When pundits and scholars are always in disagreement, we can be sure that truth is not at hand. Only this afternoon, I realized my intellect did not have the answer I sought. And so I have to meditate, in some small way, all the time, because it is the only thing I know. Be that a chant or a visulization or both. So I myself am at a loss.

Only a Messiah could make such a drastic change in uplifting a whole population of people's consciousness. It seems that is the way it has been done in the past.

"Daniel Dennett recently tried to debate with a guy called Dinesh D'Souza at Tufts University. D'Souza just put up an army of strawmen and debated them, never answering any of Dan’s questions. Mind you D'Souza once dated Ann Coulter, which may be an indication for something?"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4

>>>>>>>>

Dinesh D'Souza tries to provide evidence for his religious beliefs(Chatholisim) same as Deepak Chopra does for several of his New Age beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza

Your cute..! Is that allowed? The messiah...maybe...is that allowed?
I better behave or you may kick me off IB AGAIN!

Hehehehehe = )

Love

Scientists disagree and yet all the major religions lead to the same conclusion. It is a very long time before a scientific discovery gets into a journal, and then the journal gets into the text book and then the text book gets into common knowledge and the common knowledge becomes common sense. Let's remember though that it was common knowledge and acceptance for ancient Greeks to engage in pedophilia. Science will never govern or lead us to that higher sanctity that good vibes can.

"Moses parted the ocean.
Jesus raised the dead.
Mohammad (PBUH) was visited by Jebril from heaven and he wrote Koran

What did Deepak do to deserve to be a Messiah?"

--SK

If moses parted the ocean, Deepak can perform miracles of mind over matter like telekinesis.

If Jesus raised the dead, Deepak gave the west mind-body medicine of Ayurveda and Yoga(also Jyotish Astrology)

Id Mohammed wrote Koran with the help of Jebril, Deepak wrote "How to Know God", "Life After Death" and other books of greater spiritual wisdom without any need of some angel soul.

There must be a clear separation of church and state all over the world.

It is essentially wrong for governments to get involved in the affairs of religion. There are way too many countries that continue to uphold and/or institute barbaric blasphemy laws well into our time. This must end!

The Sudanese government recently demonstrated a clear measure of barbarism and backwardness in prosecuting Ms Gillian Gibbons, on an apparent innocuous incident, when they could have been channeling their resources into dealing with the more pressing humanitarian crises in their homeland. They are not alone.

Incredibly, as recently as 1987, Pakistan, under Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, instituted the death penalty for blasphemy: penal code 295C. This means that Gillian Gibbons could have possibly received the death penalty in that country. Isn’t this a step back into the Dark Ages?

There is something fundamentally flawed in the practice of religion when the impulsivity and spontaneity to violence can so easily erupt anytime anywhere in the Islamic world at the slightest perception of an insult to Muhammad and then be justified in defense of faith. Where is the tolerance they keep bleating about? Where is the love for fellow man they gleefully brag about? Where is the peacefulness they claim their religion is about?

People need to educate themselves on what really transpired in history; and to stop blindly accepting what has been handed down to them, unquestioningly. The more informed the individual is, the more likely he is to make rational decisions, not only for himself, but for his dependents. The cycle of ignorance must end everywhere, once and for all.

Finally, when it comes to metaphysical matters, we should always be wary, for it does not appear as if Mother Nature is too concerned whether we should distress ourselves much about that which is beyond our control!

Ya what?

Whoever said India never had an Annointed One does not know that history very well, nor the present.

**SPIRITUALITY (state of being spiritual) is inclusive of, but NOT interchangeable with, RELIGION (god belief).

Religion (worship for personal deities) has been chiefly hi-jacked as a pyramid device (the "God shield", the high morals) for political/social dominion by the rulers (the shepherds) over the mass labor/resource (the sheep and their lands).

-- RELIGION's greatest "enemy" (or dissolvent): Common sense + Spiritual liberty

-- SPIRITUALITY's greatest defeat: Bigotry (self/culture/nation/ethno centricity) + Hypocrisy + Complacency (enclosed from renewals/reforms inspite of societal/scientific advancements)

Islam's crisis today is self-evidently induced and furthered by its own internal complacency, bigotry, hypocrisy, deficit in common sense and in liberty. Catholism faces similiar dilemma.

It is long due (after such a terribly long count of years) that major religions' followers pull their heads out of their whinny pity parties and demand their leaderships to undergo critical reforms of those obviously fallible/obsolete creeds and practices thereof - as to catch up with the undeniable/unstopable human advancements. Or else, as all abusive dysfunctional relationships go, they shall move nowhere but in the muddle of rubbish.

Scribes and Pharisees thought Jesus was enemy of religion. Jesus thought they and their ilk were the hypocrites of all time. They thought death would silence the whistleblower. They would not enter the Kingdom themselves nor would they allow anybody else, yet they knew it was eternal.

But the Kingdom, now of Consciousness, is being realised through a reconcilation of Science and Wisdom. Both have arisen out of Consciousness, which ever seeks more fruitful expression and never without a little pruning.
I fear religion, as we know it, still abounding with 'Scribe and Pharisee,'will be pruned for the Kingdom comes with superior dimensions to be felt and realised in the temple of each our own hearts and minds. Keeping faith with the rigid rules of the four dimensional 'reality,' whether for good or bad, in context, will blow one apart with the same symbolism of a suicide bomber.

Therefore be ye Resonant for Resonance may well save the day!

Perhaps?

**SPIRITUALITY (state of being spiritual) is inclusive of, but NOT interchangeable with, RELIGION (god belief).

Religion (worship for personal deities) has been chiefly hi-jacked as a pyramid device (the "God shield", the high morals) for political/social dominion by the rulers (the shepherds) over the mass labor/resource (the sheep and their lands).

-- RELIGION's greatest "enemy" (or dissolvent): Common sense + Spiritual liberty

-- SPIRITUALITY's greatest defeat: Bigotry (self/culture/nation/ethno centricity) + Hypocrisy + Complacency (enclosed from renewals/reforms inspite of societal/scientific advancements)

Islam's crisis today is self-evidently induced and furthered by its own internal complacency, bigotry, hypocrisy, deficit in common sense and in liberty. Catholism faces similiar dilemma.

It is long due (after such a terribly long count of years) that major religions' followers pull their heads out of their whinny pity parties and demand their leaderships to undergo critical reforms of those obviously fallible/obsolete creeds and practices thereof - as to catch up with the undeniable/unstopable human advancements. Or else, as all abusive dysfunctional relationships go, they shall move nowhere but in the muddle of rubbish.

"what spirituality has to offer -- the expansion of consciousness beyond rigid beliefs of any kind -- is the ultimate solution." ~ Deepak Chopra

Now, that's why I read everything I can get my hands on that Deepak writes.

Love, Char

Deepak is very human.
Very intelligent but very human.

Knowledge is memorized, spit back out on the test that may render an "A". A nice parrot to have.
But reason and rationality will temper passions and a mean heart - the makings of a man.

But saints are not graduated every year from the university; why not? There is something else going on.

The parrot is happy with his cage.

As the humans,
See religion in 3..

1. Mind of the religion
2. Soul of the religion and
3. Body of the religion

Problems to any religion occures or attracts
becouse ppl mostly focus on the

" BODY OF THE RELIGION " and neglect mind n the soul of religion.

Understand the body of the religion by Understanding the mind n da soul of religion.

Onece GANDHI said,
"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business."

Nilesh Gore

Hello All,
I am new here and actually know very little of Dr Deepak Chopra. I actually just happened to cath him on Public Television offering help for their funding drive.

I have a question. Dr Chopra believes in God as I know God as a Christian God or is his God a metaphor or other?
What do you, based upon your beliefs believe happens to you when you die? As I understand (very little) of Buddhism, Hinduism, Ishlam, and other religions, only Christianity offers eternal life through belief God and acceptance of his love and grace. It sounds silly doesn't it?... but no more silly than becoming a tree or some lesser or more being in a "next life". I find Pastor Bob Coy very interesting in Bible study at activeword.org even if you ae not a believer, as I am not a believer in becoming a tree in my next life, Pastor Bob is not very "preachy" and interestingly enough, his philosophy on life, I bet is very similar to Dr Chopra's. Search the archives. It won't hurt to learn a new view. In fact I intend on visiting this site and reading a book or two by Dr Chopra. Which of his are you favorites?
T

Science, reason and rationality are not an "enemy" of "true" spirituality. What seems to be a friend of muddled spirituality is pseudoscience, unreason and irrationality.

Neither organized religions nor New Age beliefs have a patent on spirituality or mysticism either.

********

This is rich:

(I already named my cat Rumi a long time ago,
and no one from Islam protested ;-)

like to highlight this talented columnist, Intentblog readers might want to check his weekly columns.)

Freyja

***********************

Let us kill all the teddy bears
Note to radical Muslims: I've now named my favorite coffee mug 'Muhammad.' Hope that helps

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Here's what I like to do every time I see a throng of frothing religious zombies marching in the streets of Sudan or Pakistan or Colorado Springs or anywhere else in the world, carrying knives and torches and holding festering clots of fear in their hearts as they burn flags or photographs or copies of "The Goblet of Fire" or "The Golden Compass" or that sweet little book about the cute gay penguins in the Central Park Zoo and all screaming for the instant death of someone who dared to suggest that, say, Jesus was actually a liberal pacifist or that L. Ron Hubbard was a nutball hack or that it's perfectly delightful to let sweet little schoolkids name a sweet little teddy bear 'Muhammad.'

I try to remember. No wait, that's not quite right. First, I get past the wave of nausea and sadness, that hot, palpable feeling that we are, still and forever, a baffled and insane and deeply doomed species and the world of man is indeed bleak and hopeless on far too many levels to count.

Yes. Must get past that.

Then I remember. I remember the remaining 1.2 billion Muslims of the world who are also reading about the Great Teddy Bear Blasphemy of 2007 and going oh holy hell no, please, Allah no, not this again, not these inbred fundamentalist jackals making us all look so horribly bad, and why does the media insist on showing such a harsh, fragmented picture of a generally peaceful (albeit overly militant) faith and is there really nothing we can do?

I remember how difficult it must be in this, the age of instant and global and yet often wrongheaded media coverage, for the average true believer of any of the world's giant, confused religions to stay focused and faithful and full of piety, considering the increasing number of mindless zealots who so effortlessly poison their spiritual well.

Then I wonder: Do such events ever spur any sort of somber internal query among the faithful? Do these countless acts of terrorism and extremism, so common to every major world religion, ever stir up some sort of nagging notion that perhaps there really is something fundamentally wrong with how billions of people still cling to these codified, archaic systems of faith, so terrified as they are of change, of progress, so saturated in reactionary groupthink that they give rise to endless outbursts of hate and ignorance? Sadly, I think I know the answer.

Indeed, the distressed reaction from normal Muslims must be a very similar to what average Christians experience when they hear about yet another loud-mouthed gaggle of Bible zealots using Jesus as a weapon to attack and bash and impede, to go after gays and women and science and sex and terrifying little books about girls and magic dust and talking polar bears.

It's a common Christian lament. It's also a bit bogus, unconvincing, hollow. Because the fact is, the extremists of any religion merely serve to illuminate the fact that there's always something inherently dangerous in giving yourself (and your national identity) over to such divisive, woefully dualistic systems that, no matter what your stance, absolutely insist that man is but a flawed, lustful animal that can never truly know God. Or to put it more crudely: The fanatics may like to pee in the pool, but religion built the damn pool in the first place.

