So many people I know and respect are smug know-it-all atheists...

[swilow]

Again, I'm not implying it has to be one or the other. Related reading.

I must admit, I didn't read that entire article. I read the start. Not sure entirely how its 'related reading'. It seems like the article invents a religion (scientism) and than attacks it. I've not been able to understand the criticism of science as a religion. Suffice to say, I'm not in favour of a science based mass religion, and I don't really see it happening; its a long bow to draw. I disagree that science is itself to blame for our current predicament on earth. The use of science has enable us to create destructive technologies, but this should not be seen as casting aspersions upon the scientific method, but of human behaviour and values and the way we have chosen to use what we have gleaned through science. Our religious beliefs has been responsible for immense bloodshed over the years but perhaps more tellingly, it hasn't been able to do what it has claimed it aims to do, which is make peoples lives better en masse.

 

[Foreigner]

In a way, it's possible to have compassion for people who rigidly adhere to certain beliefs, because underneath those beliefs is an insecure being looking for coping mechanisms in an uncertain world. A sense of certainty, even if misguided, is reassuring. All arrogance is, is a shield for fear.

I know lots of atheists who aren't rude about it. People who try to convince others are trying to convince themselves just as much.

 

[socko]

As far as I know, religion fails to answer the question "why are we here?" Religion, especially those that lean toward mysticism, offer advice on how to deal with the fact that we are here. They never try to tell us why, but instead tell us to pray, meditate, or perform acts of charity.

Science, of course, tries to explain "how" but never why. "Why" is a question taht cannot be addressed by scientific methods. Atheists are just as capable as religious people in coming up with ways of dealing with the fact that we are here.

 

[Ninae]

I've never thought official religion offered many answears, but we have had masters who have come to teach us the universal truth, and their teachings are there for all to find. But people aren't so interested in that, they seem to prefer only dealing with the obvious, superficial stuff, so they can feel their objections are justified.

I don't get that mindset. What interests me is the truth. But for most it's more about self-identification, and defending that, so more to do with ego. About a sense of belonging, taking sides, and your side winning. And, especially for men, being seen as what they perceive as "intelligent" and not opening themselves to ridicule.

The way our culture is designed, the education system and the mass media, supports this too. But you can't force insight on people, either, it has to come through their own free-will choice. So they have the right to put their heads in the sand, if they want to.

 

[socko]

Ninae, what universal truths do any real masters teach? They teach love, the golden rule, and they throw in a bunch of meditation and self-discovery exercises. Am I missing something? They are all good things, but it always seems to be "how" and not "why." In this aspect it is just like science or humanism. Nobody knows "why."

 

[Ninae]

Well, just for one, if you were to read through the whole Prosveta series based on Omraam Mikhail Aivanov's teachings, it would be hard not to come away with any understanding of the spiritual truths

He was a real initiate trained by the great master Peter Deunov, who was Bulgaria's ambassador to the Vatican and the pope called the greatest living philosopher of his time, and also a great influence on Albert Einstein.

But few will even bother to consider looking into something like that or what value may or may not lie in it. They prefer to stay mostly uneducated on the topic and cling to a personal opinion mostly made on an emotional bias. If you try to introduce something new they just react like they did to their first exposure to religion, as they don't want to relate to anything else.

 

[socko]

I know you have talked about them before, but don't both Aivanov and Deunov also give us "how" and not "why?" There is nothing wrong with that, but "why" isn't really something somebody can tell us. If it is knowable, it is somethign we must find out for ourselves, right?

Well, just for one, if you were to read through the whole Prosveta series based on Omraam Mikhail Aivanov's teachings, it would be hard not to come away with any understanding of the spiritual truths

He was a real initiate trained by the great master Peter Deunov, who was Bulgaria's ambassador to the Vatican and the pope called the greatest living philosopher of his time, and also a great influence on Albert Einstein.

But few will even bother to consider looking into something like that or what value may or may not lie in it. They prefer to stay mostly uneducated on the topic and cling to a personal opinion mostly made on an emotional bias. If you try to introduce something new they just react like they did to their first exposure to religion, as they don't want to relate to anything else.

