I'll give you that one, but notDiebert: It's impossible to know which areas such imagined characters like Jesus and Buddha involved themselves with so it's better not to speculate here like wishful thinking.
Not quite universal? Here's Pam, reflecting back to Diebert, his own wisdom of using the scalpel and not the butcher's knife. :-) "Wisdom of the Infinite" and "Ultimate Reality" are modern metaphysical terms suggesting the Everything-ness of "God", no different than the less modern, but equally valid suggesting term "omnipresent."And what do you mean there with "omniscience" or "subconsciousness"? Their meanings are not quite universal. It's open for debate in how far things spoken so long ago are still understood as they were meant. It's important to understand that dilemma. You are seeing at best your own image in someone's writings, speech or picture.
Of course one is seeing (reasoning) their own image in someone's writings, speech or picture. Basic wisdom stuff.
I would say that only topics about the nature of existence transform, as they are the only topics that engage one's consciousness of existing. In contrast to philosophical topics that focus on existential dilemma's that serve to engage the mind and keep it active, but the exchange of existential ideas is not the same things as experiential discovery of one's existence. What I am expressing here is related to what I expressed in my original post about consciousness and subconsciousness of omniscience (everything-ness).It doesn't matter in the end which topic it's about although it makes sense to focus on the existential dilemma's. But that topic also has the greatest possibility for distortion or bias - no evidence, no testing, no lab results...