Jump to content


Photo

Conversations With God


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#1 Xentuk

Xentuk

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 36 posts

Posted 06 November 2004 - 04:14 AM

Has anyone read his book(s)?

#2 Nané

Nané

    Նանե

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Glendale

Posted 11 January 2005 - 01:26 AM

From Book 1


In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself - because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is ... was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not.

This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred to from the beginning of time.

Now All That Is knew it was all there was - but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term "magnificent" is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not.

The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The "Is-Not Is." The Am-Not Am.

Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experientially.

This energy - this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy - chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.

It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see maginficence.

And so All That Is divided Itself - becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.

Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there - but which must exist for here and there to exist.

It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds space. It is the all which holds the parts.

I'm going to go further. Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not - namely, everything that is not "nothing." But I am All Things - seen and unseen - so this description of ME as the Great Unseen - the No-Thing, or the Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate that the essentially Western practical description of God as all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.

Now in creating that which is "here" and that which is "there," God made it possible for God to know itself. In the moment of this great explosion from within, God created relativity - the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail later.

From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything - a spiritual event entirely consistent, indicentally, with what your scientists call The Big Bang Theory.

As the elements of all raced forth, time was created, for a thing was first here, then it was there - and the period it took to get from here to there was measurable.

Just as the parts of Itslef which are seen began to define themselves, "relative" to each other, so, too, did the parts which are unseen.

God knew that for love to exist - and to know itself as pure love -its exact opposite had to exist as well. So God voluntarily created the great polarity - the absolute opposite of love - everything that love is not - what is now called fear. In the moment fear existed, love could exist as a thing that could be experienced.

It is this creation of duality between love and its opposite which humans refer to in their various mythologies as the birth of evil, the fall of Adam, the rebellion of Satan, and so forth.

Just as you have chosen to personify pure love as the character you call God, so have you chosen to personify abject fear as the character you call the devil.

Some on Earth have established rather elaborate mythologies around this event, complete with scenarios of battles and war, angelic soldiers and devilish warriors, the forces of good and evel, of light and dark.

This mythology has been mankind's early attempt to understand, and tell others in a way they could understand, a cosmic occurrence of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive.

In rendering the universe as a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energey, all that now exists - both seen and unseen.

In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into an infinite number of units smaller than the whole. These energy units you would call spirits.

In some of your religious mythologies it is stated that "God The Father" had many spirit children. This parallel to the human experience of life multiplying itself seems to be the only way the masses could be made to hold in reality the idea of the sudden appearance - the sudden existence - of countless spirits in the "Kingdom of Heaven."

In this instance, your mythical tales and stories are not so far from ultimate reality - for the endless spirits comprising the totality of Me are, in a cosmic sence, My offspring.

My divine purpose in dividing Me was to create sufficient parts of Me so that I could know Myself experientially. There is only one way for the Creator to know Itself experientially as the Creator, and that is to create. And so I gave to each of the countless parts of Me (to all of My spirit children) the same power to create which I have as the whole.

This is what your religions mean when they say that you were created in the "image and likeness of God." This does not mean, as some have suggested that our physical bodies look alike (although God can adopt whatever physical form God chooses for a particular purpose). It DOES mean that our essence is the same. We are comprised of the same stuff. We ARE the "same stuff"! With all the same properties and abilities - including the ability to create physical reality out of thin air.

My purpose in creating you, My spiritual offspring, was for Me to know Myself as God. I have no way to do that save through you. Thus it can be said (and has been, many times) that My purpose for you is that you should know yourself as Me.

This seems so amazingly simple, yet it becomes very complex - because there is only one way for you to know yourself as Me, and that is for you first to know yourself as not ME.

(to be continued)

Edited by Sulamita, 11 January 2005 - 01:34 AM.


#3 Maral

Maral

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 11 January 2005 - 01:52 PM

I started reading it....but quit after I read that his theory is that souls sometimes choose to come back in a body that is defected in some way...to continue learning their lesson...it hit a nerve and upset me so I put the book down and never continued.

