Ex-Mormon blasts blind faith...wonderfully

Proving that my ego loss has quite a ways to go, one of my greatest compliments is "Hey, that guy is brilliant. He sounds just like me!" Or, in this case, even more me that I am.

Because I aspire to some of the great writing and thinking that Jonathan Montgomery churns out as the "Salt Lake City Freethinking Examiner," but I've got to bow down before some of the posts that I just read.

Example: in Why praying for confirmation of truth cannot work, he throws in a flowchart of faith-based belief. Two big churchless thumbs-up, Jonathan!

You moved away from a Western religion, while I distanced myself from an Eastern faith, but your take on blind belief is the same as mine.

Like the Emperor's New Clothes, the religious test presumes its answer, and then blames the individual if their conclusion is different.

The Emperor's clothes are presumed to exist and are magical, just as God and the Holy Ghost are presumed to exist and can confirm truth.  Anyone who can't see the clothes is stupid or incompetent, just as anyone who doesn't realize the truth of the Book of Mormon is insincere, sinning, being tested, or didn't listen the first time when God did provide the answer.

I found Montgomery via a Twitter tweet from one of the people I follow. It pointed me to an essay on How religion abuses language and analogy to sound reasonable. Right on.

I frequently hear this same argument from true believers who try to claim that religious faith is just like the confidence we have in everyday life that something will happen as expected:

"Faith" becomes interchanged with "realistic expectation based on experience and evidence" in this substitution of terms:

Faith is knowing the sun will rise, lighting each new day.  Faith is knowing the Lord will hear my prayers each time I pray.

These are two different levels of "faith."  One is built upon a lifetime of experience and an understanding of the physical sciences of the rotation of the earth, the position of the sun, and so on.  The moment the sun rises can be predicted to the second.  Barring some abrupt change to the planet, we can be reasonably confident that the sun will rise again.  That's not a leap of faith.  Suggesting the sun will NOT rise tomorrow is the unproven and unlikely scenario, something that would require either a leap of faith or an overwhelming body of new evidence.

The existence of an uncreated supreme being who builds universes is, likewise, an unproven and unlikely scenario.  As is the existence of a man-god who walked on water and rose from the dead.  But with a subtle shift of the meaning of words, it is implied that the existence of God is as reasonable as the sun rising.  Faith in a Savior who died for my sins 2,000 years before I committed them so I can go to heaven is the same kind of faith as expecting my car to start in the morning.

Which, of course, it isn't.

Likewise, this blog often gets comments from devotees of a guru who argue that a teacher is needed in the "science" of spirituality, just as one is needed to learn physics or chemistry. This is another abuse of analogy.

Worldly science has a vast amount of demonstrable evidence backing it up. Spirituality and religion don't. The precepts of worldly science can be tested for truth or falsity. Almost always, spiritual or religious dogmas can't. Worldly science is founded on open debate and discussion, plus a healthy dose of skepticism. Spiritual "science" isn't.

Analogies and metaphors are the refuge of those who don't have a firm footing in reality.

When a god or guru has to be likened to something known to be true, that "liken" testifies to how flimsy the evidence is for a purported metaphysical truth. A rose is a rose is a rose. But almost always religion is about something that isn't an obvious "is."

Here's a couple of other Jonathan Montgomery posts that I enjoyed.

A scientist's evidence for belief in God.
What's to be gained by criticizing faith?

From the latter:

We criticize faith because we believe we can reach a greater potential without it.  Eliminating faith rids us of an unnecessary conflict between what the real world looks like, and what we wish it were.  Eliminating faith frees us from a questionable moral authority who makes unusual demands, and lets us be good just for the sake of being good.  Eliminating faith permits us to tackle the world on its own terms, without preconceptions.  Where would we be today if the Catholic Church hadn't tried so hard for so long to force reality to fit it's presumptions about the universe?

We stand to gain authentic morality, intellectual integrity, useful knowledge, and humbling wonder as we learn about the universe.  Dealing with reality resonates.  It sings.  Eliminating faith may well let us fully embrace that.

Comments

[The Rambling Taoist]

Thanks. I liked what I read on the links you supplied and signed up for an email subscription.

[George]

What i would like to know is if there is a god why does god conceal himself?

Or put another way, why is god only knowable by a select few of god's creatures?

Some mystical traditions aim for a direct experience of god, which involves an initiate having to obey ritualistic practices like vegetarianism and absintence and engage in onerous meditation and beyond a point, obey with unquestioning faith and devotion.

Why does god make it so hard to know him? Why not simply reveal himself?

Why is there so much suffering in the universe if there is a god? Surely god could have created a kinder universe where things do not come to an end and where organisms to not have to eat each other to survive? Who has decreed that the vegeterian aubergine is a lower lifeform than a cow or chicken? And even then, one is still eating other life by eating an aubergine.

God works in mysterious ways does not cut it. If we are not meant to understand god and there is no proof for god's existence - surely god does not want us to know him even if he exists?

[George]

what makes 'faith' a good thing?

did the abrahamic god not scold the israelites for worhsipping false idols, is that not blind faith?

And why would a god use 'faith' as a reward system? Surely god does not have an ego that he/she needs to be worshipped? And Even if there is a reward system surely it will be based on how we treat our fellow creatures?

[George]

And if the Satguru is perfected or GIHF, why does he require worship? Normal imperfect ppl realise that only those with egos require worship and devotion.

What has such a guru done to deserve such devotion? I could understand if a miraculous act was performed to engender such devotion, but instead it seems to be the other way around, which is that devotion supposedly leads to the miracle. Mother Theresa's focus was on her work and she was selfless. I can understand how ppl would follow someone like that. But the satguru appears different in that it is themselves that are held out to be the focal point, rather then their acts.

If on the other hand, god is love, for example perfection is the unconditional devoted selfless love for someone else, then there are many normal, albeit lucky ppl, who experience god (love or nirvana) without needing a guru.

If anyone can answer some of these i'd be much obliged.

[tucson]

George asked:

"What i would like to know is if there is a god why does god conceal himself?"

--I don't think "god" is concealed. It is only concealed when it is sought, for then it is looking for itself in the same way we look for our glasses when they are already on our face. I think of god as a functioning, as this unfolding as it is right now. And it is what we are.

"Or put another way, why is god only knowable by a select few of god's creatures?"

--God is unknowable by anyone. No one has ever known god as a thing to be known for he is the thing that is seeking.

"Some mystical traditions aim for a direct experience of god, which involves an initiate having to obey ritualistic practices like vegetarianism and absintence and engage in onerous meditation and beyond a point, obey with unquestioning faith and devotion."

--When a tradition aims.. it is god that is aiming. When there are practices.. it is god that is practicing.

"Why does god make it so hard to know him? Why not simply reveal himself?"