Because then I think of how many senators and Bible-thumpers and Bush-bashed Americans who are seeing stories like this and snorting, "See? Murderous Muslim fanatics raging in the streets! This is why Christianity is so much better. This is why we should bomb the Middle East to rubble. Bush is right!" And they raise their flags and cock their Bibles and pat themselves on their arrogant backs, conveniently forgetting that the only real difference between radical Islam and Christianity's own bloody, murderous past is, well, a bit of time, with a splash of geography.

Ah yes, the bloody crusades, the sadistic assaults on conflicting belief systems, the gay popes and murderous priests and boundless hypocrisy, the book burnings and witch burnings and pagan slaughters and a billion sexual oppressions, the mountains of guilt and shame and sin sin sin. Been there, done that, still doing a great deal of it but not quite as, you know, explicitly as before. Note to righteous Christians: That violent Sudanese march? Different branch, same family tree.

I think of Christopher Hitchens' terrific stunt of book, "God is Not Great," and also Richard Dawkins' excellent "The God Delusion," bestsellers both and both effortlessly revealing, by way of reason and scientific fact and sheer common sense, how organized religion has been, almost without fail, the single most successful impediment to mankind's true moral, spiritual and even political progress throughout history.

To me, both are dead right, and yet also deeply missing the point, if for no other reason than that they both argue their perspectives straight from the mind, the realm of reason and logic, when spirit is, of course, a matter of the heart. To me, the greatest argument against organized religion is not merely that it makes no logical sense — this much is obvious. It's how it puts the heart, the fluid and indefinable — and yes, hotly mystical — spirit, in a kind of theological cage, bound and gagged and fed only scraps of carefully censored truth, and dares to call it love.

All these thoughts swirl and dance when suddenly I read that the pope, perhaps the most dangerous, out-of-touch world figure in all of organized religion's dour pantheon, has declared that atheists — atheists! — are responsible for some of "the greatest forms of cruelty" in history. I laugh out loud. It is a wonder that lightning did not strike him dead on the spot.

Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Twain: "Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion." Tom Robbins: "A sense of humor, properly developed, is superior to any religion so far devised." Salud, gentlemen.

And finally, I think of the eternal chicken-and-egg debate, modified thusly: Which came first, the radical fundamentalists who can't walk and chew warm theology at the same time, or the overeager commercial media, ever in need of tales of shock and titillation and blood to get you to pay attention?

Or the existential version: If extremist hooligans march in the streets and there are no media to cover it, do they make a sound? Does it make a bit of difference? Does anyone care? If there are no cameras, will the zealots just stay home and masturbate to copies of "The Hills" on DVD? Then again, if the media ignore such eruptions, will they be accused of bias? Of neglecting their duties, especially if something truly dangerous occurs? If you were running a news organization in this age of fear and persecution and limitless media potential, what would you do?

As for me, I love Great Danes. Also Dobermans and Ridgebacks and sleek Lab mixes. Alas, I do not yet have a dog. When I finally get one, perhaps I shall name him Allah. Maybe I shall get a second dog and name her Buddha, my parrot Jesus, my new mattress set Shiva and Shakti, my car Dionysus, and my favorite Pyrex sex toy, naturally, oh sweet Lord. This is the plan.

For now, I shall do my part to defuse the raging drama of perceived blasphemy in the world by naming my favorite coffee mug Muhammad. I suggest you do something similar. Spread God around. Unlock the cage. Defeat toxic zealotry. After all, is God not everywhere, in all things at all times in every possible way? You bet She is. Really, why save her for just the teddy bears?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/12/05/notes120507.DTL&nl=fix

Deepak I would ask you a question. What do you think happens when you die?
If there is no God, then where did you and I come from? I am sure you have been taught evolution in school, but you have to decide for yourself if it makes sense or not. Take a look at the computer you use. Where do you think it came from. I will give you two choices. 1. Someone designed it and someone built it. 2. It happened by random chance over the period of a couple of billion years.

Okay, which one did you choose for the correct answer? This might sound silly to you, but think about it. You know that the computer you use did not just make itself over a long period of time. You know that no matter how long a period it is that a computer will never just become a computer. That is common sense. Now look in the mirror. Do you realize that you are more complex and more powerful than all the computers that have ever been built? Now answer this question, knowing that you are more complex by trillions of times than the computer, where did you come from? 1. Someone designed you and built you. 2. You happened by random chance over the period of a couple of billion years.

Okay, which answer did you pick? Do you see my point. We all know that a computer, or a car, or a TV or a CD player did not just make themselves, but we are willing to believe that all the animals and all the people are just an accident of evolution.

My point is that if you just use your common sense you will know that you have a Creator, you just need to get to know Him. I will tell you straight up that He is the answer to your whole misunderstood life. He is the answer to what happens when you die. He created you with a soul and that soul will live forever. Either it will live with Him and have a good time or it will live in hell, separated from Him and have a horrible time.

post 23,
Thanks Freyja that was an interesting read. It makes many valid and obvious points.
I especially agree with these two:

1.I think of Christopher Hitchens' terrific stunt of book, "God is Not Great," and also Richard Dawkins' excellent "The God Delusion," To me, both are dead right, and yet also deeply missing the point, if for no other reason than that they both argue their perspectives straight from the mind, the realm of reason and logic, when spirit is, of course, a matter of the heart.

2. 'To me, the greatest argument against organized religion is not merely that it makes no logical sense — this much is obvious. It's how it puts the heart, the fluid and indefinable — and yes, hotly mystical — spirit, in a kind of theological cage, bound and gagged and fed only scraps of carefully censored truth, and dares to call it love.'

THE greatest problem with any belief system, religious or philosophical (of which scientific method and thinking is also a part) is that it is embraced with a totality by its adherents. This is the scary bit, not the belief system as such. It is this inexplicable tendency of human nature that is the problem. What is it presicely that makes people so certain of their own thinking that they are prepared to ridicule, disparage, scorn and even kill people that don't agree with them? This is what I would love to understand.

It is of course true that certain belief systems lend themselves more easily to totalitarian thinking and to physical violence than others. Atheists have a point that religious beliefs are more likely to be perverted by people of fanatical bend. They feel that God himself/herself is behind them and endorsing their actions. Atheists and scientists are more likely to question their beliefs at least early on in their journey. But once set in their ways they too can be just as intractable. Their own ego becomes the equivalent of God of the religious believers.
Having doubts and questioning and never ceasing to be willing to learn and grow is the only answer. But how many are prepared for that sort of continuous quest? We all give up too soon, subscribe to a philosophy and hang our boots, spending the rest of our lives defending our chosen 'ism', whatever it may be.

When Intelligence and Intellect meet, true Wisdom is born.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin predicted this and the Internet is becoming living proof of it.

The Mayan Calendar predicted this already aeons ago, just as your own Yugas description does.

There are some counter forces trying to prevent the scheme of things to go as it should go.

Yet, no thing can prevent the Universe and Nature to go as it should go and as it has always gone.

Every tradition, religion, even science, deeply knows:
we do not know :)

When we surrender to this simple fact, the balance will take place in a natural way.

Right now we are worldwide able to look in awe at all the wonderful pictures provided to us by Hubble and some other telescopes.
This is as far as we are and there is till soo much to discover.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/

So sit back, relax and let it be :)

Season's greetings, Happy holidays!

Mieke

Dr. Chopra:

Another fantastic post! One of the main learning for me was the point:

"It may not be synonymous with religion, but the two aren't opposites, either. Countless seekers have made a beginning in church synagogue and mosque. The uneasy relationship between organized religion and someone's personal search for God is still alive."

After all everyone of the spiritual giants got their first education at the feet of the organized religion.

The fight between Islam and Christianity is indeed today's greatest danger to the world stability and it will remain so until one or both annihilate the other (and the followers). The element of Superiority of one's belief to the exclusivity of every other (this is the important damning element) is what keeps these two ideologies at loggerheads with all others.

I do not see the world ever being completely spiritually enlightened (then the world/creation will not exist), but the pendulum from fundamentalism of one's own ideological superiority to a more accepting way of life will eventually move in the right direction. It is how it has always been.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

"Thus God makes plain to you His revelations, so that you may give thought." - Koran 2:266

Thought. Think about it.
Free will to choose bad vibes or good ones.

PS: Someone quoted Gandhi above. Thanks. Now what a saint. I have his mohn-mala. Do you know he he said smoking caused cancer way back in the 1920's maybe? It's in the little book. I don't think we got the same message til after the Marlboro guy died.

Hi Mieke,

Thanks for sharing those stunning vistas from the Hubble Space Telescope.

Regards.

Some for the Glories of This World; and some
Sigh for the Prophet's Paradise to come;
Ah, take the Cash, and let the Promise go,
Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum!

Were it not Folly, Spider-like to spin
The Thread of present Life away to win -
What? for ourselves, who know not if we shall
Breathe out the very Breath we now breathe in!
- The Rubayyat 13-14 Edward Fitzgerald

Oh the Hubble, really puts things in perspective for me. We are just a whisper.

derek

Yes, religion is its own worst enemy.

But even that is a symptom. Below it is the fact that man is his own worst enemy.

Consider: SETI, in their (possibly misguided but heroic) search for intelligence in the universe, has included "redundancy" in their definition of what comprises an intelligent signal from space

"Redundancy" as an integral part of "intelligence". There's a Koan for you bust open with some serious meditation.

"Redundancy" is also part of stupidity it seems: we've all heard the famous definition of failure - doing the same thing over and over and respecting different results.

So which is it: if you make the same stupid mistakes over and over again, are you intelligent or are you stupid?

Seems like the whole human race is working on that one as we speak.

I think enlightenment is enjoying a moment of getting lost in the images so many people worked so passionately to bring us, and forgetting about religion, spirituality and the need to answer our fear based questions.

I hope there does not come a time where everyone agrees on everything.

derek

Thanks Mieke, I'm going back to look at more of our universe.

derek

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

I am realizing, reading Deepak's blog, that I do not feel that there will be any big changes when it comes to religious ignorance...no expansion of consciousness for either Islam or Christianity...although there a pockets of expanded consciousness within both....I think...I have listened to wonderful people from both religions with perspectives that include and tolerate rather than exclude...but I do not see their perspectives influencing the mass teachings of their religions.

I am with Ron when it comes to there being a separation of church and state in all Nations...No Nation should be run under religious laws...period....but just look at the trouble we have here in the USA....even today, 2007, we still have religious groups wanting their beliefs to be the law...listening to Mitt Romney this week give his speech about his religious views was very disheartening....

When it comes to religion and expanded consciousness...do not hold your breath...religion is ALL about rigid beliefs, in my opinion, religion is ALL about religious laws and dogma...and, in my opinion, when it comes to religions it is ALL about the survival of the religion....not necessiarly...the survival of a belief in GOD, an inclusive God.

That massive dose of consciousness is still a long ways off....and the best way to deal with it, in my opinion is to just allow it to be without fighting it one way or another...because then we are feeding it....and the one thing it does not need is more nutrients.....

have a great weekend everyone, ruth

@ 22

Telliman,

Welcome to Intentblog community!

I am glad you finally found Deepak Chopra's teachings finally via Intent. YOu seem like an unpolished jewel in your spiritual search. Your search is over! Don't waste time browsing dogmatic religious sites.

Keep reading the archives of Deepak's blogs at Intent and as per book recomendations, I would say you should read all books(tens of). My personal favorite is 'Creating Affluence: Wealth Consciousness in the field of all possibilities.'

I keep reading it again and again and found great benefits. Deepak Chopra's Quantum Physcis explanations are a bit hard to grasp though. But when it comes to Vedanta Philosophy, he sounds like a realized master or an enlightened sage.