#4 Nané

Nané

    Նանե

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Glendale

Posted 11 January 2005 - 02:00 PM

QUOTE (Maral @ Jan 11 2005, 11:52 AM)
I started reading it....but quit after I read that his theory is that souls sometimes choose to come back in a body that is defected in some way...to continue learning their lesson...it hit a nerve and upset me so I put the book down and never continued.



They don't continue learning ... they simply choose a different experience.

#5 Nané

Nané

    Նանե

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Glendale

Posted 11 January 2005 - 09:17 PM

(continued)

There is one way I could have caused all of My spiritual children to know themselves as parts of Me - and that was simply to tell them. This I did. But you see, it was not enough for Spirit to simply know Itself as God, or part of God, or children of God, or inheritors of the kingdom (or whatever mythology you want to use).

As I've already explained, knowing something, and experiencing it, are two different things. Spirit longed to know Itself experientially (just as I did!) Conceptual awareness was not enough for you. So I devised a plan. It is the most extraordinary idea in all the universe - and the most spectacular collaboration. I say collaboration because all of you are in it with Me.

Under the plan, you as pure spirit would enter the physical universe just created. This is because physicality is the only way to know experientially what you know conceptually. It is, in fact, the reason I created the physical cosmos to begin with - and the system of relativity which governs it, and all creation.

Once in the physical universe, you, My Spirit children, could experience what you know of yourself - but first, you had to come to know the opposite. To explain this simplistically, you cannot know yourself as tall unless and until you become aware of short. You cannot experience the part of yourself that you call fat unless you also come to know thin.

Taken to ultimate logic, you cannot experience yourself as what you are until you've encountered what you are not. This is the purpose of the theory of relativity, and all physical life. It is by that which you are not that you yourself are defined.

Now in the case of the ultimate knowing - in the case of knowing yourself as the Creator - you cannot experience your Self as creator unless and until you create. And you cannot create yourself until you uncreate yourself. In a sense, you have to first "not be" in order to be.

Of course, there is no way for you to not be who and what you are - you simply are that (pure, creative spirit), have been always and always will be. So, you did the next best thing. You caused yourself to forget Who You Really Are.

Upon entering the physical universe, you relinquished your remembrance of yourself. This allows you to choose to be Who You Are, rather than simply wake up in the castle, so to speak.

It is in the act of choosing to be, rather than simply being told that you are, a part of God that you experience yourself as being at total choice, which is what, by definition, God is. Yet how can you have a choice about something over which there IS no choice? You cannot not be My offspring no matter how hard you try - but you can forget.

You are, have always been, and will always be, a divine part of the devine whole, a member of the body. That is why the act of rejoining the whole, of returning to God, is called remembrance. You actually choose to re-member Who You Really Are, or to join together with the various parts of you to experience the all of you - which is to say, the All of Me.

Your job on Earth, therefore, is not to learn (because you already know), but to re-member Who You Are. And to re-member who everyone else is. That is why a big part of your job is to remind others (that is, to re-mind them), so that they can re-member also.

All the wonderful spiritual teachers have been doing just that. It is your sole purpose. That is to say, your soul purpose.

Edited by Sulamita, 11 January 2005 - 09:53 PM.


#6 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:46 AM

Very interesting Sulamita. This is the first time I see the name of the author, but the content is very familiar that I have read from other sources. Please keep posting, and the highlights are helpful.

One minor note "Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct."

It was my impression that this was actually the Eastern belief.

#7 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 12 January 2005 - 09:16 AM

QUOTE (Sulamita @ Jan 11 2005, 10:17 PM)
(continued)
Your job on Earth, therefore, is not to learn (because you already know), but to re-member Who You Are.  And to re-member who everyone else is.  That is why a big part of your job is to remind others (that is, to re-mind them), so that they can re-member also.


why?

seems such an utter waste of time....and so counter to the idea of human achievement. Don't bother learning...just pay me my guru fee and I'll tell you all about the wonderful way of things...etc etc sad

#8 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 12 January 2005 - 09:27 AM

Ok let's get rid of the concept of "learn" and replace it with the concept of "remember". Did we really accomplish anything worthwhile? In the end, we now have to spend our time "remembering" things as opposed to "learning" things. The point is, whether you call it "learn" or "remember", seems to me it doesn't really make a difference because in the end you end up having to do exactly the same things in either case.