--Hard to know him? More like impossible. All that can be said is 'this right now' and as soon as you try to catch it, it's gone...the idea that is.

"Why is there so much suffering in the universe if there is a god? Surely god could have created a kinder universe where things do not come to an end and where organisms to not have to eat each other to survive?"

--Because god does not think about the universe or how it is. He is it and thus is just along for the ride, so to speak. Suffering, degeneration and death are only conceived as negative by a conceptualizing mind, but as what they really are..they just are.

"Who has decreed that the vegeterian aubergine is a lower lifeform than a cow or chicken? And even then, one is still eating other life by eating an aubergine."

--Only the mind of man decrees evaluative concepts of what appearance is.

"God works in mysterious ways does not cut it. If we are not meant to understand god and there is no proof for god's existence - surely god does not want us to know him even if he exists?"

--Imagine an infinity of air, transparent atmosphere. Does that air know it is air? It just is air. It is airing.

"what makes 'faith' a good thing?"

--The religious sense of faith is only a good thing for the religious to maintain their religion. In life, faith is good in the sense of surrendering to what is as it is right now as the only way it could be.

"did the abrahamic god not scold the israelites for worhsipping false idols, is that not blind faith?"

--Yes, in an idea, a thought bubble.

"And why would a god use 'faith' as a reward system? Surely god does not have an ego that he/she needs to be worshipped?"

--God has no need or requirement because whatever is, he is. He is complete. He has no ego for he has no idea of himself as any sort of thing.

"And Even if there is a reward system surely it will be based on how we treat our fellow creatures?"

--The best reward is to be free of the concept of any reward (selfishness). Then we will automatically behave "rewardably" without even trying.

"And if the Satguru is perfected or GIHF, why does he require worship? Normal imperfect ppl realise that only those with egos require worship and devotion."

--Exactly. The guru will say it is for the disciples' own good, but a true guru (jnani or sage) knows that worship perpetuates the dualistic illusion.

"What has such a guru done to deserve such devotion? I could understand if a miraculous act was performed to engender such devotion, but instead it seems to be the other way around, which is that devotion supposedly leads to the miracle. Mother Theresa's focus was on her work and she was selfless. I can understand how ppl would follow someone like that. But the satguru appears different in that it is themselves that are held out to be the focal point, rather then their acts."

--This is a very good observation that all prospective followers of gurus should consider.

"If on the other hand, god is love, for example perfection is the unconditional devoted selfless love for someone else, then there are many normal, albeit lucky ppl, who experience god (love or nirvana) without needing a guru."

--I think you have hit it right on.

"If anyone can answer some of these i'd be much obliged."

--Well, I tried. (I used the words 'he', 'him', 'god', etc. for convenience. There is no proper word for for something with neither subject nor object or static reference point. 'It', 'she', 'this' would be just as good and just as deceptive and inadequate.

[Blogger Brian]

George, good comments and questions. Tucson, good responses. (I was tempted to say "answers," but we churchless don't deal in answers when it comes to ultimate reality.)

I'm reminded of the Sufi/Islamic adage, "God was a hidden treasure and wanted to be known."

OK. But if God or Allah is the all-powerful creator, why didn't God make himself/herself/itself known from the start? What's up with this "wanting"? How could God have a lack that manifested as a wanting, which apparently can only be fulfilled by human beings coming to know the previously hidden God?

True believers, of course, will respond: "God works in mysterious ways."

To which I respond, "Well, if God is so mysterious, what makes you think you know enough about God to be able to say, 'God works in mysterious ways'?"

I mean, if God is mystery (or an ultimate subjectivity, as tucson says), then let's leave it at that. Mystery. Instead, religious believers often explain God in discrete dogmatic ways. Then, when challenged about some absurdity, resort to "God is mysterious."

[tAo]

God is a stone that God cannot lift.

[George]

Tucson,

An interesting nondual perspective, thank you.

You appear to hold a sort of nondual pantheistic view of god. You might quibble with such categorisation, but Einstein shared similar views of God as being intergral or interwoven within the universe itself, rather than a distinct self-aware personal god controlling fates and destiny's (as captured by tAo).

However, i have 2 questions for you and tAo:
1) How do you believe the universe (illusion) came into being?
2) What do you think occurs after death, if anything?

Brian,

Yes, exactly. Many mystics appear to use quite beautiful imagery of god as a rare sparking jewel that needs to be discovered and treasured.

This may indeed be true, but it seems we both question why this is so? Why is god and divinity so rare, so concealed, especially with so much suffering and need?

It just does not make sense why an all-powerful fate-controlling god should conceal himself, unless such a god wanted to remain concealed.

Put another way, is it possible that even if there is a god, that those ppl with faith who seek and believe in god are actually going against god's wishes?

I say this, since it seems all indications are that god does not wish to be found or known or believed in or worshipped.

[George]

If there is a god, why does god need:

a) to be worshipped
b) for us to have blind faith in god
c) for us to go to onerous uncomfortable lengths to know god

All of these are flawed human qualities that appear to have been projected onto god, who really should be above any of that. God should be above rewarding or punishing. God should be above worship and recognition. God should be above concealment and revelation to a special chosen precious few.

I would not want a God who can be so parochial, pedantic and vain, yet allows widespread sufferring. That for me is not a very nice or great god at all.

[George]

On the nondual perspective, if all including the universe is just oneness and no-thing, then what causes our illusions of self, things and duality?

Does the nondual view consider evolution and life to merely be an illusion? If so, what caused this illusion and what is still causing it?

I think there is some confusion here. Though i understand many mystic traditions consider 'maya' to be illusions created by the modern human mind, there is a specific physical thing which gives rise to these illusions if indeed they occur. This is the human brain which has evolved over generations.

So its difficult for me to understand the nondual view and to seperate the phyical world from that percieved by the human mind.

If on the other hand there is no physical world, also an illusion, what is it that is causing the illusion? Its a big paradox, which is not resolvable imo.

So there are questions for the faith religions and the nondualists. I can't even really agree with the atheist position, which is that the big bang did not need a cause, it just is, or that the universe just is and has always existed. I mean these alternatives are possible, but they surely just as possible as a God. Instead our experience tells us that there is a cause for events, so what is the prime mover behind the universe. If logic is used to discount the possibility of god, it must also be used to discount unsupported scientific theories.

[tucson]

George asks:

1) How do you believe the universe (illusion) came into being?
2) What do you think occurs after death, if anything?

I move and space becomes as a result of my movement. Time is born as a result of my movement in space. I have objects because I have become the subject of space and time. Dualism is established and the universe appears. I identify myself with my objects and thus suffering appears.

