Sunmaster

Not quite correct. There are people who, for whatever reasons, believe in a God, based on faith. Then there are people who, based on personal experiences, know there is more to the story than what we are led to believe. You are free to put all of them in the same basket, but you should know that you're doing them, and (more importantly) your own intelligence, a great disservice.

And you can be sure that the louder they shout, the angrier they raise their fists, the less they know. And that goes for both sides.

Maybe instead of ignoring it, you should have read it then. Your questions have been asked and answered countless times.

Sorry, but this is just generalised rubbish. It's just like saying every atheist is ignorant and selfish, or every businessman is corrupt and exploitative. I'm sure you can criticise without putting them all in the same pot.

Honestly, I don't think the onus should be on one side or the other to convince anyone. The onus, or responsibility, is only towards yourself. If one doesn't want to look inwards, then that's perfectly fine. It is not fine however, to ridicule and dismiss those who do.

You see, I try not to use the word God, because then, inevitably, someone will ask "which God". I prefer to talk about the inner world, because all that is religious or spiritual, comes from there. Including the 10.000 Indian gods, the one God, or no God (non-dualistic worldview) for that matter. The outer world, the one we so diligently explore and categorise with our outer senses and machines, is just a small part of the whole. This is no secret or special knowledge of a few selected believers. It is the core of every religion and spiritual school. And it's there for anyone willing to have a look and find out by himself if the knowledge passed on through countless generations is true or not. Like I said, the inner world is not subject to the same laws as the outer world, meaning that the tools we use to understand the physical universe are useless when exploring your inner world. There is guaranteed no better way to understand the inner realm (your true Self) than to use meditation and introspection. Asking where God resides, how old he is, where his power comes from etc....are useless and irrelevant questions, considering we can't even answer the more basic question "Who am I?"

Someone mentioned "our team" vs the materialistic team a few posts back. This made me think and I tried to find out what exactly it means to be in one team or the other. Obviously, these categorizations are very clumsy, as there are many different variations on both sides of the great divide. Most materialists would put MauGR1, TBL and me in the same basket, and while we generally agree on the existence of something beyond our material bodies, there are fundamental differences in our worldview, especially between TBL and me. So, what is the most basic difference between us (the believers) and them (the infidels, just kidding ???? )? I'm not going to quote anyone, link to YT videos or other websites....I think I can make this point on my own. THEM (materialists, atheists) People in this team have learned to use their outer cognitive senses to make sense of the world. Touch, smell, sight, taste and hearing are the tools used by this team to provide data from the outside world and feed it to the brain. The brain will then take this data, let it run through a series of filters (our core beliefs) and package it in neat boxes that can be easily archived and easily accessed at any time. These team members identify with the artificial construct that is the ego. "I am {insert name}. I am a plumber. I am a husband." Yes, your personal identity is a construct, built up in your childhood. Just ask yourself....who were you before you were given a name, before you developed likes and dislikes, before you developed a sense of self? US (religious, spiritual) People in this team grew up learning the same things as the other team (using the 5 outer senses), but for some reason, they discovered that there is more to life than what these 5 senses can sense. They found that there are aspects of themselves that can not be interpreted using the outer senses, and that rationality is useless when trying to make sense of this new data. The new data doesn't come from the outside world, but comes from within, and can be interpreted by a different set of senses (imagination, intention, intuition...). These team members are not so tightly identified with their ego that they can't accept anything beyond that very narrow band of data. So, at the most basic: "them" look outwards using the 5 outer senses, "us" look outwards as well, but also rely on the inner senses to look inwards. And no, I don't think they are equal at all. It's literally like going through life using only 5 senses when in reality you have 5 more. It's crippling, to say the least. You are limiting yourself. The ego is the tip of the iceberg, hellbent on ignoring or outright denying the existence of the rest of the iceberg. But that other part is there, whether you like it or not, whether you can see it or not....and it's huge, it's infinite in fact....and IT'S YOU!

I doubt that would be any better. Most people only know the "popular" definition, which is more like a cosmic vendetta and has nothing to do with the actual law.

Even funnier is the irony of quoting "Einstein" to make a point, when it is well known that Einstein himself, although he didn't use the word "God", believed in a cohesive, intelligent force that governs the universe.

lol....the fact that you take this book review and somehow try to spin it to make it sound as something bad, says more about you than Eckhart Tolle. That's for sure. ????