Here, "remember" would just be a fancier way of saying "learn". And I don't like fancy too much (especially if it's just for the sake of being fancy). Keep it simple.

#9 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 12 January 2005 - 09:28 AM

No I totally disagree - he talks about/advocates remembering who you are/who other people are - etc - nothing to do with learning about the world and bettering yourself or mankind etc - says its all been done before - that sort of thing - this belief is absolutly counter-intellectual and against human achievement. Its someone who wants to take the guilibles money thats all...

#10 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 12 January 2005 - 10:02 AM

QUOTE (Sip @ Jan 12 2005, 10:27 AM)
Ok let's get rid of the concept of "learn" and replace it with the concept of "remember". Did we really accomplish anything worthwhile?  In the end, we now have to spend our time "remembering" things as opposed to "learning" things.  The point is, whether you call it "learn" or "remember", seems to me it doesn't really make a difference because in the end you end up having to do exactly the same things in either case.

Here, "remember" would just be a fancier way of saying "learn". And I don't like fancy too much (especially if it's just for the sake of being fancy). Keep it simple.

Sip, you are missing the point here. The point is that we alreaday know. If you already know you don't need to learn, so learning and remembering are not the same.

#11 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 12 January 2005 - 10:10 AM

No I don't think I am missing the point. It's like saying everyone knows how to make 3 point shots but they need to remember it. This is because at the beginning, we and the 3 point shot in basketball were the same thing There was no us and a 3 point shot. But then it all started and what we have to do now is to just remember. Thus, all a basketball player really does in his life is to recall how he was the 3 point shot.

#12 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 12 January 2005 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (Sip @ Jan 12 2005, 11:09 AM)
No I don't think I am missing the point. It's like saying everyone knows how to make 3 point shots because at the beginning, we and the 3 point shot in basketball were the same thing. All a basketball player really does in his life is to recall how he was and is the 3 point shot.

But you are trivializing it to a degree that it is hardly what the point is. At any rate, how is it the same as learning?

#13 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 12 January 2005 - 10:24 AM

My point in trivializing was to mock the ultra-poetic and fancy way these things try to find complicated explanations for things we cannot explain. Is it a cool sounding piece of writing, sure. But NO one can know if it is true or not for sure and therefore, there is no basis in believing in any of it.

"We are all the same" ... "we need to remember as opposed to learn" ... etc .. these are far more trivializing and degrading than anything I have said. All we really know is that each individual human and or animal is born, lives, then dies. These fancy stories about links between individual beings and ever lasting souls and wondering spirits are all "possible" but have absolutely no basis in reality other than using that, as you put it, special eye we have between our real eyes ...

... and let's not for a second forget the true power of that special "eye" ... imagination, creation, and making up stuff.

Sasun, one thing you have said at some point that I am starting to agre with. If I remember correctly, it was something like "God is within all of us". Except I would rephrase it as "the creator" is within all of us. Our brains are the real creators here.

Edited by Seapahn, 12 January 2005 - 10:26 AM.


#14 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 12 January 2005 - 10:42 AM

This fellow is just another version of Osho. I'm sorry for wasting my time with that author. His personal feelings and "conversations with God" are just his and nothing more.

#15 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 12 January 2005 - 11:26 AM

QUOTE (Nakharar @ Jan 12 2005, 11:42 AM)
This fellow is just another version of Osho. I'm sorry for wasting my time with that author. His personal feelings and "conversations with God" are just his and nothing more.


Yes of course - all so very typical...

http://home.att.net/...CommonLies.html

http://home.att.net/...ation/Osho.html

I don't agree with all this guy has to say per se - but he makes some good points...

the following is excerpted from:

Do you have a soul?