I repose (the sense of self ceases via death or awakening) and space vanishes as a result of cessation of movement. Time ceases because there is no movement to measure. There are no objects because I am no longer a subject.
Dualism is no more and the universe and suffering disappear. I am, but there is no 'me'.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear "tucson,"

It's too bad that you (and - more importantly for me - I) do such a poor job of this at the present.

Robert Paul Howard

[George]

Tucson

So you appear to be saying that time and space are perceptive constructs from a self-awareness of movement?

For perception of movement to occur two things are needed i) some thing to percieve movement and ii) a reference thing against which movement is measured.

These things cannot be illusions, some thing must exist to cause the illusions.

[Blogger Brian]

George, I share your questions about non-dualism. I like the sound of it -- oneness seems cool -- but have difficulty coming to grips with the experiential reality of it. Meaning, the term "non-dual" appears at odds with how even an enlightened person would experience life.

Non-dual perception sure seems like there is a lot of duality and distinctions left in it. As you said, at least a perceiver and what is perceived. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible for anyone to say "reality is non-dual."

Regarding scientific and religious explanations for what caused the universe to spring into being at the big bang, I don't think they are co-equal, as you seemed to imply.

Yes, neither science nor religion knows what came before the big bang. I started to say "caused the big bang," but quantum theorists don't like to talk about causality with some forms of quantum phenomena, and one theory is that the big bang was a random quantum fluctuation of the energetic vacuum.

This points to the fact that scientific explanations of the big bang rest on a pretty solid foundation of theory and/or experimentation. Religious explanations don't.

Further, it seems probable (if not logically necessary) that something always has existed. How could a universe come from absolutely nothing? There would at least have to be some laws or principles of nature that allow something to come from nothing.

Religions call this always-existent entity "God." This adds an extra layer to a competing explanation: this always-existent entity is what exists now, physical reality.

Given Occam's Razor (simplest explanations are best), why not consider that physicality always has been, is, and always will be? Where's the need to posit a metaphysical entity, God or whatever, that brings physical reality into being?

[Catherine]

If we call an always existent entity 'God', then religion and human interpretation has added characteristics to it so that God as we mainly know it, is anything which we allow to mould us.

[George]

Brian,

Yes, nice post, aspects of nondualism are appealing and hinted at by many mystical traditions and even some scientific evidence, but neither our experiences nor the explanation for it is consistent.

Good point on whether science or religion has a more interesting explanation of ultimate reality (if such a thing exists).

No argument that science has made massive strides, and yet there is very little scientic evidence on the initial moments of the big bang. We dont even know if it is a repeating phenomenon, if it expands and then contracts again onto itself and what causes it to go off or controls such rate and magnitudes of expansion.

This is where i have a problem with concepts like randomness, which Dawkins might frame as god-of-the-gaps thinking. So for example, no-one knows how life first arose, we have great evidence to prove how life forms have evolved, but no-one has evidence to prove how cellular organic life evolved from inorganic matter. Also, what causes the random mutation in DNA genetic copying that results in the multiplicity of life?

Similarly, is the fundamental building blocks of the universe, particles and force, or are these merely vibrating energy fields as string theory suggests?

Perhaps my causal way of thinking is limited, and yet is that not the whole point of science, what is the cause of how nature works? Science continues to drill down and look to explain phenomenon.

So while the suggested explanation of a 'random quantum fluctuation' is a good one, it gets one no further to ultimate reality, i.e. what caused this fluctatuation or what makes it randomn? Why something rather than nothing?

So while i am a firm believer that both the big bang and evolution are very accurate scientific models, the closer back to their origins we go, the less evidence and less accurate they become, to the most important point which is their origin where they seem open to speculation and the theory of god as a prime mover as opposed to randomness or father christmas or permanent existence are equally plausible.

[George]

We think we can almost trace our origins back to the beginning of time using science and indeed causal reasoned explanations, almost but not quite, and we have no idea how big the 'not quite' bit really is.

Its at these apparent origins or infinite extremities where the biggest answers as to ultimate reality would appear to lie.

Its bizarre that science itself is content with so many uknowns, forgetting randomness the purest of all sciences, mathematics itself deals happily with finite numbers alongside the vague concept of infinity. And of course here again lies one of the big questions, is time-space itself finite or infinite.

Science often bounds systems or makes approximations, it needs to, and indeed it is merely a representation of a model of reality, not reality itself.

[Account Deleted]

An emperor was coming out of his palace for his morning walk when
he met a beggar. He asked the beggar, "What do you want?"

The beggar laughed and said, "You are asking me as though you can
fulfil my desire!"

The king was offended. He said, "Of course I can fulfil your desire.
What is it? Just tell me."

And the beggar said, "Think twice before you promise anything."

The beggar was no ordinary beggar; he was the emperor's past life
master. He had promised in that life, "I will come and try to wake you
in your next life. This life you have missed but I will come again." But
the king had forgotten completely -- who remembers past lives? So
he insisted, "I will fulfil anything you ask. I am a very powerful
emperor, what can you possibly desire that I can not give to you?"

The beggar said, "It is a very simple desire. You see this begging
bowl? Can you fill it with something?"

The emperor said, "Of course!" He called one of his viziers and told
him, "Fill this mans begging bowl with money." The vizier went and
got some money and poured it into the bowl, and it disappeared. And
he poured more and more, and the moment he would pour it, it would
disappear. And the begging bowl remained always empty.

The whole palace gathered. By and by the rumour went throughout
the whole capital, and a huge crowd gathered. The prestige of the
emperor was at stake. He said to his viziers, "If the whole kingdom is
lost, I am ready to lose it, but I cannot be defeated by this beggar."

Diamonds and pearls and emeralds, his treasuries were becoming
empty. The begging bowl seemed to be bottomless. Everything that
was put into it -- everything! -- Immediately disappeared, went out of
existence. Finally it was the evening, and the people were standing
there in utter silence. The king dropped at the feet of the beggar and
admitted his defeat. He said, "Just tell me one thing. You are
victorious - but before you leave, just fulfil my curiosity. What is the
begging bowl made of?"

The beggar laughed and said, "It is made up of the human mind.
There is no secret. It is simple made up of human desire."
This understanding transforms life. Go into one desire -- what is the
mechanism of it? First there is a great excitement, great thrill, and
adventure. You feel a great kick. Something is going to happen; you
are on the verge of it. And then you have the car, you have the yacht,
you have the house, and suddenly all is meaningless again.

What happens? Your mind has dematerialised it. The car is standing
in the drive, but there is no excitement anymore. The excitement was
only in getting it. You became so drunk with the desire that you forgot
your inner nothingness. Now the desire is fulfilled, the car in the drive,
the money in your bank account - again excitement disappears; again
the emptiness is there, ready to eat you up. Again you have to create
another desire to escape this yawning abyss.