C.C. = Carlos Castaneda

You may find this interesting. In my view, the clearest and most straightforward account of what happens during and after the death experience. https://thesearchforlifeafterdeath.com/2015/11/21/jane-roberts-seth-describes-our-life-after-death/

If some "journalists" managed to throw dirt on people like the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa (2 of the most compassionate beings ever walking this earth), you can imagine what they would do or write about C.C. The line that divides reality from fiction is very subjective and not a definite line at all. More like a blurry, fuzzy area. What might sound like fiction to one person, might be completely reasonable to another. Let's not forget that at some point in the past, heliocentrism was considered fiction and fought to the death. My advice...find out by yourself by reading his books and see if what he (or don Juan through him) says, and if it resonates with you. What others think or write about him is irrelevant. To be honest, I find it often difficult to establish what is fiction and non-fiction in his books, too....but maybe that's what is appealing in his writings. He pushes the "line" so far out, that you are left with 2 choices: either dismiss everything as fantasy, or push your own line into new territories to see where it can lead you. I chose the second. The pebbles of wisdom and truth I found along the way, were far too precious not to be picked up. That suicide thing is completely false too. As far as I know, there was one random reader who jumped off a cliff, trying to imitate a story in one of the books. Even if the story in the book were true, what she did was like trying to attempt a free diving record without any previous experience in free diving. And then someone blamed Castaneda for that, just like they used to blame rock'n'roll music for all the evils in the world. Castaneda's books are all characterized by one fundamental topic: the uncompromising struggle to be an impeccable warrior and thus attaining the ultimate freedom.

Thanks to this thread, I started to meditate regularly for the past 3 years now. I can see the benefits I got from it and the progress I made during this time. In the meantime, I also re-read all of Castaneda's books and am now reading more of Seth. Arguing about spirituality here or with my friends was ultimately for my own benefit. I stopped doing that though. If the process of my own growth gave others new inputs or helped them somehow, than that's a welcome side effect. There is so much we don't know about ourselves, we should all be very careful how we use our precious time here. Finding and examining our core beliefs about ourselves and about how the world works, is in my opinion the most worthwhile think we can do. HOW you do it is up to you.

Yes, a small step in the right direction.

How do you know the telegraph people are the same as the legit yt channel? Smells of scam.

I bought a 2009 model in 2011 (I think), which had only 69km (!) on the clock. It was a beauty and was a great bike. Only sold it because I went for a more classic looking bike (Street Twin). The engine is well tested and reliable, handling is also very good. While it's probably on the heavier side compared to newer models, I was never bothered by it. The power was more than enough for my riding style. I did change to EBC sintered brake pads and a slip-on, which made quite a bit of difference. All in all, if you like it, go for it. The bike itself is a great bike.

There's a big difference between believing and knowing. If you've never seen the ocean and rely on books to get your knowledge about how the ocean looks, the wetness of the water, the smells, the sound of the waves, then this is indirect knowledge. In this case your knowledge is based on a belief in the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the book you've read. We all have vast amounts of indirect knowledge that make up our beliefs. Most of what we know about the physical world stems from indirect knowledge. We trust the scientists and trust that their science is sound. Then there is direct knowledge that comes from first hand experience. In the example above, that would be when you travel to the ocean and experience it in person. Then you truly know about the wetness of the water, the smell and the sounds. When you say "nobody on this planet knows the real truth", I have to disagree. Usually, this statement is quickly followed by "...so don't be delusional to think you know better than I". If that were true, there would be no distinction between a fool and a sage. You speak about manipulation. A person who relies on indirect knowledge can indeed be manipulated to believe all sorts of things. They could believe that the sea is pink because they read so in a book. Do you think you could be so easily be manipulated if you actually went to see the ocean by yourself? I doubt it. "Truths without evidence" What evidence would you need if you saw the color of the ocean with your own eyes? Would you not trust your own experience and rather rely on what someone else thinks it ought to look like? Your last point.... There are indeed consequences for turning away from the Source, but they are not fire and brimstone. The consequences are a feeling of being disconnected, of separation, of walking through life without knowing who you are, selfishness, self-importance, fear etc. Now you see, most people are content with how indirect knowledge makes sense of the world. It takes little effort but it also leaves you open to doubt and thus manipulation. Others prefer to find out by themselves using direct knowledge/experience. You will never know the difference between what a book tells you about the ocean and what someone tells you who actually went there, unless you go to the ocean and find out by yourself. Does this make sense to you?