About your "next life" query I can only say about the Buddhist monks in India who consider that some of their gurus and great masters are reborn as tigers in the forest. It may not be a bad idea after all to be born as a tree or a maggot eating the tree as thought in Hindu philosophy. There are also human reincarnations of course. You can see proofs in Deepak's book "Life After Death". In the book Deepak also talks about Heaven. So I guess you can condition your soul (with spiritual practices; you can learn from Deepak's books) to be reborn in any form you wish, or go to heaven if that is what you want.

"Mr Champak Dogra you may want to read this and give us your insight.

“THE greatest problem with any belief system, religious or philosophical (of which scientific method and thinking is also a part) is that it is embraced with a totality by its adherents.”
Neetu"

kubaner

>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is one of the most ignorant things I have heard about science in a long time.

Next Question.

***********

Excerpts From

Valentine to science - interview with Carl Sagan - Interview
Feb, 1996 by Lynda Obst

LYNDA OBST: Carl, I wonder if you think that science is satisfying our basic yearning for meaning in the world.
Advertisement

CARL SAGAN: I think science is an incomplete and inadequate instrument for finding out about the world. But it's by far the best tool we have.

LO: Why do you think it feels disappointing to people in some way?

CS: Well, to begin with, science isn't designed to confirm our prejudices - it's designed to find out how the universe really is. So if we wish to be the center of the universe, if we wish to be the reason that there is a universe - as prominent religions have promised - then science is plunging us into a very cold pool, because the facts are very different. We live on an obscure hunk of rock and metal circling a humdrum sun, which is on the outskirts of a perfectly ordinary galaxy comprised of 400 billion other suns, which, in turn, is one of some hundred billion galaxies that make up the universe, which, current thinking suggests; is one of a huge number, perhaps an infinite number, of other closed-off universes. From that perspective, the idea that we're at the center, that we have some cosmic importance, is ludicrous.

LO: But isn't there a need for a sense of cosmic importance? Is that where today's hunger for mysticism is coming from?

CS: I think that's part of it. But what do we really want, what's true or what feels good? Science involves a strange and delicate balance. On the one hand, a remarkable openness and sense of wonder - no idea, old or new, is rejected out of hand, because there's no telling what might turn out to be true. Yet at the same time, every idea is to be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny. If we really want to know what's true, we have to approach everything with extreme skepticism.

LO: I think people are afraid that science, with all its demands for unambiguous accuracy, is somehow threatening to our sense of wonder. Can wonder survive this degree of skepticism?

CS: Sure. And that brings us to the issue of beauty. You look at the glory of a sunset. You're tremendously moved by it. Now, suppose that, in addition, you understand what the colors of the sunset are due to - it's called Rayleigh scattering, the differential scattering of light in the atmosphere. Does that take away the wonder or the beauty? To my way of thinking, not at all; it enhances it. Why shouldn't what we perceive as beautiful also be intelligible? There's a deep connection between an aesthetic experience and a scientific experience, which runs all through science. You constantly find scientists talking about how "elegant" a theory is.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_n2_v26/ai_18082728

"THE greatest problem with any belief system, religious or philosophical (of which scientific method and thinking is also a part) is that it is embraced with a totality by its adherents."

I guess ...that includes New Age philosophy, Vedanta Philosophy, Advaita Philosophy....

"Having doubts and questioning and never ceasing to be willing to learn and grow is the only answer. "

And that's Skepticism.

"But how many are prepared for that sort of continuous quest? We all give up too soon, subscribe to a philosophy and hang our boots, spending the rest of our lives defending our chosen 'ism', whatever it may be."

But then hat includes skeptc'ism' and mystic'ism' as well.

********

See... everyone has the right to defend their beliefs(dogma or evidence based). Believers in paranormal do the same. Spiritual gurus do the same. Only that science reveals truths based on evidence and physical reality. The rest is philosophy, metaphysics and spirituality. Science has no qualms with them. But this never stops people from portraying science as religion or that science is evil because it made the bomb etc...

Thanks Champak for highlighting how science can increase the sense of awe and wonder we have for existence, and make us feel more connected to the whole.

Thanks Kubaner for showing how religion is properly studied in its historical contexts, and not as conditioned dogma.

It's no accident that some of our greatest scientists such as Einstein, Godel, Feynman and others have sounded like sages when speaking on the universe and man's place in it.

Religion can bring people to together for good social purposes. But it has too often been manipulated by power seekers as a way to herd large groups of people to do their nefarious biddings (such as fight wars).

Mob mentality is generally not a very high level of consciousness, and my hope for humanity is that they stop allowing themselves to be co-opted into mobs and herded around by the wolves.

I see evidence that verifies that hope, and also evidence that undermines it.

"But once set in their ways they too can be just as intractable. Their own ego becomes the equivalent of God of the religious believers”. Neetu

Sound to me more like the big egos of spiritual gurus LOL! (Not Deepak of course!)

Seems like this lady has some confrontational and "intolerance" related issues with regard to some scientists or atheists ...equivalent of bigotism of religious believers.

This is all a learning process...I guess in true spiritual seeking.

"Having doubts and questioning and never ceasing to be willing to learn and grow is the only answer. "

I *want* to believe in magical thinking, a god who responds to my prayers, paranormal phenomenae etc... ok, I initially "doubt", and then accept them because I want believe that mind can bend a spoon, that astrologers can predict the future etc... actually I believe all these things..because nothing is impossible in my spirituality.

And I "believe" in Deepak Chopra when he talks about life after death and mind outside body.

Now if I start questioning these... like the skeptics, ..I will lose my sense of spiritual awe that I derive from believing all these things. I just see what 'feels' good for my soul and 'believe' it. Life is short. Live in the moment. That's part of the truth that I learned from Deepak Chopra and my own thinking about spirituality. Too much philosophy or intellectualism makes you a zombie.

Oh, tell Sam to get a tourniquet and sit down!

"When are people going to stop grasping at non-sequiturs to explain away crap? Seriously, Mr. Harris(Sam) is cutting a vein as we speak. Please stop this before he bleeds to death!"
Iago @167
------

I am not trying to "explain away crap," I'm trying to suggest that human behavior is more complex that a neat binary division of the world into fanatics and not-fanatics can account for. I am not denying that there are people who are just born fanatics (though I'd be hard pressed to prove that assertion, either)... but the world is not significantly populated with them. The signature characteristic of successful fanatics is that they are able to create popular movements by recruiting and "turning" ordinary people who were not previously fanatics. How? What are the factors that lead people to follow fanatical leaders, fill their coffers with donations, and fill the streets with mobs?

Well, no doubt some part of it is sheer charisma on the part of the fanatical leaders... but why are some people and some populations more susceptible than others? I don't claim to have done a study on the question, but is it really that outlandish to imagine that ignorance (owing to poorly funded or nonexistent schools) is a factor here? Or that it's easier to convince people to throw the rest of their lives away if they don't perceive the rest of their lives as having any value anyway? Or that people living in economically deprived countries harbor perfectly natural feelings of envy toward richer nations that fanatics can exploit for their own purposes? Which of these notions strikes you (or bleeding Sam over there) as implausible on its face?

Frankly, I think people who brush off all questions about root causes with a "they are just crazy fanatics" position are the ones who are really trying to "explain away crap." It's Bush-quality thinking: The president tells us the terrorists "hate us for our freedom," but if anyone asks why they chose us to attack, instead of any of the other Western democracies with essentially the same freedoms and social liberties, he accuses them of "making excuses for terrorism" or being part of the "blame America first crowd."

NO! Nobody's making excuses for terrorism (or crime or religious oppression). Evil behavior is evil, regardless of its causes. But if you refuse to even look at causes and motivations, if you won't consider any explanations other than that they're just born lunatics, you leave yourself no remedy other than to kill 'em all!

And that, my friend, is precisely how we got our collective balls caught in the wringer that is Iraq.

You'll pardon me, I hope, if I look for a better way.

Oops! wrong thread Post #47 belongs to "My Name Is Muhammad" thread.. but perhaps is also relevant here.

Well I don't know what is really Religion's greatest enemy, but I think all of our greatest enemy is our own *righteousness* in that so many of us feel that no matter what level of awareness we happen to be on that *our truth* is the only truth and everyone else should see it that way also. The 'problem' comes about when a person, or group or persons, tries to impose whatever they perceive as the truth on everyone else.

The universe is a big place and there is personal truth, relative truth, and then there is Absolute Truth and I don't know that we yet have the capacity to know what Absolute Truth is. I know we all want the truth and we want it NOW. But that is a mystery that will take time, patience and sustained effort to reveal. So, in the meantime, I will just have to say You are not wrong and I am not right or vice versa.

Relax and surrender into the wonder.....it really is a beautiful universe.[Meike, I am taking that from you :) Thanks for the Hubble shots, they are always so amazing.]

Bonnie

Kubaner

I don't know who made the remark "but the scientific truth is not the ultimate truth"..not I. However, I will say that scientific truth is defined by conditions and contingent on a given set of parameters and is therefore subject to dispute and error. So, what I am saying is that all levels of truth, within the dimension of ordinary human function, are 'relative' or 'dependent' truths depending on and relative to the perceptual level of an individual(or group).

Kubaner, I have not seen very many people here at IB denigrate science nor reason; certainly not by me, would that we were all on the perceptual level of reason. I don't really know why you perceive that to be so. My biggest skepticism of the skeptics are statements like "The scientific truth may not be the ultimate truth, but it may indeed be the only one."-Kubaner

See, that's where the *righteousness* comes in. You may intellectually think it's the only one but you don't know that absolutely and neither do I. By doing that, you preclude even the possibility that there is more than can be proven by scientific inquiry.

Bonnie

Kubaner

There is no quarrel with me as to giving science and reason a chance.

Are you willing to give Peace a chance?(Sorry I just couldn't resist>)

But I am speaking of the inner Peace brought about by self-realization/transendence and takes place non-rationaly and the mind stops conceptualizing or telling other people what they must or must not do or believe. This is the hard part and the part where the intellect gets in the way.

I know this is brief but will have to continue this discussion later....have some dancing to do tonight.(And yes, I do have to decide what I am going to wear!)

Bye for now

Post 24: Dear Ahsan,

I was curious about your phrase "an accident of evolution." Accident implies "unintended mishap."

To have intent there must be someone who intends.

To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to think the world was flat in 1491.

And in 10000BC it was riding on the back of a turtle.

And the pyramids got built because the earth past by some star that magnetized the mica and granite in the desert sand.

You know I have such an imagination and I wonder where that falls into the scheme of things.

Do you have something against God wanting to create the world through evolution?

Well, sometimes I feel like nut
sometimes I don't
Almond Joy's got nuts
Mounds don't

Humans aren't as advanced as they THINK they are. We are tragically addicted to being right. It's an epidemic of biblical proportions. Whether in the knitting circle or the circle of nations, we posture, assume, hide.

The fact is that we demand far more than our fair share of prestige, power, and acclaim...and call that freedom. Dark currents run right through the center of us, unacknowledged, unquestioned.

Right at the epicenter of this dark disaster inside us is the simple fact that we DO too much. We rattle with fervor and craving, afraid of ourselves, moving, plotting our escape.

Terrified of our silent, dark center, of who we might really be.

I am the terrorist.
I am the beggar.
I am starved
and crushed
and dumb
and sunk
and sung
considered above all things
a tired heap of breath undone
the pensioner
the whore
a collosal liar
the one-time hero
the atomic roar.
I am bully and bullied
murderer and victim
song and want of song
want of fire
want of truth
want of fervant stride
I am charred
split open in flame.
I am thief and purse.
I am brilliantly cursed.
I am margin and center.
I am black and tireless.
Torn.
Wrung.
Torn again and tossed.
and torn again and tossed.