That is how one moves from one desire to another desire. That's how
one remains a beggar. Your whole life proves it again and again --
every desire frustrates. And when the goal is achieved, you will need
another desire. The day you understand that desire as such is going
to fail comes the turning point in your life.

The other journey is inwards. Move inwards; come back home.

[Account Deleted]

When the great Sufi mystic, Hasan, was dying, somebody asked
"Hasan, who was your master?"

He said, "I had thousands of masters. If I just relate their names it will
take months, years and it is too late. But three masters I will certainly
tell you about.

One was a thief. Once I got lost in the desert, and when I reached a
village it was very late, everything was closed. But at last I found one
man who was trying to make a hole in the wall of a house. I asked
him where I could stay and he said 'At this time of night it will be
difficult, but you can stay with me - if you can stay with a thief'. And
the man was so beautiful. I stayed for one month! And each night he
would say to me, 'Now I am going to my work. You rest, you pray.'
When he came back I would ask 'Could you get anything?' He would
say, 'Not tonight. But tomorrow I will try again, God willing.' He was
never in a state of hopelessness, he was always happy. When I was
meditating and meditating for years on end and nothing was
happening, many times the moment came when I was so desperate,
so hopeless, that I thought to stop all this nonsense. And suddenly I
would remember the thief who would say every night, 'God willing,
tomorrow it is going to happen.'

And my second master was a dog. I was going to the river, thirsty and
a dog came. He was also thirsty. He looked into the river, he saw
another dog there -- his own image -- and became afraid. He would
bard and run away, but his thirst was so much that he would come
back. Finally, despite his fear, he just jumped into the water, and the
image disappeared. And I knew that a message had come to me from
God: one has to jump in spite of all fears.

And the third master was a small child. I entered a town and a child
was carrying a lit candle. He was going to the mosque to put the
candle there. 'Just joking,' I asked the boy, 'have you lit the candle
yourself?' He said, 'Yes sir.' And I asked, 'There was a moment when
the candle was unlit, and then there was a moment when the candle
was lit. Can you show me the source from which the light came?' And
the boy laughed, blew out the candle, and said, 'Now you have seen
the light going. Where has it gone? You will tell me!' My ego was
shattered; my whole knowledge was shattered. And that moment I felt
my own stupidity. Since then I dropped all my knowledge ability.

It is true that I had no master. That does not mean that I was not a
disciple -- I accepted the whole existence as my master. My Disciplehood was a greater involvement than yours is. I trusted the clouds,
the trees. I trusted existence as such. I had no master because I had
millions of masters I learned from every possible source. To be a
disciple is a must on the path. What does it mean to be a disciple? It
means to be able to learn, to be available to learn, to be vulnerable to
existence. With a master you start learning to learn.

The master is a swimming pool where you can learn how to
swim. Once you have learned, all the oceans are yours."

[George]

Manish,

The beggar parable is interesting and would seem to hold alot of truth about desire and attachment (and its unquenchable nature) being the cause of suffering. However, what the parable does not explain is how going inward or within oneself to go home as it were, quenches this desire.

The 3-master parable seems to suggest that indeed anything or anyone could be a master and one can learn from anything in life, which slightly contradicts the first parable where the desire for knowledge is seemingly viewed as a bad thing.

Also, what happens if the dog jumped in and realised he could not swim and drowned? (just joking)

[tAo]

George you had mentioned something, in which you said:

"Einstein shared similar views of God as being intergral or interwoven within the universe itself, rather than a distinct self-aware personal god controlling fates and destiny's (as captured by tAo)."

-- I am not sure why you say that. I don't really see God as "a distinct self-aware personal god controlling fates and destinys". But maybe you didn't mean to say that I believe that. I also don't see it as you indicate that Einstien did. My concept of God is not something that is "interwoven within the universe", but rather totality... which in a sense doesn't really say anything. What I mean is that in my mind, that term God is just another word for Totality - totality meaning absolutely all that is to infinity: all of space, time, matter, energy, consciousness, all forms of life, and all stars and galaxys. So therefore like I said, for ME, the word or idea of "God" doesn't indicate any one thing or any sort of "personal god controlling fates and destinys". So for me my concept of God is much more along the lines as Brian said, as simply being "this always-existent entity is what exists now, physical reality." - the totality of physical (both matter and energy) reality, which of course includes all life and consciousness (and so-called "souls") as well. But again, this doesn't really mean anything to people who want to see God as being a discrete 'divine being' who creates and controls the universe and humans.

Now on to the questions you asked me:

"1) How do you believe the universe (illusion) came into being?"

-- I am not sure. If you mean just the universe (after the instant of the supposed big-bang) then I would say that it came into being as a result of the big-bang. But there is another theory (I don't remeber then name at the moment, but I think it is called the "steady state"?), which I believe says that the universe has always existed. There is also the idea which is along the lines of the universe being primarily composed of and he;ld together by electical force (which is zillions of times stronger than gravity) and stars as being nexuses of electrical plasma, rather than nuclear.

You can learn more about that here:

"THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS" DVD (you can see the full-length free at Google video):

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374&q=thunderbolts&total=184&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Thunderbolts info - main site:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

Thunderbolts Project site:
http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thunderbolts/home.html

Summary:
http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thunderbolts/summary.html

Thunderbolts Video Clips:
http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thunderbolts/videos.html

Links to other related sites & information:
http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thunderbolts/links.html

Plasma Cosmology:
http://www.plasmacosmology.net

"2) What do you think occurs after death, if anything?"

-- I honestly don't know. I would hope that awareness and consciousness continues on. There is no evidence for that yet, but it is still possible that awareness does continue to exist independent of the brain. If consciousness doesn't continue after death, then we will never know. It is a mystery that may never be solved. But hopefully we will all continue, either into another life/incarnation or in some other plane or dimension of existence. I hope so, but I cannot say for sure.

You also said:

"If there is a god, why does god need:
a) to be worshipped
b) for us to have blind faith in god
c) for us to go to onerous uncomfortable lengths to know god"

-- I agree. If there is an actual personality of God or supreme being, I don't think he/she/it would need or even care if humans worshipped it. If God created humans, and this God was all loving, then he/she/it wouldn't require worship. Same goes for faith and for wanting humans to go to extreme effort to know this God. I happen to think that (if there is a personal God) then one can both know and commune with God consciously and instantaneously without any intermediary. But it wouldn't be exactly like talking to another human, but more like a telepathic communion or guidance. But thats just a conjecture, and my thoughts about the subject.

Hope this helps.

[Account Deleted]

George a very simple reply to your post

I M NOT AT ALL A MASTER OR PREACHER
please do not misunderstand me
i m mere a struggling soul,

you said that one can learn from anything in life
good yeah one can really

but how did you came to this decision and idea and thought that everything can make you learn in life..