Is it time to create a science based religion that does not promote belief in magic and the supernatural? -


Medical research has shown that if you stimulate certain areas of the brain with a small electric current, you can give people the experience of spiritual visitation.

You cannot remove consciousness from the physical body because consciousness is a physical phenomena created by chemistry, just as a firefly's light is created by chemical reactions. That is why you can turn consciousness on or off by injecting a person with drugs to wake them up or to put them to sleep. Near death experiences or even certain drugs can give you the feeling of being outside of your body, but researchers say that is just an illusion of the holographic nature of the human brain.

After many years of seeing the rampant corruption of gurus, "enlightened" or not, the idiocy of disciples, cults, and organized religion, and with the new scientific evidence in hand, I find the soul-reincarnation-karma theory far less plausible.

A strong survival instinct is built into our DNA code from our long evolutionary journey from bacteria to man. When that survival instinct collides with self-conscious knowledge of our impending death, the brain itself needs both a neurological and psychological barrier to block the conflict and tension. That barrier we call religious belief and "the God part of the brain." The theory states that man has invented myths of God, soul, reincarnation, karma, and afterlife as a way to provide the brain with mental opium, a buffer to the constant ticking clock inside our heads that tells us our inevitable doom is getting closer every day.

Man's philosophical beliefs have also been shaped by a survival contest of world religions to see which religion can most completely satisfy our emotional needs for a feeling of comfort and safety.

Reincarnation and immortal karma were a way ancient peoples could explain the inherent inequities of life, death, disease, riches, and poverty in religious terms that often had no basis in fact.

A summary of the main issues

1) There is no positive proof for the existence of souls, immortal karma, reincarnation, or any spiritual afterlife. It is interesting to note that in their last years even Osho and J. Krishnamurti reversed themselves and stated there was no reincarnation and thus presumably no soul. If there is no reincarnation and no heaven or hell, then the question of soul is moot.

2) There are legitimate science based alternate explanations for phenomena attributed to souls and immortal karma. The enlightened teachers seem to confuse the effects of DNA for the effects of soul. For example, people with higher intelligence and a more finely articulated DNA code are perceived by them as being older and higher souls.

3) There are obvious profit and political power motives for those who promote belief in the supernatural. How many gurus have made fortunes off the idea of souls and reincarnation? How many monasteries, ashrams, churches, mosques, and synagogues would go out of business if people found out there is no soul or immortal karma? How can governments and the religious hierarchies control the masses if word leaks out that we all end up in the same state of eternal unconsciousness when we die, no matter how we behave while we are alive? Would there be a Vatican City or Tibetan Portola Palace without a belief in souls and/or immortal karma? The idea of soul has historically been as much a matter of politics as it has been an issue of personal religious belief.

4) It is highly probable that human animals have a built in genetic predisposition to avoid the inevitable fact of our future death in order to reduce fear and stress. Our brains create myths of God, soul, immortal karma, reincarnation, and afterlife as a buffer against the hurtful knowledge of the inevitable demise of ourselves and everyone we know and love. By inventing myths of afterlife and/or reincarnation the brain can exist comfortably without the highly charged survival instinct electrically connecting to the newfound knowledge of the inevitability of our future death. The supernatural myths thus act as a resistive electrical shunt, blocking a dangerous short circuit between two parts of the brain.

5) Life on earth was created through the non-human laws of chemistry, physics, and probability. Strands of chemicals (DNA) were created by sheer accident and replicated themselves faster than they could be destroyed. By further accident, some DNA strands became encased in protective shells which increased their survivability dramatically, creating the first bacteria. From simple bacteria more complexity was added until a myriad of multi-cell creatures were produced. Through this slow process of evolution over billions of years there was never any need for soul, except as a myth to help human animals deal with their growing consciousness of the inevitable time-death equation.

