On this material plane, each living being is like a street lantern lamp with a dirty lampshade.The inside flame burns evenly and is of the same quality as all the rest—hence all of us are equal in the absolute sense, the essence, in the quality of our energy.However, some of the lamps are “turned down” and having less light in them, burn fainter, (the beings have a less defined individuality, are less in tune with the universal All which is the same as the Will)—hence all of us are unequal in a relative sense, some of us being more aware (human beings), and others being less aware (animal beings), with small wills and small flames.The lampshades of all are stained with the clutter of the material reality or the physical world.As a result, it is difficult for the light of each lamp to shine through to the outside and it is also difficult to see what is on the other side of the lampshade that represents the external world (a great thick muddy ocean of fog), and hence to “feel” a connection with the other lantern lamps (other beings).The lampshade is the physical body immersed in the ocean of the material world, and the limiting host of senses that it comes with.The dirt of the lampshade results from the cluttering bulk of life experience accumulated without a specific goal or purpose.The dirtier the lampshade, the less connection each soul has to the rest of the universe—and this includes its sense of connection to other beings, its sense of dual presence in the material world and the metaphysical world, and the thin connection line to the wick of fuel or the flow of electricity that resides beyond the material plane and is the universal energy.To remain “lit” each lantern lamp must tap into the universal Source of energy.If the link is weak, depression and-or illness sets in.If the link is strong, life persists.This metaphor to me best illustrates the universe.

Reasonableness is a matter of degree. Beliefs can be very reasonable (Japan exists), fairly reasonable (quarks exist), not unreasonable (there's intelligent life on other planets) or downright unreasonable (fairies exist).There's a scale of reasonableness, if you like, with very reasonable beliefs near the top and deeply unreasonable ones towards the bottom. Notice a belief can be very high up the scale, yet still be open to some doubt. And even when a belief is low down, we can still acknowledge the remote possibility it might be true.How reasonable is the belief that God exists? Atheists typically think it very unreasonable. Very low on the scale. But most religious people say it is at least not unreasonable (have you ever met a Christian who said 'Hey, belief in God is no more reasonable than belief in fairies, but I believe it anyway!'?) They think their belief is at least halfway up the scale of reasonableness.Now, that their belief is downright unreasonable might, in fact, be established empirically. If it turned out that not only is there no good evidence of an all-powerful, all-good God, there's also overwhelming evidence against (from millions of years of unimaginable and pointless animal suffering, including several mass extinctions - to thousands of children being crushed to death or buried alive in Pakistan earthquake, etc. etc. etc.) then it could be empirically confirmed that there's no God.Would this constitute a 'proof' that there's no God? Depends what you mean by 'proof'. Personally I think these sorts of consideration do establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no all-powerful all-good God. So we can, in this sense, prove there's no God.Yet all the people quoted in my last blog say you cannot 'scientifically' prove or disprove God's existence. If they mean prove beyond any doubt they are right. But then hardly anything is provable in that sense, not even the non-existence of fairies.

А все, что еще предстоит пережить, увидеть глазами, трогать руками, пока наконец не наступит смерть, разве ЭТО будет из другого материала, разве ЭТО будет что-то другое? Нет, вся эта прекрасная и жестокая, восхитительная и безнадежная игра жизни, с ее жгучими наслаждениями и ее жгучей болью, - только игра и обман, только видимость, только майя.

I am a thin layer of all those beings on [samadhi level] 3, mingling, connected with one another in a spherical surface around the whole known universe. Our "backs" are to the void. We are creating energy, matter and life at the interface between the void and all known creation. We are facing into the known universe, creating it, filling it. I am one with them; spread in a thin layer around the sphere with a small, slightly greater concentration of me in one small zone. I feel the power of the galaxy pouring through me. I am following the programme, the conversion programme of void to space, to energy, to matter, to life, to consciousness, to us, the creators. From nothing on one side to the created everything on the other. I am the creation process itself, incredibly strong, incredibly powerful.This time there is no flunking out, no withdrawal, no running away, no unconsciousness, no denial, no negation, no fighting against anything. I am "one of the boys in the engine room pumping creation from the void into the known universe; from the unknown to the known I am pumping".I am coming down from level +3. There are a billion choices of where to descend back down. I am conscious down each one of the choices simultaneously. Finally I am in my own galaxy with millions of choices left, hundreds of thousands on my own solar system, tens of thousands on my own planet, hundreds in my own country and then suddenly I am down to two, one of which is this body. In this body I look back up, see the choice-tree above me that I came down.Did I, this Essence, come all the way down to this solar system, this planet, this place, this body, or does it make any difference? May not this body be a vehicle for any Essence that came into it? Are not all Essences universal, equal, anonymous, and equally able? Instructions for this vehicle are in it for each Essence to read and absorb on entry. The new pilot-navigator reads his instructions in storage and takes over, competently operating this vehicle.