It happened through me.
because i shared this story with you
the though in you got accepted and you made this conclusion..

the same way it has to come through some other person

thats the role any master or mystic plays
they know it before we know it..
and they have come to aware of it..

because they know more than we does and they know before we come to know it,through them..

it happens and works that way..

its just an example..
to show that to the reality one has to need that guiding force..

today brian has opened this blog
just because of rssb
he says sometimes
where is god
sometimes he says
how is god
sometime he says god is gay
sometime he says theres no god

every point in this blog revolved arround god itself proves that god is there
that force is there
that power is there

[George]

Manish,

I do believe there is something to learn from everyone. The beggar is unlikely to be able to teach the theoretical phycist about particle phyics, just as the phycist is unlikely to teach the beggar about human nature and hardship. I believe all humans are conditioned by virtue of their experiences. I believe well read intellectually curious ppl typically have a greater breadth of experience and are so less prone to dogmatic thinking, which is what i would call enlightened.

Perhaps the mystic or guru has arrived at a far more enlightened state, i am willing to listen, but blind faith is a very dangerous precedent insofar as enlightened thinking goes in my opinion, it straightaway narrows one down to conditioned dogmatic unquestioning unthinking rhetoric.

[tAo]

Manish says:

"I M NOT AT ALL A MASTER [...] i m mere a struggling soul"

[To George]: "how did you came to this decision and idea and thought that everything can make you learn in life.. It happened through me. because i shared this story with you"

-- LOL. Manish you are just full too of yourself. I am sure George already knew that way before you ever said anything.

"it has to come through some other person"

-- That is not so. No it does not HAVE "to come through some other person".

"any master or mystic [...] they know it before we know it."

-- Absolute balogna.

"because they know more than we does and they know before we come to know it"

-- Absolute balogna.

"one has to need that guiding force."

-- I do not agree.

"brian has opened this blog just because of rssb"

-- No I don't believe is the reason thayt Brian started this blog. Not at all. But Brian can speak for himself about that.

"god is there that force is there that power is there"

-- Thats just your opinion, your belief. It may be so, but then maybe not.

[tAo]

George,

You might want to look into the following, and then get back to me. I bet you will find this very interesting and thought provoking (I already sent it to Brian):

The "THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS" DVD - you can view the full-length of it for free at Google video here:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374&q=thunderbolts&total=184&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Thunderbolts info - the main site:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

The Thunderbolts Project site:
http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thunderbolts/home.html

A Summary:
http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thunderbolts/summary.html

Thunderbolts individual video clips:
http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thunderbolts/videos.html

Links to other related sites & relevant information:
http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thunderbolts/links.html

Plasma Cosmology (for beginners):
http://www.plasmacosmology.net

[tucson]

Manish said:

"I M NOT AT ALL A MASTER OR PREACHER please do not misunderstand me
i m mere a struggling soul"

And then Manish said:

"thats the role any master or mystic plays
they know it before we know it..
and they have come to aware of it..because they know more than we does and they know before we come to know it,through them.."

--So, Manish, how do you know how a master or mystic plays their role? How do you know they know it before we know it?

Manish said:

"every point in this blog revolved arround god itself proves that god is there"

--So if every point in this blog revolved around the moon being made of Swiss cheese would that prove the moon is made of Swiss cheese?

[Osho Robbins]

Manish,
from the beggar story:
the last paragraph:
"That is how one moves from one desire to another desire. That's how
one remains a beggar. Your whole life proves it again and again --
every desire frustrates. And when the goal is achieved, you will need
another desire. The day you understand that desire as such is going
to fail comes the turning point in your life.

The other journey is inwards. Move inwards; come back home."

The seeker of truth / Enlightenment / god / nirvana / etc
IS the bowl that never gets filled.

The seeker is greedy for God. He wants to possess - own and know God.

But why? For what reason? What is he going to do with God? Have a long
conversation? Get all the answers? become all powerful?

The mind is greedy - so it seeks God because God is the greatest
achievement (apparently).

However, the search is futile because God is not another 'thing' to
add to your collection. God is not another decoration for your ego.

God is not another achievement you can add to your existing collection.

God simply means the disappearance of 'you' (ego - self - 'me').

Once that happens - life becomes a game - there is no more chasing after
God - or trying to seek - because there is nothing to attain.

It is not that you 'overcome' desire - and attain a state of
desirelessness (a desirable state to achieve???).

Seeking desirelessness is still seeking - it is still desire.

The seeking simply ends the moment you see the madness of it all.

What are you seeking? and why? and all seeking ends in frustration.

You are never fulfilled - always wanting the next level.

In the sant mat journey - it is the same. You want to first just get
to the radiant form of the master. Once you get there - you want to
go to the second, third, fourth region. Finally you want to arrive
at Sach Khand where there will be great celebrations on your arrival.

Sat Purush will personally rise from his throne and greet you.

WOW - what a reward for the ego - for all the hard work of meditation.

Then what? What will you do for all enernity - sitting in Sach Khand?

What if you get bored? I mean do they have the latest movies playing there?

I know I am being flippant - but what a load of nonsense the mind creates.

The moment you see the madness of it - the absurdity - you can begin to
laugh. Once you laugh - you are free from the dogmatic search for truth.

You can never be a sant mat follower again - or a follower of any religion.

Why? Because they are all mind-games - and since most people live in the
mind - they seek and search and worship all their life. They are seeking a
reward. They never escape from desire to get somewhere - to arrive.

The search goes on forever - and then they die. Again they are reborn
because they are still searching.

Enlightenment (for want of a better word) means the search has ended.

Not because you have 'found' anything - but because there is nothing to find.

[Account Deleted]

[edited to take out some personal attacks...Blogger Brian]

i have already realised and i m very much aware of what i m doing..

my belief into this path got strength ...with,so many reasons and my own personal obersvation and experience..

in the very starting when i was very new to this blog
i said i can even list out my own experiences,and what i know,what i hear,what i believe ,trust..

but its all master grace..
i have come to know about you guys very soon and realised theres no point and use in sharing anything with you guys..
you people anyhow will not at all agree or accept it..

so i do not want to waste ..my time and energy ..

it would be like i gave you dollars to keep and woth your either oversmartness or foolishness or carelessness,burnt the dollars into ashes..

so you will again left with no dollars..and lose the value ..

so i do not want..
because whatever the other person who is into spirituality especially into rssb
you guys know one thing only thing is to point out him in other directions
like..........
how do you know its truth?
how should we believe you?
may be your experience was a myth?
again a wonderful reply from you can be?
i dont believe it to be your experience
manish your just saying garbage?
come on manish grow up i had such feelings long ago..
etc etc..
you people always look for other point of view
especially which is against rssb theories and practice,

Tuscon
how do you know,you are born from your own parents?
how do you know you were in your mom womb for 9 months
how do you know you were their son?
how do you know you learn to walk,speak,talk,understand?

well ofcourse your own parents made you realise about it?
and as you grown up slowly you realised yourself..

same happens in each and every act of our life
we need the guiding force for everything in our life

parents are there to take care of us,but they cant teach us so they were teachers
again for every specialized category there was specialized teacher,
for english an english teacher
for science an science teacher
for maths an maths teacher
now they also know to drive a car,cook a meal,
but still for learning to drive you go to driving school
but do not learn from parents and teachers
for cooking you either seek parents help or a specialised cooks help to learn cooking

for heart problem you go to cardiologist
for normal fever or flu you go to a normal physician ,
for every specialized tre
atment theres a specialized doctor..

