"It was still there..."

"He'd see Patsy, and put Georgie Bumble and the day as it had thus far been behind him. But you couldn't, he reflected, could you? No one could put anything behind them, draw a line beneath it and pretend that it had gone away. No deed, no word, no thought. It was still there back down the way, still there forever."
-Alan Moore, Jerusalem (London, 2016), p. 109.

In zazen, "just sitting" meditation, we:

accept that it is all still there although not all of it will return to memory every time;

practice sitting with it - not suppressing, prolonging, judging or thinking about it but just letting it arise and pass through the mind like clouds through the sky.

Not God, Zen.

Preliminary Thoughts On "Eternalism"

Every moment is:

the present moment to any conscious being that is alive and awake at that moment;
real because neither imaginary nor fictional;
either earlier or later than any other moment;
thus, past from some perspectives and future from others;
not simultaneous with any other moment.

Simultaneous events occur at the same time whereas different times are not the same time and therefore are not simultaneous.

See also Space and Time.

I am starting to read Jerusalem by Alan Moore. Its central idea is Eternalism so I expect to comment more.

Doctrinal Disagreements About What Exists

Hindus say, "Soul exists," Buddhists say, "Soul does not exist," and physicists try to find out what exists.

Reality transcends words and concepts.

"Soul" means spirit, an immaterial substance that is the perennial subject of consciousness.

Philosophically, "matter" means just whatever exists independently of consciousness.

Idealist philosophies deny matter in that sense.

"Matter" also means tangible mass as opposed to any other form of energy.

The most fundamental ontological category in Buddhist teaching is "emptiness," a perennial process, not a substance.

Every individual subject or object of consciousness is "empty" because it is a transient interaction, lacking any permanent underlying substance.

The category, "substance," might be denied to particular entities but affirmed of the totality? Interactions might be between substantial particles or other fundamental entities?

However, physicists envisage a vacuum full of energy. See here.

"Energy" implies dynamic potential whereas "substance" implies mere passive existence and inertia.

However, both energy and inertia, or change and resistance to change, are necessary for existence. See here.

Some energy condenses into mass, thus into "substance."

Energy preexisted mass, is invisible and omnipresent and becomes self-conscious through conscious organisms.

Therefore, energy has some of the features anciently attributed to soul or spirit.

Atman And Anatta

If each subject of consciousness is one with the transcendent, then none is a separate self. Therefore, Atman-Brahman entails its apparent opposite, anatta.

The Upanishadic rishis and the Buddha inherited the concept of Atman.
The rishis affirmed Atman whereas the Buddha negated it.
However, the rishis' affirmation of the oneness of Atman negates its separateness and thus agrees with the Buddha.

Thesis: Atman.
Antithesis: anatta.
Synthesis: Brahman-Atman.

Meanings Of A Word

The word "god" was a common noun before it became a name. I discern four main uses of the word:

a god/the gods
God (Semitic)
God (Indian, theistic)
God (Indian, monistic)

These are not unitary meanings. The Semitic tradition includes:

rabbis
Catholic priests
Muslim imams
Rapture preachers!

Since I believe neither that the gods exist nor that ultimate reality is a person, the monistic meaning is the only one that I can agree with philosophically. Isa Upanishad:

"Behold the universe in the glory of God: and all that lives and moves on earth." -

- is interpreted both theistically and monistically. See here.

Responses To The Problem Of Evil

Buddhist: Individually, we can address psychological causes of suffering.

Marxist: Collectively, we can address economic causes of social conflicts.

Christian: Transcendentally, God is addressing the problem.

Assessment: I find the Buddhist and Marxist responses complementary and the Christian response implausible.

Stages In The Development Of Christian Theology

(i) Jesus as Messiah is in direct male line of descent from Abraham.

(ii) Jesus is not in direct male line of descent from Abraham but is the Son of God because the divine Spirit impregnated his mother.

(iii) Jesus is the Son of God not because of a miraculous conception but because he is the incarnation of a pre-existent divine agent, "...the first-born of all creation..." (Col. 1. 15)

(iv) Jesus is not the Son of God but God the Son because the one God is three Persons, Father, Son and Spirit, and Jesus is the incarnation of the Son, thus of God.

(v) Jesus is not an incarnation but a mere appearance.

Comment: Let's return to Jesus as just a man.

His Last Words?
"My God, my God, why did you abandon me?" (Mk. 15. 34; Mt. 27. 46)
"Father! In your hands I place my spirit!" (Lk. 23. 46)
"It is finished!" (Jn. 19. 30)

Comments: These three accounts cannot all be true. It looks as if Mark recorded what was said and Matthew followed Mark whereas Luke and John rewrote the story to show Jesus as in control until the end.