In "Living Buddha, Living Jesus", Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

"In a true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. We have to appreciate that truth can be received from outside of -- not only within -- our own group. If we do not believe that, entering into dialogue would be a waste of time. If we think we monopolize the truth and we still organize a dialogue, it is not authentic. We have to believe that by engaging in dialogue with the other person, we have the possibility of making a change within ourselves, that we can become deeper. Dialogue is not a means of assimilation in the sense that one side expands and incorporates the other into its "self". Dialogue must be practiced on the basis of "non-self". We have to allow what is good, beautiful and meaningful in the other's tradition to transform us."

Dear Kubaner: I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, especially as it applies to your quest to "convince IBers to give science and reason a chance".

Dear post #59

What an amazing, energetic poem. It reminded me of something but I can't think what.

Dear post #51

There were so many "truths" in there that I thought I was reading a line from the Gita again.

Try this on for size:

If not by worldly knowledge,
The truth is not understood;
When the truth is not approached,
Nirvana is not attained.
- The Madyamika Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism

I don't know. Make sense?

I don’t know either, Sherry.

It is Saturday night, so why not come straight out and ask?

You still have not answered a question from another thread:
“Sherry, you seem to be a fun chick. I agree with you, external “things” often go internal and you may end up maternal. I am curious, has this happened to you?”

Smile, no harm meant!

Post 57: Thanks Sherry for pointing that out, was just going in my flow of writing so didnt notice that mistake. What I meant to say was completely the opposite of what you took to be the meaning! By that phrase I meant to say that all the creations didnt spring up by chance rather they were created. Having studied biology in my Alevels I firmly believe in evolution and being a muslim I can say that the Quran has never contradicted that theory rather there are some verses which support that! Furthermore it was the Quran which gave the concept of a round earth for the first time, before that we lived on a flat earth!

I know English is a hard language to learn, but I did not say external things go internal. I said there is external evolution and there is internal evolution.

Migi te, hidari ashi. What goes in a man's mouth doesn't make him as sick as what he vomits out...
words being as important as they are.

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad writes a long letter to our president and our President does not have the good manners to send an acknowledgement then you can be sure words are of no consequence to snobbish, provincial Americans.

And furthermore, I would have rather have read Rabidranath Tagore's The Cycle of Spring than William Shakespear's Hamlet in high school English class. I would rather have read Herman Hesse's Siddharta in English class rather than Catcher in the Rye. Mate.

"Who knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being?

Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not."

Hymn of Creation - Rig Veda

beautiful...

It seems even the God who created the universe doesn't know all mysteries...

It was always about YOU people.

Goes out
Comes back
The loves of a cat - Kobayosha Issa

What do you mean its Saturday night. Ask what of whom?

I lay my questions before the discrimminating bodhi intelligence. If he doesn't mind, it doesn't matter.

Quick! Call the fire brigade. It's up a tree and won't come down.

@47
"but if anyone asks why they chose us to attack, instead of any of the other Western democracies with essentially the same freedoms and social liberties..."

oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?

Post 67:
Here goes what buddhist cosmology stated, its copied from wikipidea:
Brahmā worlds
Main article: Brahma (Buddhism)
The mental state of the devas of the Brahmā worlds corresponds to the first dhyāna, and is characterized by observation (vitarka) and reflection (vicāra) as well as delight (prīti) and joy (sukha). The Brahmā worlds, together with the other lower worlds of the universe, are destroyed by fire at the end of a mahākalpa (see Temporal cosmology below).
Mahābrahmā (Tib: tshangs.pa chen.po) – the world of "Great Brahmā", believed by many to be the creator of the world, and having as his titles "Brahmā, Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be." According to the Brahmajāla Sutta (DN.1), a Mahābrahmā is a being from the Ābhāsvara worlds who falls into a lower world through exhaustion of his merits and is reborn alone in the Brahma-world; forgetting his former existence, he imagines himself to have come into existence without cause. Note that even such a high-ranking deity has no intrinsic knowledge of the worlds above his own. Mahābrahmā is 1 1⁄2 yojanas tall. His lifespan variously said to be 1 kalpa (Vibhajyavāda tradition) or 1 1⁄2 kalpas long (Sarvāstivāda tradition), although it would seem that it could be no longer than 3⁄4 of a mahākalpa, i.e., all of the mahākalpa except for the Saṃvartasthāyikalpa, because that is the total length of time between the rebuilding of the lower world and its destruction. It is unclear what period of time "kalpa" refers to in this case. The height of this world is 10,240 yojanas above the Earth.
Brahmapurohita (Tib: tshangs.'khor) – the "Ministers of Brahmā" are beings, also originally from the Ābhāsvara worlds, that are born as companions to Mahābrahmā after he has spent some time alone. Since they arise subsequent to his thought of a desire for companions, he believes himself to be their creator, and they likewise believe him to be their creator and lord. They are 1 yojana in height and their lifespan is variously said to be 1⁄2 of a kalpa (Vibhajyavāda tradition) or a whole kalpa (Sarvāstivāda tradition). If they are later reborn in a lower world, and come to recall some part of their last existence, they teach the doctrine of Brahmā as creator as a revealed truth. The height of this world is 5,120 yojanas above the Earth.
Brahmapāriṣadya or Brahmapārisajja (Tib: tshangs.ris) – the "Councilors of Brahmā" or the devas "belonging to the assembly of Brahmā". They are also called Brahmakāyika, but this name can be used for any of the inhabitants of the Brahma-worlds. They are half a yojana in height and their lifespan is variously said to be 1⁄3 of a kalpa (Vibhajyavāda tradition) or 1⁄2 of a kalpa (Sarvāstivāda tradition). The height of this world is 2,560 yojanas above the Earth.
Cant see where it gives the concept of a round world.
I couldnt find much about the veda's concept and as far as I know vedas kept on updating and there is too much doubt on its authenticity. Lets not make it a debate on comparative religions as I am not an expert on it. The debate is about something else here!

Ahsan wrote:

"Deepak I would ask you a question. What do you think happens when you die? "

"My point is that if you just use your common sense you will know that you have a Creator, you just need to get to know Him. I will tell you straight up that He is the answer to your whole misunderstood life. He is the answer to what happens when you die. He created you with a soul and that soul will live forever. Either it will live with Him and have a good time or it will live in hell, separated from Him and have a horrible time."

Read Dr. Chopra's "Life After Death" and "How to Know God"

All your misconceptions about Deepak's view of God Spirituality and soul. It is all inclusive. Unlike fundamentalist religions.

hello Deepak and Everyone,

I was just over to the nytimes.com and reading the opinion page and I decided to copy a little of Thomas Friedman's opinion titles Peace of pieces....thought it was interesting and somewhat related to your topic Deepak...below..

Op-Ed Columnist
Making Peace With Pieces
E-MailPrint Save Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December 9, 2007
Manama, Bahrain

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman

Go to Columnist Page » One of the most telling but little-noted ironies of the U.S.-sponsored peace summit in Annapolis, Md., was who on the Arab side didn’t attend. Syria, a country we barely talk to, was there. Saudi Arabia, which never meets with Israelis, was there. No, the two no-shows were the two Arab countries liberated by U.S. troops from the grip of Saddam Hussein: Iraq and Kuwait.

That’s right — Iraq and Kuwait, the two Arab countries hosting the most U.S. troops, and the two Arab countries with probably the most active elected Parliaments, were both absent. The Kuwaitis asked not to be invited, and the Iraqis were invited but declined to come.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Annapolis was useful. But when you toil for a year to throw a party and some of your worst enemies R.S.V.P., but the two people whose lives you’ve once saved don’t show up, it’s beyond rude. It’s interesting.

It actually reveals the core problem we’re facing in the Middle East: all of these countries are deeply internally divided, some with active civil wars — Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan — and some with latent ones. These divisions date from when these states were shaped by colonial pens, with boundaries that rarely reflected either shared ethnicity or a shared desire to live together. For decades, they were held together by colonial powers, the cold war, oil wealth or iron-fisted military dictators and monarchs.

But lately the lids have started to loosen, and in those places with real Parliaments — like the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Iraq and Kuwait — they tend to expose the depth of lingering divisions rather than express, or forge, a new consensus. These are divisions about basics, like the line between religion and state, the rights of women and minorities, and the role of citizens.

Kuwait’s Parliament has a liberal minority and an Islamist majority, which does not like Israel (and doesn’t like Palestinians much either). The Lebanese and Palestinian Parliaments are both paralyzed by discord. And Iraq? Sitting down with Israelis was only one of many things Iraqis can’t agree on, which is why the U.S. military surge has not yet produced an upturn in national reconciliation.

On Thursday, The Associated Press reported that a shouting match erupted in the Iraqi Parliament when a top Shiite lawmaker, Bahaa al-Aaraji, said he had evidence that a leading Sunni politician, Adnan al-Dulaimi, had branded Shiites “heretics” and had called their murder legitimate. We’re not talking Democrats and Republicans here.

What we are trying to do in Iraq is unprecedented: we are hosting the first real horizontal dialogue in modern Arab history by the constituents of an Arab country — on the assumption that if Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could actually write their own social contract, it would mean that something other than top-down, iron-fist politics was possible for this part of the world. It is hugely important — and next to impossible.

Each of the Arab countries and Israel has “its own Gaza,” said Mamoun Fandy, director of Middle East programs at London’s International Institute of Strategic Studies. “That is, an antipeace, fundamentalist, xenophobic faction, which wants to hold back any reconciliation. ... Until each country confronts its own Gaza, it will have problems.”

Including Iran. I’m in Bahrain, just across the Persian Gulf from Iran, for the institute’s annual conference. A big Iranian delegation was scheduled to attend, alongside a big U.S. team. The Iranians canceled at the last minute. Internal fighting.

“All these countries are like unfinished novellas,” said Stephen P. Cohen, author of the upcoming “Beyond America’s Grasp,” a history of the modern Middle East. Indeed, if you looked at just the key players — Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinians, Egypt and Saudi Arabia — “their leaders who went to Annapolis were all embroiled in struggles with domestic opponents,” which limited their room to maneuver, he said. Each one, he added, has a “Party of God” back home “that believes it doesn’t have to pay attention to what the government says because it doesn’t recognize that government’s legitimacy to make big decisions.”

That’s why these days big decisions get made by iron fists or they don’t get made. Power has become too fragmented. So unless there is more reconciliation within these countries, it is hard to see how there will be more reconciliation between them.

Which is also why, I thought, that instead of Annapolis, the peace conference should have been held, symbolically, at Appomattox Court House, Va., where on Palm Sunday, 1865, Gen. R. E. Lee surrendered to Lt. Gen. U. S. Grant, ending the American Civil War and reunifying our country. Admission is only $4 — and President Bush probably could have gotten a group rate."

I agree with Mr. Friedman I think all these Nations, generation after generation, hold on to grudges....as if they were their gold treasures...they polish them, keep the safely tucked away and cherished, worship them at the cost of thousands of innocent lives and declare their power in the name of their God or Gods...and this is the MidEast in all it's shame and glory...its' male dominated cultures, unable to be teased or humored into moving forward, into leaving those gold treasured grudges buried forever in order to give life and light to their children and their futures. No, it is all about the grudge...the payback....the darkness...the oppression...the almighty male and his power.

have a great day everyone, ruth(the orig)

sorry, I thought I only copied a portion of the article.....again sorry.....ruth(the orig)

All your misconceptions about Deepak's view of God Spirituality and soul 'will be addressed' that is.