Tucson
likewise they are mystics and masters
who specialize in god realization who specialize in spirituality.

tucson every important belief we come to know from our parents?
the good the bad
the right the wrong

its different later on with our own mind we start making decisions,we start judging,analyzing,

but the initial information comes from parents..

even into spirituality ,

you watch and learn from your parents?

but still you anyhow have choices to make,and decisions to make..

though as i already said i belong to a family which was into spirituality(rssb) from more than 100 years,

but that doesnt made me get into spirituality,

yes its a very interesting question what made me choose spiritualty or getting into rssb,

i said my answers will be recieved as
WHO CARES ,WHO BELIEVE you
so i will not disclose any such experience
because theres a very very wonderful true story of myself which bought me automatically into RSSB,

anyways i do not want to use the name rssb more.as again everyone else start saying i m preaching dogma and promoting rssb
which is under any case and circumstances not true...

and one more thing tucson,
which i have felt...
westerns are very unfortunate,because they do not have much of historical life,

in india,as its known the land of gods and spirituality..

you will find many mystical realities and stiff which existed from so long long long years ago..
india has been graced by many saints and mystics than any other place in the world..

i can say you a few realities about jesus as well but i will not it may create unnecessary controversy,these realities were not at all popularlise neither been spoken anywhere,but are mentioned in many books..written by westerners,
in short i can say
jesus had a great connection with indian land,with india
and he has a great relation with spirituality..

i cant say anything more than this..
and at last
you said

"""if every point in this blog revolved around the moon being made of Swiss cheese would that prove the moon is made of Swiss cheese?"""

well that itself proves that god is only the sole whole force thats why anyhow anyway he is discussed everywhere
and nothing is discussed much about moon..
if moon would have such powerful significance we would definitely would have discussing moon here,

but we ourself know ,god is far far important than moon...

infact the moon existence is the proof of god..
nature is the existence of proof of god..

[George]

Siritual folk all make alot of sense when they talk about freeing oneself from material desires and attachments, but some desires are surely not bad.

For example, the desire to see one's family happy or safe from harm is surely not only desirable but natural to our very humanity and one of our noblest characteristics. Why would a person want to train their mind to simply accept all events with unfeeling stoicism or borg-like resignation? That is not enlightenment, but cold-hearted stupidity or fear of deeling with one's human emotions.

Mother Theresa's desire was to alleviate the suffering of others, a true saint that actually did something rather than some master requiring devotion while arguably merely caressing the fragile egos of a few well-fed angst-ridden souls with too much time on their hands for contermplating themselves rather than others.

I also do not see any harm in the desire for knowledge. Knowledge can be personal, it harms and affects no-one else. Knowledge can give one a broader perspective so that one is not taken in by every shark-oil salesman appearing on your doorstep holding themselves out to be a guru with your salvation and happiness at hand. But more importantly knowledge is awe-insipriing, it appeals to those who are adventurous in spirit. There is nothing wrong with trying to impove onself. Surely it is natural to want to know how our world works and what wonders there are in it?

[Osho Robbins]

Manish,

RSSB is not spirituality - it is a duality path.

It advocates effort - doing - seeking - being 'good' etc. It says that
the highest being lives in Sach Khand - the fifth region.

How can Sat Purush live in Sach Khand - when He has no form?

How can the formless, timeless one reside in any specific place?

And then the followers aspire to reach Sach Khand.

I can tell you - it will never happen - except in your own mind.

It will keep you on the treadmill forever. You can NEVER be
good enough. There will always be more 'goodness' to attain.

There will always be more regions to reach - more efforts to make
and it will never be enough.

Can you not see this?

Just take a good look around and be real honest.

Who has attained fully and arrived?

Apart from the master?

And I can tell you that if you were to get to know the 'master'
personally and if you were honest - you would realise that even he
has not attained.

Charan Singh simply refused to talk about his own state. Why?
because he knows he has not attained - nobody has - it is all fiction.

Read his own words - in treasure beyond measure. He has left no doubt
and has made it clear that he has no spiritual progress. He even said he
felt ashamed when people bowed to him.

By the way - some followers say he attained later. However, according to
the founder - Swami Ji - if a master has NOBODY who has attained at the
time of his death - then that path (lineage) comes to an end. If he attains
afterwards - that does not matter. In any case - Charan Singh never claimed
to have attained later either.

I challenge you to find me one person - just one - who claims to have
arrived - and is living in Sach Khand and is not afraid to talk openly.

It is really simple.

As long as you have an EGO (a ME) then you are going to SEEK
- you are going to try to get somewhere.

If you succeed - that just proves there is a YOU (ego) who has
succeeded. It means you are deluded - it means you are duality.

All sant mat followers who get an experience are deluded.

They are in duality.

Truth is not about believing. Once you 'get it' you will no longer
have a 'master' because the master concept is a duality concept.

Once you 'get it' - there are no longer two (you and the master).

Paltu sahib says "Paltu there is only ONE - there is no other."

When you believe in God - you have TWO (YOU and GOD = 2)

Once you realise truth - there is only ONE - only GOD if you want
to use that word. It would be equally valid to say there is no God at
that point - becuase GOD is just a CONCEPT.

Look into it closely.

God has NO FORM. He does not live in a specific place (he cannot if he
has no form anyway). He is not within TIME (he cannot be if he has no
form).

God does not listen to your prayers. Why not? Becuase he has no form.
That means he has no ears. Also has no mind. So how can he listen to
your prayers and how can he answer them?

Don't you see it is all nonsense? You are in duality. You are living
within the mind and creating all these mind-concepts that keep you
trapped forever.

The moment you 'get it' all concepts (including Master and God) disappear.

Then there is no external personalised God - so how can you aspire
to reach him?

[George]

Osho,

"God has NO FORM."
--- how do you know that? How do you know for certain whether or not god exists and what form he/she/it might take or not?

"The moment you 'get it'"
--- there is no-thing so what is there to get?

