" who believe their mind doesn't rely on the physical (the mind is a result of the processes of the brain), but also divide their psyche up into different and competing aspects, seem to end up the fruitiest of the lot. So obviously delusional and the very antithesis of what the term "enlightened" might imply that it is laughable. Yet people revere them (well, many do at least).

Even though there are many different schools of thought concerning dualism even in Buddhism, the middle way of Buddhism teaches that we should embrace both spiritualism and materialism. That our nature is not divided into two opposing aspects. dualism itself is the mirage.

Lets hear it.

No, because enlightenment itself cannot be attained from ego. Suffice to say, I'd be surprised if any enlightened souls are walking our earth today.

Anyone can achieve it, but you have to first want to achieve it. That means coming to the conclusion that you possibly may have been wrong about your religion, actions, thoughts your whole life. Admitting you have been wrong, that you may have been raised wrong, it could be hurtful.

I just knew that I needed a change, so I moved to a different city. I questioned (and still do) everything. My first steps that I climbed were to listen to Eckhart Tolle cd's, then I read some of his books. I decided I was going to try and live in the moment, then everything fell into place.

Have I reached enlightenment? I have no idea, however, I know I am a much happier person that what I used to be. My whole outlook on life is much better and I am always walking around being happy, sort of cheesy I know but its true.

I hope you guys don't mind my jumping in here, I just qant to quickly respond to the question of 'What is enlightenment'?

Well that's not a very question to answer, because you always end up having to use concepts. But enlightenment is not a concept, even though it can be discussed as such, but discussing it or understanding what it is will never replace what it actually is.

OK here's the simple answer: Enlightenment is being what one is.

To specify it a bit more: It is being what you are before you can think of any concept. As soon as you think of a concept, it's no longer the real thing, but it's reduced to a concept.

Our human mind can only think in abstractions and concepts. Therefore it can never 'grasp' that which you actually are. You can't get there through thought, since it is before thought. It is that in which thoughts happen (you could call it consciousness, at the risk of ending up in more concepts).

There's this well known example of the ocean: if we are the ocean, then everything that happens in it can be likened to waves. The waves are what we experience: the world, thoughts, sensations, etc. But these are just the surface of the ocean. They come and go, while the ocean remains unaffected by them.

So enlightenment can then be said to be the realisation that you're not just the waves, but the ocean.

You're already IT. The only thing that keeps you from seeing that is your attempts to become it.

The mind can only know things in relation to other things. You know what hot is in relation to cold, you know what up is in relation to down, wood in relation to metal, plus in relation to minus, etc. But that which you are isn't distinguishable as such.

It's not something that can only be reached by rare individual who meditate their entire lifes. In fact, that which we are is so close and so obvious that we overlook it all the time, thinking that that can't be it.

It's just what you are here and now. Don't try to think about it. It's that which sees everything, the external world as well as the internal (in that sense it's all-knowing). It's that in which all of this appears.

I've heard people talk about this for many years, listened and read nonduality teachers, and again and again they said the same. Until recently it never really clicked for me: I accepted it as a concept, but the 'shift' never happened.

A few weeks ago however, it spontaneously hit me: My mind has been trying to get me there, but it's utterly pointless. It's like a lion who thinks he's a sheep, and then upon being told he's a lion tries to become a lion. It was incredibly funny to me, since it hit me how futile those attempts of my mind were to become what I already was! I just never saw it before.

So this for me was a glimpse of what this is all about. Forget about all the spiritual and religious mumbo jumbo; it just stands in the way. No quote from the bible or any other book is going to get you there. Beliefs are useless. You don't have to discard them or try to get rid of them, but just leave them where they are and see what you are without interpreting it for say 1 second. That'll do it for you. Once you've 'seen' it, there's no unseeing it.

Here's a nice video of Paul Hedderman trying to explain all of this a bit more. I love his no-nonsense style.



Enjoy!

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Buddhism teaches that our endless wants and desires is the source of all suffering.

Whether true or not (I have doubts), it is not possible to be free of wants and desires. It isn't even preferable in many instances.

For example nicotine disrupts the normal relationship between the neurotransmitter acetylcholine and the receptors acetylcholine binds too. If we stop feeding nicotine to the addicted brain, is it is the "I" that wants nicotine or a small part of the brain that we presume is the "I", that is sending signals demanding nicotine to stop the suffering. Does appeasing todays nicotine demand lessen suffering when we stop using nicotine the following day.

So you are saying there is a different "I" (somewhere inside the brain) to the "I" that would like to quit the habit? You have illustrated very well the notion of competing aspects of the psyche, if so. This is not necessarily healthy.

Even though there are many different schools of thought concerning dualism even in Buddhism, the middle way of Buddhism teaches that we should embrace both spiritualism and materialism. That our nature is not divided into two opposing aspects. dualism itself is the mirage.

This assumes we have a "spiritual" nature in the way this system ultimately claims. That's a big assumption. Though a balanced lifestyle is not so much wisdom, it's simply common sense.

No, because enlightenment itself cannot be attained from ego. Suffice to say, I'd be surprised if any enlightened souls are walking our earth today.

So it these religions explain quite clearly what "enlightenment" is, you just don't want to say? What ego? What is the ego, how does it differ from something that isn't ego, how do you know this?

originally posted by: payt69
OK here's the simple answer: Enlightenment is being what one is.

To specify it a bit more: It is being what you are before you can think of any concept. As soon as you think of a concept, it's no longer the real thing, but it's reduced to a concept.

An insect is being an insect. Is it enlightened? Or does that only apply to people?