 

[Foreigner]

As far as I know, religion fails to answer the question "why are we here?" Religion, especially those that lean toward mysticism, offer advice on how to deal with the fact that we are here. They never try to tell us why, but instead tell us to pray, meditate, or perform acts of charity.

Religions are a trickle down effect from universal truths... such as love, compassion, being of service to others, a sense of connection with one's life and surroundings, feeling guided and watched over in an uncertain universe. The trickle down truths become commandments when broken telephone happens.

If you do an earnest study of most religions, they are all saying the same thing at their core. They then provide various tenets in order to guide people to those truths, and those tenets are always going to be filtered through various social and cultural lenses.

So... what you describe rather cynically as a contrived and controlling process, actually has its roots in good faith. Most of humanity is not at the necessary level to realize the truths and that's why religion gets contorted.

As for "why"... it's a non-sense question that only humans ask due to the nature of our over developed ego. It feeds mind and not much else.

The hazard of any path is that you fall into illusion and make zero progress, but the benefit is maybe that you apply just the right amount of discernment to extract the gold.

 

[Ninae]

It has been known in this world for a very long time that there is a God/spiritual world and this world is just a transient phenomena. But these days, the masses are being played like a fiddle by appealing to their ego or questioning their intelligence.

 

[HypGnosis]

He was a real initiate trained by the great master Peter Deunov, who was Bulgaria's ambassador to the Vatican and the pope called the greatest living philosopher of his time, and also a great influence on Albert Einstein.

Hehe, the pope calling peter deunov 'the greatest living philosopher' is hardly a ringing endorsment. The pope is the head of the greasiest cult ever devised.

And again, a wee chuckle, hehe. Ol' pete, being 'a great influence' on Albert Einstein. Einstein never once mentioned pete deunov.

Peter Deunov says love is not for the sick, therefore he is no master. Simply a bigot.

 

[belligerent drunk]

yo drug mentor, I read Carl Sagan from your posts


just wanted to add to this that the reason we know nothing about the state of the universe from before a certain event is that we can only detect photons from after that event (see "photon decoupling"). basically before that, the universe was so hot that everything was a plasma and electrons were free to move so light was so much scattered that the universe was opaque.

the hope is that better detection of gravitational waves might in the future enable us to witness things from earlier points in time.

Quite an old post, but wanted to add something to this. What you're talking about is observing the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which is from like 300k years after the Big Bang. But we can see past it, using gravitational waves, which interact very weakly, and as a result don't get lost in the early universe. I think it's been hypothesized that we will be to see as early as microseconds or even earlier after the Big Bang.

 

[Ninae]

Hehe, the pope calling peter deunov 'the greatest living philosopher' is hardly a ringing endorsment. The pope is the head of the greasiest cult ever devised.

And again, a wee chuckle, hehe. Ol' pete, being 'a great influence' on Albert Einstein. Einstein never once mentioned pete deunov.

Peter Deunov says love is not for the sick, therefore he is no master. Simply a bigot.

And I don't see why someone being a leader of a shady organisation would necessarily mean they have no capacity for judging philosophy. Presumably, a pope would have to be very educated.

I think by a saying "Love is not for the sick" he meant a sick soul isn't capable or processing love, or is a sign of the absence of love, of which I would agree.

Are you for real or are you just taking cheap shots? Sometimes I wonder why I even bother...

 

[HypGnosis]

I've seen this quote bandied about but have yet to see a source. Perhaps you could provide one?

And I don't see why someone being a leader of a shady organisation would necessarily mean they have no capacity for judging philosophy. Presumably, a pope would have to be very educated.

Surely if someone is the head of a 'shady organisation', their philosophical stance is likely to be on the shady side morally? No?

I think by a saying "Love is not for the sick" he meant a sick soul isn't capable or processing love, or is a sign of the absence of love, of which I would agree.

Ok. How is he, or you for that matter, able to judge if a person is capable of processing love? Perhaps they need a different type/expression/frequency of love, one which "master" Deunov is unaware. If you could you also define love witin this context it would help.

Are you for real or are you just taking cheap shots? Sometimes I wonder why I even bother...

I'm not taking cheap shots honey , I'm just picking you up on the information which you propagate that transgresses against The Law.

 

[Intense]

Elitest atheists are the worst. Similar to hardcore feminazis.