Randomness is just unrecognized order. Nothing happens by chance. There's an underlying order in the universe, but since we can not see the connections, we label them as randomness. Yet, the order exists whether we see it or not.

Personally, I think it's terribly reductionistic to think of yourself as a slave of your instincts and genes. We are not like other animals. We don't just have awareness but consciousness too. Yes, instincts and genes do affect us, often in ways we are not aware of, but I think we also have the ability to raise above these biological programs, by way of expanding our consciousness.

Do you see yourself as a pre-programmed robot?

If there is a Creative Benevolent Force in the universe, then logic would dictate that war, disease, natural calamities, everything, the "good" and the "bad"...all is created by and is part of this Force. In Hinduism, this Force is divided in 3 aspects of creation (Brahma), preservation (Vishnu) and destruction (Shiva). All aspects are necessary in the functioning of the universe. What you propose with divine interference is the suspension of free will. What if the divine force comes and interferes in and solves man's troubles? It would deprive humanity of important life lessons. These life lessons are painful of course, but they are necessary for our evolution. Just like the painful lessons in our personal life make us grow, conflict on the world stage makes us grow as a society. Think about it this way... Could we, as first world citizens, go to a pre-industrialized society and quickly transform them in post-modern citizens? It wouldn't work. They would have to go through all the stages of development we went through, probably make the same mistakes and learn the same lessons. The same way, you should not expect for God or even just a more developed society to intervene in our affairs and magically rid us of all our problems. What do you think?

Just like you have different fingers pertaining to the same hand, there are different names for the one "God". Even though some claim that their own fingers is the only one and the only "true finger", they are nothing but their own interpretation of the same thing all others describe. In the end, all of them are correct to a certain point and none of them have the full picture. Let's not forget that the map (the interpretation) is not the actual territory. One thing is looking at Google map of your hometown, another is walking through the actual streets. That's why it's important not to rely on any given map to explain reality, but to walk through and explore the landscape by yourself. Only then will you know the truth.

Funny. I just met one a few days ago and had a longer conversation with him. He said he was a "Freudian" psychologist and as part of his education, they have to undergo a psychological evaluation themselves....meaning they have to talk to another psychologist about their own issues. Normally this would take about 2 or 4 years. He was still doing it after 20! years... While he was quite knowledgeable about the subject, he didn't come across as a very balanced individual. When saying goodbye he couldn't even hold eye contact for example, kind of shifty... I openly asked him what the success rate of his therapy was and if he thought it was an effective way of helping others. Suffice to say, he was not very convincing... ???? Psychologists pretend to go down to the roots to solve the problems there. The way I see it, they only start to scratch the top of the roots and are far from understanding the full extension of them. Their approach is more like a "trial and error" and "hoping for the best". There are better models and tools out there that would be of greater help.

Actually, I found some of my old posts (2019) while searching for that picture ^^. I think they're relevant to the question asked, so I'll post them again... ---------------------------------------------------- I had some free time on my hands and since I'm a visual kind of learner, I thought others might also benefit from a visual aid. The first pic I drew shows four individuals, from very different backgrounds and generally as different as they can be regarding age, sex, education etc. The one thing they have in common, is the urge to look within and find out more about themselves. One might start with psychology books, another with meditation, another with prayer, one might go for shamanic experiences....whatever works. The important thing is that they take the first step to discover their inner worlds. The saying goes: you can only know others if you know yourself. In the second picture you can see these 4 people after some time practicing their respective paths. Some may have extinguished one way and switched to a more effective path, others may have intensified and deepened their initial path...again, it doesn't matter as long as it works. The 4 guys have grown and expanded their knowledge of who they really are. By doing so they came to realize that others are not that different from themselves and the differences are just superficial ripples on an otherwise still ocean. Practice make perfect. The 3rd picture shows the natural evolution of their paths. They started out as small separate egos, but by exploring the inner realms of their being, they've grown and identified with their higher self. They also realized that their individual self is in reality not separated from other selfs and that ultimately, they are all fused together in one big SELF. On this level, there is no separation, there are no superficial ripples that distort the view. The most important thing of these 3 pics is to realize that we are like in pic3 from the very beginning. There is no point in our lives where we are not connected to each other. The only difference is the amount of awareness we have of that state. Luckily for us, we have full control over how much awareness we can have in/of our lives. Some people prefer not to explore this part and that's fine too. Personally though, I'm too curious to just ignore it.