The logistical mathematics of the soul theory do not add up. Does every new bacteria, seed, egg, minnow, spider, or cockroach that appears in the world demand a soul to go along with its already sufficient DNA code? We know that humans evolved from bacteria. Where did soul come into the picture and why? Is there a printing press somewhere stamping out trillions of new souls every day to keep up with the demand? The soul theory lacks logical credibility and science has shown us that the universe is extremely logical in its structure, formation, and evolution.

6) The famous film director Alfred Hitchcock often added a ploy to his movies called a "MacGuffin." The MacGuffin distracted the audience long enough so that suspense could be created and the plot could develop without giving away the true course of the story. In the end the MacGuffin had no meaning in itself. Likewise Hindus and Buddhists have invented complicated myths of reincarnation and/or immortal karma and declared that we are all trapped in a cycle of birth and death and that only our eventual enlightenment can free us. The Eastern traditions have created a highly sophisticated myth structure, but the underlying function of their myths is identical to the more childlike myths of Christianity, with its almighty God, angles, and heaven. The belief in immortal karma and reincarnation is the MacGuffin that keeps our minds diverted from the inevitability and finality of our own death.

#16 Nané

Nané

    Նանե

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Glendale

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:24 PM

QUOTE (Sip @ Jan 12 2005, 07:27 AM)
Ok let's get rid of the concept of "learn" and replace it with the concept of "remember". Did we really accomplish anything worthwhile?  In the end, we now have to spend our time "remembering" things as opposed to "learning" things. 



Sip, as stated by Sasun, "learning" and "remembering" are two different things.

We "remember" who we are - part of God.

Now, it should not matter much if you are "remembering" or "learning" how to do things (practical knowledge), should it? These things that we learn as just tools that help us experience life.

#17 Nané

Nané

    Նանե

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Glendale

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:26 PM

QUOTE (THOTH @ Jan 12 2005, 07:28 AM)
No I totally disagree - he talks about/advocates remembering who you are/who other people are - etc - nothing to do with learning about the world and bettering yourself or mankind etc - says its all been done before - that sort of thing - this belief is absolutly counter-intellectual and against human achievement. Its someone who wants to take the guilibles money thats all...



Have you read the whole book?

#18 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:28 PM

QUOTE (Sulamita @ Jan 12 2005, 01:26 PM)
Have you read the whole book?



No need to - seen this sort of bunk before...

#19 Nané

Nané

    Նանե

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Glendale

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:38 PM

QUOTE (THOTH @ Jan 12 2005, 10:28 AM)
No need to - seen this sort of bunk before...



Then you should not be making statements like this ... To say the least, your comment has no merit. You cannot know what he talks or does not talk about, if you have not read the book.

QUOTE (THOTH @ Jan 12 2005, 07:28 AM)
No I totally disagree - he talks about/advocates remembering who you are/who other people are - etc - nothing to do with learning about the world and bettering yourself or mankind etc - says its all been done before - that sort of thing - this belief is absolutly counter-intellectual and against human achievement. Its someone who wants to take the guilibles money thats all...

Edited by Sulamita, 12 January 2005 - 12:42 PM.


#20 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 12 January 2005 - 12:43 PM

QUOTE (Sulamita @ Jan 11 2005, 10:17 PM)
(continued)

You are, have always been, and will always be, a divine part of the devine whole, a member of the body.  That is why the act of rejoining the whole, of returning to God, is called remembrance.  You actually choose to re-member Who You Really Are, or to join together with the various parts of you to experience the all of you - which is to say, the All of Me.

Your job on Earth, therefore, is not to learn (because you already know), but to re-member Who You Are.  And to re-member who everyone else is.  That is why a big part of your job is to remind others (that is, to re-mind them), so that they can re-member also.


Well is this a quote from the book or not? Seems like the issue of learn vs remember is covered here and this is what I (acuratly) comented on. I've read this exact type of viewpoint before - its nothing new - and its equally nothing of any merit. I think I have a very good understanding of this issue and really have no need to waste my time reading more of this sort of self-indugent crap.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users