I get the feeling that you think that Creator God 'revealed' the "roundedness" of Earth for the *first time* to Muhammad which is then recorded in Quran.

"oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?"
sarcástico #75
--------------

Oh, come on; don't be stupid. You know I didn't mean to suggest nobody but the U.S. had ever been attacked. (As an aside, the two largest recent "loony muslim fanatic" attacks in Europe -- the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 2005 London tube bombings -- put together only killed roughly 1/10 as many as 9/11, and the London attack was likely motivated at least in part because Britain followed our lead into Iraq.) But the "they hate us for our freedom" comment I was addressing was specifically about al Queda's self-proclaimed campaign against the U.S.

What freedom was Bush talking about? The open acceptance of sexuality and/or intoxication in American culture? Then why not attack Amsterdam instead of New York? Modernism? Then why not Tokyo? Political freedom? Then why not London (back in 2001, I mean) or pretty much any other major city in Western Europe? Our wealth? Why not Zurich?

It couldn't possibly be that they were pissed at us for something more specific to us than just "freedom," could it? Like maybe our foreign policy or our behavior in the Middle East? But if I even ask that question, I get accused of being an apologist for terrorism.

If somebody hits me in the face, I can decide he's crazy and hit him back... but unless I kill him, he's probably going to hit me again someday. If I try to figure out why he hit me, and mitigate that cause, maybe I'm better off... and neither asking that question nor acting on the answer in any way exonerates the other guy for hitting me in the first place: He's still a jerk and a bully. Even if he had some legitimate grievance against me, hitting me was illegitimate behavior. But either way, I'd rather act to remove the root cause of getting hit than engage in an endless fistfight.

Similarly, I'd rather see us figure out what the factors are that galvanize the odd religious fanatic into a global movement devoted to our destruction... that convert fanatical rhetoric into targeted action... I'd rather see us at least try to answer those questions than devote all our blood and treasure for the foreseeable future to the reflexive slaughter of every "fanatic" we can find. What part of that is really all that objectionable?

Ahsan writes:

"He is the answer to what happens when you die. He created you with a soul and that soul will live forever. Either it will live with Him and have a good time or it will live in hell, separated from Him and have a horrible time."

Or the soul reincarnates in a new body.

There is much evidence.

Read "Life After Death: Burden of Proof"

***

Your concept of God is narrow. New Age concept of God allows for a creator, and an all pervasive intelligent God that breaths through all his creation. One just needs to connect to this spirit to realize one's own divinity.

Buddhist and Vedanta philosophy are miles ahead of the narrow minded (literalist)interpretations of a creator God of Judeo-Christian-Ismlamic holy books.

here are some beautiful teachings for women and men from islam

www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=freedom4expression&p=r

"Frankly, I think people who brush off all questions about root causes with a "they are just crazy fanatics" position are the ones who are really trying to "explain away crap.""

Hahaha..

How can people keep making connections that simply are not there? How can people make claims that another said something when they have never said such things, ever?

Dishonest much?

"oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?"

You ignorant tool, both Spain and Britain had troops in Muslim countries, the exact reason that was given for attacking the U.S. Clearly saying "drrrr" and telling someone to read a newspaper is the best way to refute an argument.

"How can people keep making connections that simply are not there? How can people make claims that another said something when they have never said such things, ever?

Dishonest much?"

Dishonest? Like your uninformed ramblings? If you look at census data from the U.S., church attendance is highly tied to economic performance. Yes, people who are poor are more likely to go to church, and, generally speaking, as poverty increases so does violent crime and church attendance.

Your "argument" is pathetically weak. Claiming that the fact that the people who perpetrated the attacks were rich means that poverty and low social condition has no affect on the likelihood of someone turning out fundamentalist is like showing me a bat to disprove that all birds fly.

"oh, yeah, because other Western democracies are never ever attacked by loony muslim fanatics. drrrr. Try reading a newspaper?"

Which ones have had terrorist assaults?

UK
Spain
...I think Italy, too...

What did these have in common with each other and with the USA at the time in question?

Or, in bin Laden's own words, why not Sweden?

I sympathize with Jeff Harris and the others trying to conceive a constructive reaction to this minicrisis - but there's little point in any (American) effort in the absence of intelligent policies regarding Africa & the Islamic world, no reason to expect same in less than 14 months, and hardly any prospect of such after then.

Let's be glad that Gillian Gibbons is safely home, both for her sake and that she won't become an inappropriate wingnut martyr. Imagine the situation if she had been an American whose rescue depended on Rice diplomacy & the 82nd Airborne...

"Dishonest? Like your uninformed ramblings? If you look at census data from the U.S., church attendance is highly tied to economic performance. Yes, people who are poor are more likely to go to church, and, generally speaking, as poverty increases so does violent crime and church attendance.

Your "argument" is pathetically weak. Claiming that the fact that the people who perpetrated the attacks were rich means that poverty and low social condition has no affect on the likelihood of someone turning out fundamentalist is like showing me a bat to disprove that all birds fly."

I said what awhoawhatwhere? Ramblings? How does any of the responses I gave come under the definition of Rambling?

Are you on medication I should be aware of?

"I said what awhoawhatwhere? Ramblings? How does any of the responses I gave come under the definition of Rambling?"

Well, there was the comment where you asked "How many people that flew planes into the Twin Towers that fateful day were hungry and undereducated again?"(Kanika Sethi's Muhammad post where this discussion began)

The point you were responding to was that poverty and poor living conditions have more of a role than the specific ideology. Which clearly means that you think the fact that there are non-poor, non-hungry fanatics plays into the question somehow. Unless you just like to say stuff at random that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Caught your reply, Sherry. Thanks!

The thing that bothers me most about the blasphemy case is that although religion is a big part of the unfolding problem (obviously), the beginnings of this case springs out of spite. A sacked school worker deliberately involved the religious authorities - out of spite.

This appears to be a human failing which shows up (or perhaps is only effective) in any big ticket belief system. People being falsely accused of being witches, people accused of being aristos in the French Revolution, people being accused of being communists in McCarthy's America, people being accused of homosexuality (when homosexuality was crime), people being accused of collaboration during WW2 and so on, and on, and on.

Just another reason to argue against fundamentalism of any kind - it gives mean spirited people too much opportunity to indulge their baser instincts.

There was a crowd of people demanding the teacher's head. And yeah, they were a minority. But they were instigated by their imams, who decided that this accusation and conviction was a good pretext. And there was a judge somewhere in there; some scumbag of a cadi who decided that this bear-naming business could be called "insulting Islam", and did so within a day of the case being brought to trial.

And I recall that the Mohammad cartoons were deliberately shown to Muslims in various places, and some images that had nothing to do with the Mohammad cartoons were added to the mix, because they made the whole thing look more offensive.

The people who were rioting weren't blameless. But they are being whipped up and harangued into rioting by manipulative and cynical leaders who love playing "Let's you and them fight", where "you" means their own people, and "them" means the oh-so-convenient scapegoats of the powerful and wealthy Western nations.

Dear Chop Wu, thats very interesting and I have thought of that sorta thing before, but I picture my do it and I think if I was to drink my own urine I would question my own desires for it. I suppose there could be some sort of healing properties in it, after all is just water and minerals, right? I think for right now I will stick to Fiji and Smart water, there my favorites.

But that was a fantastic read!
Thank you

Love

""Well, there was the comment where you asked "How many people that flew planes into the Twin Towers that fateful day were hungry and undereducated again?"(Kanika Sethi's Muhammad post where this discussion began)

The point you were responding to was that poverty and poor living conditions have more of a role than the specific ideology. Which clearly means that you think the fact that there are non-poor, non-hungry fanatics plays into the question somehow. Unless you just like to say stuff at random that has nothing to do with the question at hand.""

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition. Consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example: given the premise, "All fish live underwater" and "All mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "All mackerel live underwater", but that "If she buys kippers it will not rain" or that "Trout live in trees" or even that "I do not love her any more."

This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap" and it gets me very IRRITATED because it is not logical!

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home.

"Why not?" I will ask.

"Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made.

I just skimmed through some of the comments and noticed some of you debating the merits of ‘truth’ and splitting it up into categories. I hope I did not miss anything, but I was kind of taken aback by it and decided to throw in a few thoughts in the mix and trust that no one is offended in the process.

Since childhood, I have understood truth to be, generally, a claim backed up by impregnable, irrefutable evidence that does not require a qualifier. More often than not, it is self-evident, with no one having a patent on it.

So, what is true? Let’s see:

1: It is true that the Earth is spherical; not flat. On this one, the debate is long over. For most of history, it was held that we lived on a flat disc;

2: It is true that without the Sun and H2o life will not be possible on Earth. The Earth would have been a barren, frozen rock floating in space till the end of time. All the beauty of the biological world teeming around us was made possible because of the Sun, without which no crop or flower will grow;

3: It is true (from the perspective of many in the scientific community) that life evolved in the primordial broth billions of years ago (and was not magically put here by a bearded man in the sky, some 6,000 yrs ago) and that more than 95% of all the species that once lived became extinct about 65.2 million years ago when the earth was impacted at Chicxulub (known today as the Yucatan Peninsula);

4: It is true the odds are that if you decide to jump off a 1000-foot poll onto the pavement below you will either end up dead or crippled. And you would be a fool to think that divine intervention will save you on the way down;

5: It is true that gullible people are continually being swindled all over the world by crooks, scam artists, of all stripes, manipulators and charlatans;

6: It is true that Charles Darwin revolutionized world view in terms of how we viewed life and how long life it has existed on the planet;

7: It is also true that the more you educate yourself, the more likely you are to make sensible, informed choices.

It is true, too, that no one can prove the existence of heaven or hell. In my world, these are mythical places invented by the opportunistic frauds and crooks who wrote the so-called holy books (in and an age when they could and get away with it) to scare and to console naïve, gullible people, as the case may be. It is equally true that many of you will remain misinformed throughout your life with a grotesquely skewed and narrow-minded view of the universe and will be far more comfortable with bullshit than with reason.

You Go, Ron.

***

Iago, so you do enjoy rambling, and a nice side helping of sexism. Thanks for clearing that up.

""so you do enjoy rambling, and a nice side helping of sexism. Thanks for clearing that up.""

Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

Dumb fish that is...

Blessed day. The Tibetan monks' last visit in America before they return to India tomorrow was to our home, Mountain Park, GA. They threw sand and milk into our lake, blasting horns. Then they blessed our spiritual Home privately with our board of directors of Heron House.

We exchanged smiles and blessings and oranges.

Happy, happy, happy.

P.S. I will send a link with photos tomorrow.

I suppose it is useful to appreciate all opinions, even when uttered by those with multiple challenges, as they serve, effectively, to put things into perspective.

I'm mulling over the following question: by how many religions in the world am I condemned?

I'll bet we're all condemned by over a hundred religions throughout the planet.

I'm going to start a religion that condemns and refutes everyone except me.

All I saw a few days ago, was Deepak's Question:

Hereunder, my response is:

"--Religions worst enemy is not spirituality per se, but rather instead, religion is it's own enemy. Animals are governed by nature; from where we came. Religion is a man-made concept, a perception, a guideline; and as such, can become both corrupt, and mal-practiced. Humans have segregated themselves from nature; and ventured into intelligence instead..and what this had done, was create one man, one party, or one government, or one church, to rule the world with. There too, there are so many ancient religions which practice torture, and death; and their are religions where the practicioner strives to be non-materialistic, and most-compassionate. This is our human nature.