"As long as you have an EGO (a ME) then you are going to SEEK"
--- i challenge you show to find me one person -just one - that truly does not have an ego of any kind. Such a person will either not be human or mentally disturbed. they might hide it, as i suspect many 'masters' do, since thats all about ego.

"Truth is not about believing"
--- fair enough, what is the truth about? do you have the truth and how do we know that?

[tucson]

Manish you said:

"i have come to know about you guys very soon and realised theres no point and use in sharing anything with you guys..
you people anyhow will not at all agree or accept it..

so i do not want to waste ..my time and energy .."

---So, why do you continue to comment here?
Because you can't resist. You can't help yourself.

It has shocked you to the core what all of us ex-satsangis have to say about the master and the path.

You refuse to accept that we could be right, so in writing on this blog what you are really doing is trying to convince yourself that the Sant Mat path is true and the doubts we create in your mind are false.

You don't want to face the possibility that Sant Mat is false because that would undermine your security in life, so you keep at it here with a closed mind to any other philosophical or spiritual view.

Osho Robbins has made some very good comments to you, but unfortunately he does not realise that you can't hear what he is saying.

[Account Deleted]

osho robbins i m very tired
i will reply to your post..

but right now what i can say is you mispresented about charan singh master,what he said and what you understood there is no match in both the versus..

well i do not want to elaborate
and tell you how i m sure..

its just your choice to believe it or not

and no master has ego george..
understanding it is very simple..from one point view and very difficult from one point of view..
it depends how you look at it

and what paltu said is right because theres no one like him
neither theres anyone like osho robbins

everyone is unique..

and god has no form
so has human
we do even not have any form
can we believe we got this life through a semen...how a baby is born in mothers womb itself is the miracle of all the time..

how it happens?

well osho we can always have endless conversation..

but right now i cant

but i would leave by giving you a simple logical answer

we are everywhere everyone is talking about GOD GOD AND GOD

so its sure he exist..

but yeah to know him is a sort of mystery..

and one more thing
who has attained inner progress never reveal

only very very few people by mistake reveal a bit..

but inner progress takes place

right now i m leaving
see you very soon again

[Osho Robbins]

George,
You wrote:
"God has NO FORM."
--- how do you know that? How do you know for certain whether or not god exists and what form he/she/it might take or not?

"The moment you 'get it'"
--- there is no-thing so what is there to get?

Let me answer each question:

(1) I know with certainty. How? let me explain.
First thing to understand is that I am not saying that God exists.
I am also not saying that God does not exist.
Both these statements are made by the ignorant.
The absence of all forms, things = no-thing.
No-thing means no TIME, no SPACE, no existence. It is nothing.
I am calling that God (I could also call it by another name).
It does not matter because it is nothing anyway.

God does not exist because he is the no-thing - the absence of all
things. How can you say that no-thing (nothing) exists? It is nothing!

When all else dies, ends, the no-thing remains because by it's nature
it cannot die (because it is not born in the first place).

It is not born - so it cannot die - it remains always no-thing.

I am just calling that God - because everything else (which has form)
us subject to change. Only God (nothing) does not change because there
is nothing there to change. It is the absence of all things.

How do I know that God not NOT have a form?

Simple. All forms CHANGE and are within TIME and SPACE.

So if God HAS a form and is in Time and Space - then this God
is just like me - a mortal - he is born and dies.

So if God dies - then sure - he would have a form - but how cam
I call that God?

(2) What is there to Get?
Nothing - simply get the nothing. That's it. Once you get 'nothing'
that's the end - no more searching for 'something'.
But I don't mean just repeat the words like a parrot.

I mean just really 'get it' that there is nothing. Don't make a
theory of it and have a discussion about it. Don't think about it.
Just deeply understand that nothing is all there is. SO then what are
you seeking if there is nothing there?

George, you wrote:

"As long as you have an EGO (a ME) then you are going to SEEK"
--- i challenge you show to find me one person -just one - that truly does
not have an ego of any kind. Such a person will either not be human or
mentally disturbed. they might hide it, as i suspect many 'masters' do,
since thats all about ego.

I like a good challenge.

I have no ego. There you go.

How do you know I am speaking the truth, especially when I sound so damn
egotisitcal?

I am not a master and I am not hiding my ego - I just don't have one.

I am a human being and I am not mentally disturbed.

But here's why this will sound ridiculous to you.

You don't understand what it means to have no ego.

Of course I function in the world and I need an ego to do so.

I have a mind and I have a sense of ME. Of course I do.

But I know that this ME is not ME!! DO you get this?

It is really simple. I am not the ME that I always though I was.

This is not ME - although life is being experienced.

Who am I REALLY? Who are YOU really? Once you realise who you are
then there is no more ego - although you will still continue to function
and live a normal life.

In a sense there is no such thing as enlightenment because it is not
something you attain and can brag about. (Like I just did above - when
I said that I have no ego).

The ego - or the sense of 'I' is an illusion. You were not born with it.

A child is simply living and does not know who he is. Until one day the
sense of 'I' appears - this is the ego.

It is not real - it is a creation. I simply recognise it is not real.

That simple recognition changes everything.

Finally "Truth is not about believing".
Truth is recognition of what IS.
Belief is a concept of what you think IS.

Belief keeps you blind. Truth sets you free.

Many people rely on belief to live their life. The belief gives them hope.

Truth does not need any hope. Simply recognise the truth and you begin to
see what is - rather than what you want to see. You will drop all concepts
including the concept of God.

How do you know I have the truth? Because you have it too. Truth is all there is.
But the untruth (belief) hides it from you.

Drop the belief and the truth reveals itself - you don't have to do anything.

It is like 'darkness'.

darkness = the absence of light.

How do I fill a room with darkness?

It is already there even when the light is on.

Simply remove the light (turn it off) and the darkness reveals itself.

It was always there - but overshadowed by the light.

How do you know the darkness it there - simply turn off the light.

You do not have to wait for the darkness to come. It is already there.

You can understand the darkness but unless you turn off the light you will
not see the darkness (does anyone ever SEE darkness anyway?)

[Osho Robbins]

George,

Who said anything about material desires and attachments?

Desire will always remain - otherwise you cannot be alive.

How can you even comment on this blog, if no desire arises?

And what is this about good and bad desires?

I am talking about desire in a different sense: If you seek something and your happiness depends on it then you are trapped by the desire.

Like - a new car - a new house - or a new girlfriend, or like a new Job - or best of all - getting to Sach Khand or getting enlightened.

Once you get the 'thing' you were seeking - it is an empty victory.
You want MORE and MORE. You are unhappy and unfulfilled because you keep on seeking more.

This continues forever - unless you recognise what you are doing.