Какво, ако живеем не истинските си животи, а техни отражения, в които всичко е просто с главата надолу? Може би с всяко наше следващо решение ние опитваме да коригираме минали събития, което е невъзможно, и следователно сме осъдени на неуспех. Всеки наш план занапред е неадекватен, защото не е насочен в правилната посока.В принципа на обратното време всичко вече се е случило .

Podrías POR FAVOR dejar de aprecer de la nada y asustarme" Pagan "Normalmente no eres tan Irritable". Dank "Mantente fuera de mi habitación, Podría haber estado Desnuda". Pagan "¿Quieres que vuele lejos?. Eso es lindo". Dank "No queria ser Linda, pero parecia que ya no podía seguir enojada tampoco". Pagan "¿Su risa había causado este calor relajante en mi cuerpo?". Pagan "Estupido Tipo Muerto Parlante". Pagan "Pagan: ¿Has estado Observandome? Dank: Durante semanas, Pagan, Durante Semanas..." "No puedo decirte lo que soy, Ya he roto Demasiadas Reglas". Dank "Nunca he tenido Problema en dejar saber a una Chica que me interesa... Hasta Ahora". Leif "Siento el dolor de cada corazon que tomo". Cancion de Dank "La oscuridad me abraza, pero la luz aún dibuja mi alma Vacía". Canción de Dank "El vacío en el que solía usar dolor, para llenar el agujero ya no me controla, ya no me llama, Gracias a ti". Cancion de Dank "Dank Walker esta aqui. Como, en nuestra escuela. Como, Inscrito en nuestra escuela. ¿Puedes Creerlo?". Miranda "Dank Walker. El alma, Mi alma ¿Era Dank Walker, el Rockero? "El tipo parece que no puede apartar los ojos de ti, No es que lo pueda Culpar". Leif "Te necesito, Nunca dudes de mi necesidad por ti". Dank "Sabía que el rosa pálido te sentaría, la mayoría de las chicas no pueden llevarlo, pero en ti, es Perfecto". Dank "Tu eres lo único que mas quiero en el Mundo. Sin Embargo, lo único que no puedo Tener". Dank "Sin Embargo Te quedas, Aferrandote a mi, pero te Quedas". Canción de Dank. "Mi Primer sabor de el, hizo Girar mi Mundo". Pagan "Te he dado vida, cuando estaba en mis manos darte Muerte. Alejate de Mi". Cancion de Dank "Alejate de mi, antes de que colapse y te lleve conmigo". Canción de Dank. "Eres una chica Frustante. No eres como ninguna de las almas que he conocido". Dank "Yo no soy un hombre, Por lo que no tengo un Corazón, que ame como un ser humano lo hace". Dank "Tu eres mi existencia, Yo soy Tuyo". Dank "Eres Mía ahora, Mientras camines por la Tierra me perteneces, Nada puede hacerte Daño". Dank "Es practicamente imposible hacer daño a lo que La Muerte proteje". Dank