Religion is hypocritical of nature, in that; it defys the laws of nature, to not only build, but to destroy. Religions are all ancient beliefs of men. There are rare informations on women leaders; though prior to the age of reasoning; women ran the clan..the home; dealt out the punishments or rewards for behaviour and deeds.

We have wavered from our mother earth, and become plastic-encased replica's of desire, and wants. We care more for our cars, and computers than our body's and mind's..

Religion segregates ourselves as one human race; it constructs walls of punishment-reward systems; it can outcast, destroy and kill.

Religion is therefore it's own enemy; because it is contrary to the laws of our natural state of "being' and that is "of and with" nature."

Seasons Greetings Dear Deepak, to you & the Family, from Me & Mine!

dana

You can call it the *Order of the Self-Righteous*
:)

A prime example of corrupt religion and/or leadership with the ruling thumb; is the shame, the tragedy and horror, occuring in China!!

Falun Gong practitioners are being jailed, interrogated, tortured, killed; and most horrificly is proof that China is using Falun Gong members as organ-harvesting donours(against their will, of course!)

There is proof of these out there!! CBC did a special a few weeks back; and suddenly got "strong-armed" into cutting out the footage, linking the organ-harvesting of Falun Gong members, etc. You-tube had a short edited version of the docuntary, but it was pulled within 24 hours...

Religion, all it seems good for, is death, destruction and war?

So, what is it good for? Why do we cling to this cancerous perceptions, which pits one man, to kill his brothers and sisters?

27 years ago yesterday, December 8-1980; John Lennon was murdered.. shot in the back...by a coward.

"Imagine.. no religion too." JLennon : )

Love,
North

North

WD40:

First, I hope you do not inhale too much of that stuff; it may be harmful to your health.
I would suggest that you walk over to the mirror and remove the wool from your eyes and you will then realize that Skep is still posting here.

Besides, quoting Carl Sagan's wisdom is a privilege, and it should be done more often than not. The giant may be dead, but his ideas are timeless. The world could certainly use an infusion of more brilliant minds of his ilk; and less of the con artists who shamelessly prey on the gullible, the ignorant and the weak.

Moreover, yours truly is not afraid to step up to the plate to answer legitimate, honest enquiries, (certainly none of the idiotic variety) time permitting.

P.S.: I shall have more to say about the Christian religion in the days ahead; it may be quite revealing to some of you. Stay tuned!

post 95
Dear Ron,
What is the purpose of life? why is there such a huge gap in the intelligence level of humans and rest of the animal kingdom?

Dear Kubaner, thanks for continuing to engage in this conversation with me; I wish I could respond quicker.

When you write comments like #62, you come across as very reasonable and open-minded. I don't think anybody could argue against your #62. But the tone of most of your other postings is markedly less so, which probably explains why I've seen you referred to here as a 'know-it-all'. You easily write that "If someone can honestly claim to have studied the sciences and the sciences pointed toward a supernatural explanation, so be it.", but I don't think your "belief system" allows it. The vast majority of your comments here seem (to me) to emit from a strong self-righteousness barely concealed under a thin veneer of sophistication.

In general, you make many thought-provoking points, and your expressed purpose - to ask people to give science and reason a chance - is a solid one from any perspective. Based on much of your postings here, I recently decided to pick up a book by Sam Harris (The End of Faith), and got a suitably sobering review of Islam and Christianity. Now, you may count that as a victory for your 'camp', but I wonder if you've read the concluding chapter where he points briefly to the non-dogmatic teachings of Buddhism (and indirectly, other Eastern traditions), because I don’t hear one mention from you about those. I see waylay has posted a quote here from Carl Sagan about Hinduism being accurate about the earth's age. Is that on your radar screen? Has that ever prompted you to look deeper into that wisdom tradition? This is what I asked you in my #57 (We have to allow what is good, beautiful and meaningful in the other's tradition to transform us), but your reply merely restated your position, without once giving indication that you even consider doing so. I don't know what religion's greatest enemy is, but you may want to consider that your evangelical zeal may be a significant enemy of your own cause. I'm not sure why you want to 'convince', though you have every right to. But while you do, life is happening, moment by moment, and judging those that have different views is another cause of conflict, the same kind that religions cause.

P.S. I've heard you question Deepak's concept of 'consciousness'. One of the best ways I've heard it expressed is actually from Harris's book, which piece I posted recently in DK Matai's thread: http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/10/hqr_homage_to_s.html. I would like to hear your thoughts on that, if I could.

Dear Ahsan:

Thank you for the great question!

First, I do not think that humans have a monopoly on intelligence. Many animal species have displayed amazing levels of intelligence; the dolphins are a good example.

Nineteen centuries ago, Plutarch, a Greek moralist and biographer made this statement:

"To the dolphin alone, beyond all other, nature has granted what the best philosophers seek: friendship for no advantage". 1 In our own times Barbara Tufty made the comment "he [Dolphins] also exhibits a friendly willingness to cooperate with other earth creatures -- a rare attribute which another animal, Homo sapiens, has not yet learned to do with any consistency".

Elephants, too, have displayed amazing intelligence.

Evolution is so slow-paced and human life spans are so short, that it is virtually impossible for humans to notice the changes in nature. Given great vistas of time, other species, provided that they have not become extinct by man’s destructive ways, may also evolve to rival man’s ‘intelligence’.

It took man an enormous span of time to separate himself from the other primate species on the African plains. We have not always been this ‘sophisticated’. All the fancy stuff you see around are relatively recent inventions, needless to say.

Some may ask: how intelligent is man when he represents the greatest threat, not only to his own survival, but that of all the other surviving species on earth?

Good night, all!

sWORDSman

I wanted to tell you Saturday, but had to rush out, that I liked very much the description of dialogue you posted in #57 from "Living Buddha Living Jesus." Excellent way to proceed.

Bonnie

Good Morning Ron,
I know that evolution takes place, at different paces for different species, infact I am reading a very good book 'The blind watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins but what I fail to understand is that why is there such a huge gap between the intelligence levels? All the other animals have been displaying the same traits for so many years, while on the other hand human intelligence levels are soaring higher and higher! Do u think there is a difference between animal intelligence and spiritual intelligence? Is this the spirit in us that makes us more intelligent or is it that we have evolved faster then any other species? Do u think there is a difference in intelligence evolution and physical evolution( i mean to say like taking humans as an example we evolve much faster in the intelligence aspect but much slower in the physical)?

For Sir Deepak,
With due respect, are you still doing research on your life after death study? because your explanations have totally failed to satisfy me (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rdYiLAz38).

LOL, Bonnie.

I may not be much, but I'm all I think about...

:)

On the subject of me:

I'm not sure why every thread in IB morphs into this perpetual debate on evolution versus creationism.

Even if you were presented with a film that faithfully depicted what REALLY happened, you folks couldn't even agree on what story to tell. One of you would say, "ah, see the steady hand of God at work." Another would counter, "but don't you see natural selection occuring?"

Because you're arguing about stories. Not origins.

The truth is that either St. Augustine or Charles Darwin were sitting around the campfire telling stories. Some stories are boring, some are REALLY whoppers.

Personally, I sleep through stories about other story-tellers.

Because we all need a little sleep.

Dear Ron,

With your comments in post #110, you only answered the second question, asked in #108.

In my younger days i was told by science that man was a terrible mistake of Nature!

Well, from your remarks I get the impression that you feel the same :)

But that still leaves us with the first question:
"What is the purpose of life"?

Only religion gave an answer in those days. Philosophy couldn't and science couldn't either.

So when I asked a priest i got the answer from the bible.
When I asked a philosopher he only could answer me with deep, deep questions holding in fact no answer.
When I asked science I received the answer: man is a terrible mistake of Nature.

When I asked my friends or my father and mother I received the answer: we really do not know. You are here, only solution is: make something of it!

So either way, one was always thrown back to oneself.

By learning from and having respect for all three disciplines and then coming to ones own conclusion, to me still seems the best way :)

Thanks for your informative contribution.

Hearty greetings to you and family.

Mieke

Dear Waylay,
I enjoyed reading your post from Ramana Maharishi. Thank you.
And I agree that spirituality does not need to be attached to a given religion.
However, we learn our language and thinking skills from those around us.
If we fail to discern and embrace one who is in the know, then we may be taking a long walk off a short pier.

Hi Deepak,

That was an Interesting read and one that I agreed with entirely.

My deduction of what John Cleese said is a little different to the way that you have approached it. I think John Clees was having a poke at religion in the sense of Religion being a business rather than really being about God Realisation. The church is a good example of how comercial religion has become. Spirituality is something that allows the ignorant self to become more in touch with the essence of the being. Spirituality does not require a subscription or a belief even. Spiritual realisation infact is just to become an observer rather than a sufferer.

Religion at its core in most cases seems to be a lot of hypocritism and a lot of misguided views being taken too seriously by masses of people who are walking around as if they are awake; yet really they are asleep to the reality of God.

I would like to point out that I myself regularly visit Churches and I have many friends who are muslims and I have prayed with them in their Mosque. Even though I do not take religion seriously I still find the views of different people Interesting and I respect them.

In time Religion will merge with Science. As Science evolves beyond the materialistic level and religion drops all of its ritualistic and dogmatic rubbish, then we will see a time when human kind can begin to scratch the surface of really knowing god and being aware of the limitless presence. I think that you have done more than anybody in recent times to bring this change into the realm of everyday reality for people.

Simon

Spirituality's Greatest Enemy:

Unreason and Pseudoscience

Re. 126

Anne:

"I remember his quite surprising response to me, after hearing my story and concerns that I might be sinning by getting a divorce:

He didn't use the word sin. He said that my error was not in getting a divorce. My error was in getting married for the wrong reasons, and that the divorce was correcting that error.

Man, did I feel free after that meeting!"

Lucky that you drew this guy and not a Catholic or someone else for whom divorce is ideologically out of the question.

"He told me that the sermons he preaches are to the consciousness of his congregation as THEY are, and he can preach only what they are willing or capable of hearing."

A good man. Lucky again? Drawing wisdom to yourself?

"Hence, it seems everybit as natural for me, today, to appreciate fully the potentiality in religion, in large part due to my experience,

as it seems natural (and healthy!) for others to be inclined to stay clear of it due to their own experiences.

It all feels so...so....."right"."

I enjoy hearing "another side" (from my usual position and that of the regulars who post here) presented with such balance.

Thanks

"In time Religion will merge with Science. As Science evolves beyond the materialistic level and religion drops all of its ritualistic and dogmatic rubbish, then we will see a time when human kind can begin to scratch the surface of really knowing god and being aware of the limitless presence. I think that you have done more than anybody in recent times to bring this change into the realm of everyday reality for people."

Yes, religion can potentially evolve towards true spirituality...by ceasing to be religion by definition.

But rationality(of science) cannot become mysticism(of spirituality), by definition. Science studies physical reality and this doesn't change in a billion years. Spirituality doesn't need any justification or reiteration from science. Science finds new truths but spirituality remains the same. One should not confuse superstitious beliefs or paranormal beliefs/claims with spirituality. If there is any truth to those beliefs and claims, science (materialistic) will find the evidence and those explanations will be of physical reality. No new proof in science will lead you to absolute truth. You don't need the knowledge of science for the so called 'enlightenment' that you can find within. Conversely, a clear understanding of the workings of science can give you the freedom from its own limitations to find absolute truth. So both mystical thinking and rational thinking can be both enlightening.

"Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

Dumb fish that is..."#97

Oh, sorry, I guess I missed the deeply biting wit of your story. Or perhaps it wasn't really witty.

Bigot~ a. small furry animal, mostly found on the planet Lezle. b. An over growth of hair on ones big toe.

There, much better.

I love you

In My Solitude(for Deepak)

In Solitude my heart soars
with my Lover
In flight,
I am this dampness
an ancient Ecstasy,
In Enchantment I find
you so near, my in-breath
Inspiration,
ever
I am aware
my Devotion
my Eternal Longing,
my Insatiable Desire
just to
hold,
touch,
know,
feel and
immerse myself
womb, belly and breast
your depths I would
plumb
in Absolute,
Beloved,
For I Am
Silence,

Darling,
Come,
Speak to Me

alternative to religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4&feature=related

"a refreshing bit of sanity(#23), thanks. "

Hey you're welcome, Anne. (i must admit, i, like
MM must get over the joy i felt when he called
L. Ron Hubbard a "nutball hack". haha)

"Don't know what else we can expect when apes are better than we are at math memory skills AND are more highly motivated to solve problems. Seen a bit on ABCnews."

I haven't read it, but sounds muy interesante. Makes sense. Having limited or no ability to reason as humans do, their minds are naturally
freer to focus on the immediate task at hand. The trade-off is in the lack of their capacity for imagination. In itself, is a double-edged sword. Great art has emanated from great imagination, as well as great atrocity.

"Your cat is really Rumi, Freyja? Did you see Elizabeth Gilbert of Eat Pray Love fame last week on Oprah? Julia Roberts is playing her in the movie.

Can't wait for Shantaram now."

Yes, I named my cat Rumi.
He is SUCH a lovey.
My daughter didn't care for that name,
so I convinced her that we could name
him Romeo, which then got shortened
to Romi, and then with a simple tongue
twist, wa-lah! -- Rumi.

The female we got at the same time was
then named Juliet. Everybody wins!

I tried to watch that show but I fell
asleep. That doesn't say anything about
the show (I don't think), but that I
was exhaustate-ed. But still, what was
she saying, "go on your own journey"
"be thankful", "make sure you ask yourself
all the questions you need so that you find
out who you really are" all the same stuff that
some people need to hear over and over again,
but some people no matter how many times
they've heard it never really listened --
until they hear it from their own heart.

So, did I miss anything?

I'd hate this to get TOO Oprah-ized, you know
what I mean?

Yeah, it will be interesting to see what they
do with Shantaram.

Now there's some truth Freyja.

Post timing.....I was just referring to the video. I will have to go back and read 140 before I can comment on it. Yo

"'Mum, Dad - you're saying you should kill me… but I'm your daughter! Don't you realise that?'?""

Koran and Sharia.

I find this amazing that it is so institutionalised, not an aberration like the inquisition or other persecutions...

He notes that "all four schools of Sunni law, as well as the Shia variety, call for the death penalty for apostates. Most Muslim scholars say that Muslim religious law - sharia - requires the death penalty for apostasy.

"In 2004, Prince Charles called a meeting of leading Muslims to discuss the issue," adds Dr Sookhdeo. "I was there. All the Muslim leaders at that meeting agreed that the penalty in sharia is death. The hope was that they would issue a public declaration repudiating that doctrine, but not one of them did."

Continued

at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/nmuslim109.xml

Muslim apostates threatened over Christianity

Last Updated: 2:20pm GMT 10/12/2007

-=- get ready, Babe, hang on...here she comes
gallumphing across the void
for a flying leap into Pete-hug!!!!!
WHhaaaaaaa! :-))))

Posted by agart

"by definition. Science studies physical reality and this doesn't change in a billion years. "

at the atomic level or the physical core level , at its deepest level it is not material it is none matter it ceases to be an object and becomes nothing. There is a level of the physical world were it is no longer physical. It is understanding this level that will lead science in a new direction and unlock some of our greatest mysteries, answer our most puzzeling questions.

the common misconception is that all things come from something and then they become something else.

At an atomic level we see that all things are made up of energy that is none material. This energy can conduct the world as we see it and shape it, transform it. Science has already understood this and is begining to realise that there isn't anything in existence that is physical. The world is an Illusion that we have created. In its true state the world is just a ball of potential energy that is being interpreted in many different ways.

What is quite funny and also extremely beautiful in a sense is that when scientists or even just regular people question the world/life and space and so on. In actual fact what is happening there is God is trying to understand itself. Amazing when you consider it. God is trying to work out what it is, through the means of human mind.

Well, I scanned some of the comments above ... I do believe that we will all be united in peace one day, as the Bible states. And yes, I am a believer and I stand by the concept of expanded awareness for all religions in order to reach this oneness.

Love, Char

PS: And until we reach peace and unity, tolerance is critical as some stated above.

qoute Char4

And until we reach peace and unity, tolerance is critical as some stated above.

Nothing is unequivocal when it comes to the destiny of mankind. The balance between tolerence and conflict sways in the moment. Strike that balance and who knows what you will have created.

Education is the key to peace. Without Education it is impossible for people who live in countries were they are too afraid to disbelieve religion and make up their own minds about God or the history of the world. A few hundred years ago here in Britain a person would have their head cut off or horribly tortured to death for having their own personal views about god. Through many years of democracy and Education our culture has become more humane and civilised. The terrors that have been executed upon people in the name of religion here and in other parts of europe through the ages are nothing short of demonic.

On the other hand

Can human beings really live as civilised people without extreme laws?

Many educated people would argue that the human species on mass are too wreckless to be allowed freedom and democaracy for all and that they must be held to account by religion so that they will be good and pure and decent people.

Politics and religion can be debated till the cows come home and still we will not agree entirely. this is just the nature of the subject. So in that sense Tolerence is a must for peace.

Sometimes Mankind is like a timb bomb icking away waiting to explode.

Explode into a new evolution of consciousness

or Explode with its own destructive nature.

or maybe it will be somewhere in the middle.

Who can tell these things.

Galatians 5:22, 23

And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering (allowing), kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW.

So yes, it can be done and I don't need an education to experience Spirit.

Love, Char

Therefore, once someone knows them Self, they will move to peace naturally regardless of belief or religion. So I think it would be in the benefit of the awaken to help those who are still asleep .... like what Deepak does.

Love, Char

Dear Waylay,

I have watched all three videos you mentioned in
#121, 122 and 123. Good stuff that was not available in my youth just after world war II.

During that time the saying here was: "If you will keep them ignorant, we will keep them poor."

That was the way Church and local government worked during those days!

We had to work it out all by ourselves and believe me, our generation has succeeded in a splendid way.

Nobody was and is able to tell us anything if we do not want to, whether it is religion, science or philosophy!

And we are the first generation that really KNOWS how to survive!

Mieke

Anne, I must've read 126 about five times to make sure I fully absorbed its impact. It goes perfectly with Char4's post 155:

Galatians 5:22, 23

And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering (allowing), kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW.

Anne, it sounds like the people with whom you counseled were humble, truth-telling. And so your attitude is the harvest that results.

The opposite results from encounters with those for whom truth is but darkly known. So you're right. It explains such vastly different opinions here!

@151
SimonFreeJohn:

"At an atomic level we see that all things are made up of energy that is none material."

Energy or Matter are equivalent and is physical reality. This is the commonly misunderstood notion that soemhow Energy discredits the philosophical notion of Materialism.

"This energy can conduct the world as we see it and shape it, transform it. Science has already understood this and is begining to realise that there isn't anything in existence that is physical. The world is an Illusion that we have created. In its true state the world is just a ball of potential energy that is being interpreted in many different ways."

Modern science and string theory fro ex. tells a lot about cosmology and our universe... true...but all it studies is data from physical world. Whatever it describes is physical reality (again it includes all energy - including dark matter and energy). The same science told that total energy of universe is Zero.

Quite apparently you like many woo cases don't understand the meaning of physical reality, materialism or science. when scientists talk about Reality, they mean Physical reality. Reality as such has many forms. Anything science studies ever, any new theory it proposes, is based on evidence they collect from the physical world. Even if science comes up with a Unified Theory, it doesn't give you all the answers of Ultimate Reality - only physical reality. Reality as such has many forms. There is mathematical reality which need not correspond with natural world . And also Mental reality too. Mathematical, Physical ands Mental worlds overlap and the God who "is trying to work out what it is, through the means of human mind." is mental overlapping with physical and mathematical.

Spirituality has always been complete and is complete. Objective Science as much as it is exiting can NEVER give you (scientific)answers for big philosophical questions. There is always room for science, philosophy and metaphysics. The spiritual masters of the past didn't get enlightened by reading science of their day, if you think modern science has to soemhow find evidence for 'your' spirituality, you are deluding yourself.

"if you think modern science has to soemhow find evidence for 'your' spirituality, you are deluding yourself..."

I ain't mean you do. But that's what the woos give an impression of when they hang on to science and misrepresent it in all ways possible to delude themselves and others.

#136

Monty Python?

I Am Lonely For You, your small lies
(for Deepak)

And he sacrificied his love for her
so she may rise to her heights
this he did for Love, he lied
and told her an untruth to break
her heart
that she may yet again weep
in her human-ness, such is the Love
for the Beloved, such is the Love
of the multitudinous being called
Lover,
to go to the ends of the world and
fall off willingly
to reach into the bowels of hell
for a mystic rose
to walk on shards of colored glass
to cut deeply the still of the night
We shall know more of This
my Darling,
our souls have long been interwoven
our spirits have long breathed one another
our bodies have danced in the efflorescence of Light
we shall know
on another as
Human
fallible, honorable, a concoction of various melodies
all strung out
a silver cord
the last and lost chord
of our
Song of Love,

I Call You to Myself

"Koran and Sharia.

I find this amazing that it is so institutionalised, not an aberration like the inquisition or other persecutions..."

Sandy #144

It has been quite successful though. Islam so far has been the religion of "winners" and today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and Buddhism is probably the fastest waning one.

One religion tried to teach kindness and, its demise is now for all to see. Another religion teaches things like this, and, its success is now for all to see.

Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941] :

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

Albert Einstein, in "The World as I See It":

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

Cups
(for Deepak)

My Darling lift me to yourself
in Prayer of the Beloved
tenderly hold me
for I breathe only as your touch
kiss me into being
I long
to be the depth and breadth of you
split us only in Passion
an Experience
of Two

My Lover

You are the center of the Universe
I am the swirling stars
we birth one another
Presence

Let us remember this Day
when
God called us into Being
One

I offer you a golden chalice of Light
Let us drink
our cup
runneth over





All my Love
Meera

Rose Petals
(for Deepak)

dear sweet lover,
whatever is mine
is always thine
my heart, my body,
my soul, my mind.

day and night I look
the ways you'll
come by my house
where I've scattered
already rose
petals for you.

I'll forsake
everything in this
world but want
just one thing
with you to spend
alone a night
with you.

My dream lover
I've one problem.
tell me
that night what
nighties do I
wear for you.

All my love
yours Meera (the real Meera)

Deepakji and I ARE LOVERS but there is ONLY one problem....

Well, my darling dancing Deepak's meeras, admirers and friends, it's like this:

Ya'll gotta ask to dance with me. Not tell me or grab me forcibly. And PULEEZE you might want to give me a little sugar and honey with that medicine if you want me to swallow any of that bullshit that you might think passes for Love.

But that's ok, cause you're all figments of my imagination, and maybe I'll just wash you out of my hair.