I am not saying that Mother Theresa's desire is anything 'bad'.
It is not good either. If her happiness depends on her success in that
field - then she will be unhappy.

It is not your job to be a 'good' person, or to do 'good' things.

Why? because then you are aspiring to something. Why do you want to be
a good person? Is there a specific benefit? Do you get a medal? Is God keeping a record and then you can show him after you are dead that you did some good things?

Simply helping the poor does not make Mother Theresa a saint. What is a saint anyway? A person who does good things? Helps others?

This is all duality.

It is all a creation of the mind. Good and bad do not exist except as concepts in your mind. There is no absolute Good or bad.

Is eating meat a good or a bad thing? Says who?

as long as you live in the mind - you will think in terms of good and bad
and you will try to be a good person.

Once you realise the truth - Good and bad will simply disappear and you will not try to become a good person because there is no such thing.

[tucson]

Manish said: "who has attained inner progress never reveal"

--Why not, and if no one has revealed their inner progress how do you know anyone has attained inner progress? How do you know there is any inner progress to attain?

Actually Manish, please don't write a reply to this. I know I won't get a straight answer. You will just talk in circles as you always do. Just think about my question for yourself if you like.

[tAo]

Right-on Osho. Well said. Love reading your comments.

[George]

Osho,

This is what i think.

I think that you believe that you have realised nonduality where there is supposedly no-thing and no forms and no god.

"(1) I know with certainty"
--- You cannot know with certainly only with your own personal belief or opinion. However you may phrase it, i.e. the truth, a recognition, an experience, a realisation or whatever, it remains your own personal subjective belief (opinion). There is no objective evidence for nonduality, thus your belief that there is no form and hence no god cannot be certain.

It remains your opinion, just as it remains Manish's opinion that there is a god.

"You don't understand what it means to have no ego. Of course I function in the world and I need an ego to do so. But I know that this ME is not ME!! DO you get this?"
--- I get that you think you have realized nonduality, although you supposedly continue to wear the 'self' mask with its ego to be able to function in human society. Which actually is my point that to have an ego and desires is to be human, to not have these things you would need to be a 'green-blooded vulcan' as Bones so aptly put it.

I also get that you, like Manish mean well, in trying to enlighten others as to your own personal way of thinking, and that is fine. However, there's a difference between you guys and me: i realise my views are merely subjective beliefs that may be wrong, whereas you guys leave no room for doubt and 'know for certain'.

What i'm most certain of is that no-one knows the truth for certain.

[George]

On the desire point, again i think you and Manish are more similar in your outlook than me on this issue.

I think there is alot of truth to what you guys say, and indeed the buddhist stance on attachment, which is that if one seeks something there is always the potentially for unhappiness or an unfulfillment.

But i believe desires or the search for something might be fullfilling. Afterall is it not hope that drives us all on, even through the darkest times? Planning for the future, desiring to improve ourselves, our circumstances or something better. By seeking and achieving things it may also be argued by psychologists that people's sense of self-worth and esteem are increased. I am not saying this necessarily is the case, but it seems like a logical explanation. In fact, it might be psychology 101 that those who seek and fulfill their desires have the best self-esteem and are most content.

The person with no desire may as well be dead, cos imo such a person is not human. Desires and egos are surely what drive us on, they are what make each of us who we are, they make up our sense of self (tho you might feel this is illusory). It is these qualities that together contribute to the unique persona we call I or you, and which other people are fall in and out of love with.

[OshoRobbins]

George,
What I am not talking about any personal belief or opinion.
A belief is not something you know. I am talking about knowing.

What is the difference?

You place a cup of tea on the table. How do I know it is a cup of tea?
Because I have seen cups of tea before. Still this is just a belief.
I could be mistaken. This could just look like tea but is actually coffee!

I DRINK the tea. Now I have tasted it and I can tell you that I
KNOW the tea. I have experienced it.

Now you might say - it is just my personal experience of tea!

By drinking the tea I know the tea.

Of course you can change the name or definition of tea and say that I
cannot know the tea for certain - how do I know it is called tea?
Maybe it is called coffee now - maybe you give it a new name. It does
not matter because I have drank teh thing itself - and the name does not
change anything.

Knowing - does not mean mind-knowledge to me. You are quite correct that
the mind does not know and there cannot be any certainty.

However, you are functioning only within the mind and the conclusion you
have reached is correct because you are seeking a mind answer.

How can the mind prove or disprove God?

There will always be doubt.

However, you can REALISE the ONE. Call it God or by any other name.

Realisation is certainty - just like when you taste the tea. You know
the tea. The name may change to chai - but it does not matter because
you have tasted the thing itself - not the name.

I have no concern with God or Enlightenment or Truth.
These are all concepts and mind-constructs.

You are dealing with a concept when you talk about enlightenment.

I am not talking about a concept or a belief.

I am not saying that God does not exist.

The ONE is all there is. So a GOD as a FORM (as a being; as Sat Purush)
does not exist because it goes against the very idea of eternal and
changeless.

All form changes and ends.

So here is what you can say with certainty:

IF God has a form - then he is within TIME and SPACE and he is BORN and
will DIE.

That is not an opinion. It is not a belief. It is a simple fact.

As simple as saying that everything within TIME and SPACE will be impermanent.

As simple as saying that 2+2 = 4.

Even God cannot make 2+2 = 5. But I thought God was all powerful and could
do anything - but can he do what is impossible by nature?

I do not THINK I have realised non-duality. I have not done anything of
the sort. NON-DUALITY simply IS. Whether you realise it or not.

I am not trying to enlighten anyone to my way of thinking. This is just light
entertainment.

You are right - your VIEWS are subjective and may be wrong.

However, I am not talking about a VIEW or an opinion. Views and opinions
are not certain - you are correct.

However, not everything is an opinion.

realisation is as certain as 2+2 = 4.

If there were no mirrors and no reflective surfaces, how would you
KNOW that you had eyes? (assuming you were not allowed to feel your own eyes)

You could not SEE them - hence you cannot be certain.

So how do you know for certain that you have eyes. You could say that it is
impossible to be certain.

Then you realise that eyes are what you SEE with. And you further realise that
you are LOOKING and SEEING things. So you KNOW you have eyes because you are
SEEING through them. You don't need to SEE the EYES to be certain.

When a child is at school - they are taught by repeating. They have no undersanding.

They may not know what is means when they say 2x2 is 4.

Suddenly one day - they realise - and from that point it is no longer a theory.

that is what realisation is like.

God or ONE is no longer a theory. To you at the moment - everything is a theory
and you are right when you say that you cannot be certain because the mind can
NEVER be certain - there is always room for doubt.

However, that does not mean that uncertainly is all there is.

I am different from Manish because he simply BELIEVES. I do not believe.

I Realisation is a PARADIGM SHIFT.