 

[Ninae]

It's even worse that they're the rule so you're almost expected to apologise for anything else.

 

[Ninae]

I've seen this quote bandied about but have yet to see a source. Perhaps you could provide one?



Surely if someone is the head of a 'shady organisation', their philosophical stance is likely to be on the shady side morally? No?



Ok. How is he, or you for that matter, able to judge if a person is capable of processing love? Perhaps they need a different type/expression/frequency of love, one which "master" Deunov is unaware. If you could you also define love witin this context it would help.



I'm not taking cheap shots honey , I'm just picking you up on the information which you propagate that transgresses against The Law.

I think he meant spiritually sick...as in not being able to really love as a consequence. The spiritually sick can't love by definiton. Because the spirit is weak in them.

Or, if one is too full of ego and negative energies the spirit isn't able to come through. Love is a quality of purity.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Bollocks. The love I have for my children and wife is far more pure than one I have to learn via philosophers or religious scholars.

 

[HypGnosis]

I think he meant spiritually sick...as in not being able to really love as a consequence. The spiritually sick can't love by definiton. Because the spirit is weak in them.

Does the spirit have the potential to love? IMO all has the potential to love, and a true master should be able to tease it from even the most damaged soul. Jesus said love thy neighbor as if thyself. He didn't add 'except if they are poorly', as Deunov does.

Love is a quality of purity.

What does that mean? Only the pure can love? What makes something pure? Do we all at our core have some point of purity, or are some so tainted there is no way back, ever?

This is all very nebulous, no?

 

[swilow]

I dunno. I don't really believe that Einstein said that. I'd like to see a source too.

I think by a saying "Love is not for the sick" he meant a sick soul isn't capable or processing love, or is a sign of the absence of love, of which I would agree.

What exactly is a "sick soul"? I hope its not just another term for someone who doesn't instantly believe in spiritual mumbojumbo.

I consider love to be something that is earned, or accumualted. I don't see the value in unconditional love meted out regardless of the recipients worth, or as some fundamental force within our universe. I was reading some stuff by Deepak Chopra recently, and he spoke of love 'permeating' the universe, along with compassion and other nebulous sensations. Somehow these human states exists without cause in the universe. Positing that an emotional state exists objectively in the universe as a manifestation of god actually devalues that emotional state. I've never understood that particular new-age precept.

 

[Foreigner]

The soul doesn't get sick, the temporal human body and egoic consciousness does.

The soul IS love, pure connection to the Source that created it.

The process is about remembering, not acquiring. If you can't feel the love of your own spirit then it's because there's too many egoic layers and self-imposed suffering taking place. Release, surrender, and dissolve, and the love is felt as omnipresent. You can't lose the ability to "channel love"... you can't lose who you really are. You only forget it, temporarily.

Chopra and many others, I think they are full of shit. I'm sorry, but they are. The awakened people I've known have taught through their presence, not going on and on like pompous fools. You already are "it", you don't need to read 10 books or hang onto the words of these people to see it -- well, maybe you do, I dunno.

My awakening came through suffering... so much so that the facade of who I was completely crumbled in the blink of an eye and the truth about what I really was and reality became apparent. It killed me without killing my body. Not for the faint of heart. Not saying it has to be that way for everyone either but... some of these scholarly new age types who use their privilege to reach wide audiences, I question what they've even been through, what processes they've undergone, to really get "it". I'm not king shit or something but... their language is too transcendental, which again convinces people that they have to "go somewhere".

Enlightenment is totally disappointing in its simplicity. You don't get anything from becoming it. It doesn't make your life better, there aren't special powers or rewards. It's just the truth in its purest form. All these new age people, they make it sound like it's out beyond orion somewhere. It isn't! It's right here in this present moment. You want to be enlightened? Presto! You're enlightened. Now what? Because nothing changes. You don't get something, you remember something. That's it!

There's just so much obvious egoic crap spewing out of their mouths. You can talk concepts all day but if you don't feel it in your heart, if the truth doesn't resonate and activate, then it's empty... just like people who pray as a matter of course but have no connection with what they're doing. Fancier isn't better. If it doesn't come from the heart then you're unfortunately deluded. I'd rather go sit in a cave for 10 years than listen to these people.