How do you know this?

Our human mind can only think in abstractions and concepts. Therefore it can never 'grasp' that which you actually are. You can't get there through thought, since it is before thought. It is that in which thoughts happen (you could call it consciousness, at the risk of ending up in more concepts).

Yet thoughts don't happen in consciousness, neither do decisions, it seems. Remember when you put your hand on the hot stove (as an example), then removed it so quickly that the whole thing was over before "consciousness" could grasp what was going on? Thoughts arrive in the little bit of awareness we call consciousness, they aren't made there.

Are you aware of the neuroscience in this area? It shows that simple conscious decisions involving movement aren't really conscious at all. They are made long before "we" think we have made the decision. They can even predict with reasonable accuracy, many seconds before the person thinks they make the decision, sometimes many seconds before. It has been freaking some of the neuroscientists themselves out, because of the implications.

There's this well known example of the ocean: if we are the ocean, then everything that happens in it can be likened to waves. The waves are what we experience: the world, thoughts, sensations, etc. But these are just the surface of the ocean. They come and go, while the ocean remains unaffected by them.

That seems very untrue. The part we are not aware of (the ocean) can be very affected, it's just that we are not aware of it (obviously). It can cause more than a few waves on the surface, itself.

So enlightenment can then be said to be the realisation that you're not just the waves, but the ocean.

I already realise that. Yet I'm not enlightened.

You're already IT. The only thing that keeps you from seeing that is your attempts to become it.

I'm not attempting to become anything. I'm still not enlightened.

The mind can only know things in relation to other things. You know what hot is in relation to cold, you know what up is in relation to down, wood in relation to metal, plus in relation to minus, etc. But that which you are isn't distinguishable as such.

Nirvana, Samadhi, the One, the Light, the Stillness? Wonderful experience. I really mean that. Utterly beautiful in a way it isn't possible to explain. I find it unusual that so many who teach it, obviously seem to have little experience with it. I'm still not enlightened.

It's not something that can only be reached by rare individual who meditate their entire lifes. In fact, that which we are is so close and so obvious that we overlook it all the time, thinking that that can't be it.

It's just what you are here and now. Don't try to think about it. It's that which sees everything, the external world as well as the internal (in that sense it's all-knowing). It's that in which all of this appears.

That is rather vague and not very practical. If you are saying it is just a form of clarity, fair enough. Now for the practical part. The how part. You seem to be saying...just be "enlightened", go on!

I've heard people talk about this for many years, listened and read nonduality teachers, and again and again they said the same. Until recently it never really clicked for me: I accepted it as a concept, but the 'shift' never happened.

A few weeks ago however, it spontaneously hit me: My mind has been trying to get me there, but it's utterly pointless. It's like a lion who thinks he's a sheep, and then upon being told he's a lion tries to become a lion. It was incredibly funny to me, since it hit me how futile those attempts of my mind were to become what I already was! I just never saw it before.

Are you now "enlightened" ? Fascinating, I hope you don't mind a few questions if so. If not, has it occurred to you that these teachers might not be either?

So this for me was a glimpse of what this is all about. Forget about all the spiritual and religious mumbo jumbo; it just stands in the way. No quote from the bible or any other book is going to get you there. Beliefs are useless. You don't have to discard them or try to get rid of them, but just leave them where they are and see what you are without interpreting it for say 1 second. That'll do it for you. Once you've 'seen' it, there's no unseeing it.

Exactly how many times I have heard similar, I probably couldn't count. Yet of those excited believers I can count how many ended up enlighted. Exactly the same number out of those who claimed to be enlightened. 0.

a reply to: Belcastro

Basically, in the beginning there was nothing, out of this nothing came everything. in other words, in the beginning was the void, (The opening of genesis describes the world as void.) And within this void, was the spirit of God. God and the Void are One. In other words, In the Beginning was the void, and the void was with god, and the void was god.

You started out on the right track and then you got derailed. God the Father did not create this universe according to the Apostle John. The begotten "Word" created this universe and the Spirit God made alive that which the "Word" created. Go back to John 1:1-5 and re read what John explained. The "Word" was begotten from God and given life within Himself. This was done far in advance of this terrestrial creation. The "Word" is an entity from the substance of the Father in the celestial realm. The image being the Word of God or visibility of God and the likeness being God Himself.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Now before the beginning of this universe there was the first creation of the celestial order. This could have been quad trillions of our so called years. We have no idea. And we have no idea of how long the substance of this terrestrial universe existed before it became formed into this universe. It may have been piled up unformed for eons. We simply do not know.

Now in the days of Moses there was no knowledge of a Begotten Son of God called the Word. This is only revealed in the days of Jesus. So naturally the people of Moses' only understood EL as being the supreme God of all gods and had no idea of a celestial Son of EL. EL was one and only one and there were no other gods besides EL. Then Jesus came upon the scene and brought a brand new doctrine of His being the Begotten Christ of El and that He had a new celestial kingdom to offer anyone who would care to accept this new offer.

But out of all of this, the Apostle John tells us that this celestial Word shed His celestial garment and became flesh. Not that He shed his Spirit of life within Himself but only the outer spiritual garment. He became known as the Greek Jesus or the Hebrew Yahusha among many other names. As He returned to His formal substance He is now once again known as the Word of God. This is the Christianity that James taught the first Christians.

This thread has been some good reading, thanks OP.

I don't think God would need to time travel as he is the master of the universe, he is our creator thus he is within all of us at any given time, no need to travel if you are already there.

a reply to: Barzini

this is called being born twice and you need to take theekshai in order to be born twice