And for Deepak, some poems (I wonder if this post will stay) I wrote early this morning:

Longing

Longing,
You are my dark one my companion,
my Lover, you are my tormentor,
my sweetest dream,
you bid me enter,
now,
you take your leave now
for worlds unknown
to any part of me;

yet, I follow
as always I must,
one step
behind you
now faltering, now weeping,
gagged and bound
behind your fuzziest veil of memory,

Love,
I remember you,
your consuming fire,
write to me
one billion poems
of your hidden desire.

~

For Deepak Chopra

I lost time today,
no turning back
or running ahead,
like a faithful servant, I have come
Home, and now I
lovingly laid to rest,
these rampant thoughts
no longer control this
war-rampaged heart of mine,
I relinquish you,
let you go,
sever my attachment,

free myself
to Be Here Now.

~

Star Of India

This invitation is an open door
to my soul,
my beloved,

awaken me
with the rock of Golden Buddha
in your hands of white light

rain on me
rubies of fire
in a quantum sunrise,

kiss me
with azure skies
and turquoise seas

send my ashes across
the Sacred River Ganges

Meera(one of)

If someone sits with me
And we talk about the Beloved.

If I cannot give his heart comfort,
If i cannot make him feel better
About himself and this world.

Then, Hafiz,
Quckly run to the mosque and pray--
For you have just committed
The only sin I know.



Hafiz

Finally what is the alternative to religion

Especially for values etc?

Sometimes I feel a little meshuganah. Then I look at the news and say wow! Now that's meshuganah.

Instead of a Messiah guy, we really need a Psychia-guy.

Islamofascism(neologism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although Islamofascism is usually a reference to Islamism or radical Islamism, rather than Islam in general, comparisons have been made between fascism and Islam, as far back as 1937, when the German Catholic emigré Edgar Alexander compared Nazism with "Mohammedanism", and again, in 1939, when psychologist Carl Jung said about Adolf Hitler, "he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic, warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god."

Albert Scardino attributes the term to an article by Muslim scholar Khalid Duran in the Washington Times, where he used it to describe the push by some Islamist clerics to "impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry".[4]

"The related term, Islamic fascism, was adopted by journalists including Stephen Schwartz[5] and Christopher Hitchens,[6] who intended it to refer to Islamist extremists, including terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, although he more often tends to use the phrases "theocratic fascism" or "fascism with an Islamic face" (a play on Susan Sontag's phrase "fascism with a human face", referring to the declaration of martial law in Poland in 1981). [7]

"Some commentators including Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens, believe there are similarities between historical fascism and Islamofascism:

* rage against historical humiliation; [9]
* inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism)[10][6];
* a desire to restore the perceived glory of this age -- or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations"[9] -- with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system;[5]
* belief that malicious, predatory alien forces (Jews in the case of Nazi Fascists or Islamofascists) are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces; [6]
* exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.[6]
* offensive military, (or armed) campaign to reestablish the power and rightful international domination of the nation/community.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

"Imho, the alternative to religion is growing up, coming of age in 'spirituality'. Although that has taken a rather ugly turn." Anne

Commercialization (as is the case with mainstream spirituality) requires both a 'feel good effect' to which sale applies and a 'feel bad factor', once strong enough, serving as incentive to buy (means for) salvation.

"Balanced living is mandatory in this crazy world. And to find that in Self is Rumi's meow!!" ~Anne

ME-OW!!

"I really respect how Oprah gets through mainstream media/religion to inject some authenticity via real spirituality (that is through real people)." Anne

What I found absolutely hilarious is how one day she had a show where they were getting to the root of the problem of very serious hoarding, with rooms filled to the ceiling with stuff. Where the expert was seriously telling people to stop going out and buying stuff and Oprah was looking straight in the camera and saying, everybody, not just the over the top people, but everybody, you got to stop bringing all this stuff into your house. Then at the commercial break, (which is every 60 seconds, it's like the show is an advertisement for the commercials), comes the teaser for the show about all her favorite products that everybody needs to go out and get, plus she is loading the audience up with all these things that nobody really needs. And women are screaming and jumping up and down as if their heads were just about to blow open any second, like a volcano erupting, from all the excitement of all this 'stuff' Consumerism to the max. Does anybody see the irony of this?

"Having read 'Eat Pray Love' and understanding the search for Self, (haven't we all been there, done that?) two things came to mind:"

I read Eat Pray Love and she is a fantastic writer.

"Women historically have been the caregivers, often neglecting self for "other". Quite unbalanced and much passive-aggressive tendencies seething with anger, just below the surface. (Of course I speak with experience, having been there and done that.) So her book gives a resounding it's ok for women to be themselves and find that little piece of peace that it uniquely 'mine'."

Amazing that in this day and age women still need to hear it's OK to be themselves, but I think most women know it's OK other than the low self esteemed battered ones; no, it's more than having to hear it's OK. It's figuring out HOW to be one's own person, taking steps to actually break out of the rut that they are in, the action part, instead of just talking about and imagining some ultimate utopian fantasy world.

Freyja

YO! doodleman

Dad kills girl but prays 4-5 times a day.

Well here we go again...

www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=159480

Chris Wattie, National Post Published: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

""Last year, she wore like the Islamic stuff and everything, the hijab, and this year she's all Western. She just wanted to look like everyone else. And I guess her dad had a problem with that.""

Aqsa's friends: 'She wanted to live her life the way she wanted to'

"Dad kills girl but prays 4-5 times a day.

Well here we go again...

www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=159480"

There might be a link between religion and crime rate, Sandy.

For starters, this article (verification that it isn't made up is easy)

---

America is 80% christian, poland 95%catholic,Czech 70% Atheist. Why Czech has the best morals, lowest crime?

Why do majority christian and catholic countries have the highest crime rates and majority atheist/agnostic countries have the world lowest crime and moral issue rate?

[...]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070912060857AAAeiLc

Sandy have you read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"? I think you might like it.

"What I found absolutely hilarious is how one day she had a show where they were getting to the root of the problem of very serious hoarding, with rooms filled to the ceiling with stuff. Where the expert was seriously telling people to stop going out and buying stuff and Oprah was looking straight in the camera and saying, everybody, not just the over the top people, but everybody, you got to stop bringing all this stuff into your house. Then at the commercial break, (which is every 60 seconds, it's like the show is an advertisement for the commercials), comes the teaser for the show about all her favorite products that everybody needs to go out and get, plus she is loading the audience up with all these things that nobody really needs. And women are screaming and jumping up and down as if their heads were just about to blow open any second, like a volcano erupting, from all the excitement of all this 'stuff' Consumerism to the max. Does anybody see the irony of this?"

Unfortunately, Freyja, situations like this are no longer considered IRONIC.

Hello Everyone

Freyja writes:
"What I found absolutely hilarious is how one day she had a show where they were getting to the root of the problem of very serious hoarding, with rooms filled to the ceiling with stuff. Where the expert was seriously telling people to stop going out and buying stuff and Oprah was looking straight in the camera and saying, everybody, not just the over the top people, but everybody, you got to stop bringing all this stuff into your house. Then at the commercial break, (which is every 60 seconds, it's like the show is an advertisement for the commercials), comes the teaser for the show about all her favorite products that everybody needs to go out and get, plus she is loading the audience up with all these things that nobody really needs. And women are screaming and jumping up and down as if their heads were just about to blow open any second, like a volcano erupting, from all the excitement of all this 'stuff' Consumerism to the max. Does anybody see the irony of this?"

Haha, yeah, maybe!

you know, yesterday, i went to the mall...my companion was very slow moving and as i tried not to run off and leave her, a salesman caught me. It seemed that he was selling fingernails.

Now I don't have anything against fem stuff in general... but don't like long painted nails and so in response to his well rehearsed sales concern, I just said that I don't do that. To which, he replied in turn with a universal grabber, "why? aren't you worth it?"

"aren't you worth it?" can be translated simultaneously in two ways and generally will be. The first, to be nice to oneself because we're so..um...worthy...and if we don't give to ourselves what everyone else has or wants, we are being unkind to our very own selves.

The paired association is "if you don't do or have this, you are not as good as you could be or as the others who do or have this".

It surely wouldn't have been fair to that poor young man who just wanted to make a buck any way he could how I felt about the modern female fingernail styles, so I didn't. But since you can just turn the cyber page or scroll down if you want to, I'll explain it to you.

The fingernail is a good metaphor for the commercial or the fundamental spiritual scene, either one. First, you have to decide you need them because other people have them and it becomes popular to think they look a whole lot better. Then, you make the decision to spend the money and take the time to get them. Once you got them, you have to keep on redoing them when you notice a flaw and you have to protect them. Protecting them means that you have to do things in a way that's more complicated and less direct than you used to do them, or possibly stop doing certain things altogether that you once liked to do.

At some point, you might secretly believe that you were better off without them but now you've learned to be self-conscious...you notice fingernails, your own and the fingernails of others...where before you never did. It's not so easy to go back to fingernail innocence. You go back to your manicurist..and back... and back...and you protect...ruth

Ruth:

Great story!

I guess an appropriate response to that poor salesman could have been:

"Am I worth it? You make a very good point."
(At this point stop and consider what he has said.)

And then go on with "after thinking it over, I am definitely worth it, worth it enough to be able to say 'no', I prefer my own".

"....To which, he replied in turn with a universal grabber, "why? aren't you worth it?"" ruth

Ah yes, the old "aren't you worth it?"

"The paired association is "if you don't do or have this, you are not as good as you could be or as the others who do or have this"."

Of course. That is what drives consumerism. My kids have heard from me, are they going to let some random every day dorks sitting around in cubicles in fancy and not so fancy Madison Avenue offices dictate what they are supposed to do think wear say have, etc. in order to consider themselves 'worthy'?

"The fingernail is a good metaphor for the commercial or the fundamental spiritual scene, either one."

Yeah, and like Oprah, on one hand telling people to get rid of stuff, and on the other hand pushing more and more stuff, they end up talking out of both sides of their mouths, denouncing one kind of materialism when they've merely traded it in for an 'upgrade'.

"Yeah, and like Oprah, on one hand telling people to get rid of stuff, and on the other hand pushing more and more stuff, they end up talking out of both sides of their mouths, denouncing one kind of materialism when they've merely traded it in for an 'upgrade'."

Stuff, what dreams are made of ;-) (Variation on Shakespeare)

George Carlin on stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac

~Anne

Many spread knowledge, but a few spread wisdom. Although the number of readers are limited, I think you are doing service to mankind Deepak!

hello everybody,
few miniutes back i was hearing the guru on the NDTV Profit and wanted to read his views and hre iam within minutes.
im visiting tht intentblog after i read the blog was going to close the discussion.

Strong intention is important for anything.
When you doubt whatever is coming to you goes back
end.
shehla Masood.

Strong intention is important for anything.
When you doubt! Whatever is coming to you goes back

shehla Masood.

Anne #164
Amen and amen.

Yo back Freyja.

derek

There is basically no differece between religions and spirituality.Religions basically talk about the spirit which becomes spirituality.
A poem from my book Ponder Awhile.

Religions
The entire Buddhist monks life is but a preperation,
For his Death point or moment of seperation.

The Jains have Santhara,
Quitting life consciuosly to join with the paramatma,

Hindus go into samadhi,
Where there is no Congres,Shiv Sens,BJP or Samajwadi.

The Christian merges with the Holy Spirit,
Peace no more desperate.

The Sufi mystic to become one,
Dances,twirls.prays,trances to get the job done.

Aghora means illumined with light,
Longing for Shiva in whom they delight.

Shamanism or the art of ecstacy,
The ultimate being one with the superentity.

There is no need to change your faith,
And on our old religion lay awreath.