Truth, says instrumentalism, is what works out, that which does what you expect it to do. The judgment is true when you can "bank" on it and not be disappointed. If, when you predict, or when you follow the lead of your idea or plan, it brings you to the ends sought for in the beginning, your judgment is true. It does not consist in agreement of ideas, or the agreement of ideas with an outside reality; neither is it an eternal something which always is, but it is a name given to ways of thinking which get the thinker where he started. As a railroad ticket is a "true" one when it lands the passenger at the station he sought, so is an idea "true," not when it agrees with something outside, but when it gets the thinker successfully to the end of his intellectual journey. Truth, reality, ideas and judgments are not things that stand out eternally "there," whether in the skies above or in the earth beneath; but they are names used to characterize certain vital stages in a process which is ever going on, the process of creation, of evolution. In that process we may speak of reality, this being valuable for our purposes; again, we may speak of truth; later, of ideas; and still again, of judgments; but because we talk about them we should not delude ourselves into thinking we can handle them as something eternally existing as we handle a specimen under the glass. Such a conception of truth and reality, the instrumentalist believes, is in harmony with the general nature of progress. He fails to see how progress, genuine creation, can occur on any other theory on theories of finality, fixity, and authority; but he believes that the idea of creation which we have sketched here gives man a vote in the affairs of the universe, renders him a citizen of the world to aid in the creation of valuable objects in the nature of institutions and principles, encourages him to attempt things "unattempted yet in prose or rhyme," inspires him to the creation of "more stately mansions," and to the forsaking of his "low vaulted past." He believes that the days of authority are over, whether in religion, in rulership, in science, or in philosophy; and he offers this dynamic universe as a challenge to the volition and intelligence of man, a universe to be won or lost at man’s option, a universe not to fall down before and worship as the slave before his master, the subject before his king, the scientist before his principle, the philosopher before his system, but a universe to be controlled, directed, and recreated by man’s intelligence.

Затворете се в къщи, свийте се в охлювната си черупка, станете пепеляви, кротки, плахи, и никога нищо ярко и разтърсващо няма да ви се случи. Или почти нищо.Живот без задъханото присъствие на Случая е мъртвило. Самото предусещане, че може да те връхлети нещо непредвидено, че изобретателният Случай диша нейде в тила ти, че те причаква зад оня гребен на планината, зад оня дънер - това придава на дните тръпчивия жизнен сок. Да си нащрек: нещо ти предстои! Това е може би истинското съществуване. В такива мигове на изтръпване пред неизвестното влизаш в контакт с всичко.

Tell me something. Do you believe in God?'Snow darted an apprehensive glance in my direction. 'What? Who still believes nowadays?''It isn't that simple. I don't mean the traditional God of Earth religion. I'm no expert in the history of religions, and perhaps this is nothing new--do you happen to know if there was ever a belief in an...imperfect God?''What do you mean by imperfect?' Snow frowned. 'In a way all the gods of the old religions were imperfect, considered that their attributes were amplified human ones. The God of the Old Testament, for instance, required humble submission and sacrifices, and and was jealous of other gods. The Greek gods had fits of sulks and family quarrels, and they were just as imperfect as mortals...''No,' I interrupted. 'I'm not thinking of a god whose imperfection arises out of the candor of his human creators, but one whose imperfection represents his essential characteristic: a god limited in his omniscience and power, fallible, incapable of foreseeing the consequences of his acts, and creating things that lead to horror. He is a...sick god, whose ambitions exceed his powers and who does not realize it at first. A god who has created clocks, but not the time they measure. He has created systems or mechanisms that serves specific ends but have now overstepped and betrayed them. And he has created eternity, which was to have measured his power, and which measures his unending defeat.'Snow hesitated, but his attitude no longer showed any of the wary reserve of recent weeks:'There was Manicheanism...''Nothing at all to do with the principles of Good and Evil,' I broke in immediately. 'This god has no existence outside of matter. He would like to free himself from matter, but he cannot...'Snow pondered for a while:'I don't know of any religion that answers your description. That kind of religion has never been...necessary. If i understand you, and I'm afraid I do, what you have in mind is an evolving god, who develops in the course of time, grows, and keeps increasing in power while remaining aware of his powerlessness. For your god, the divine condition is a situation without a goal. And understanding that, he despairs. But isn't this despairing god of yours mankind, Kelvin? Is it man you are talking about, and that is a fallacy, not just philosophically but also mystically speaking.'I kept on:'No, it's nothing to do with man. man may correspond to my provisional definition from some point of view, but that is because the definition has a lot of gaps. Man does not create gods, in spite of appearances. The times, the age, impose them on him. Man can serve is age or rebel against it, but the target of his cooperation or rebellion comes to him from outside. If there was only a since human being in existence, he would apparently be able to attempt the experiment of creating his own goals in complete freedom--apparently, because a man not brought up among other human beings cannot become a man. And the being--the being I have in mind--cannot exist in the plural, you see? ...Perhaps he has already been born somewhere, in some corner of the galaxy, and soon he will have some childish enthusiasm that will set him putting out one star and lighting another. We will notice him after a while...''We already have,' Snow said sarcastically. 'Novas and supernovas. According to you they are candles on his altar.''If you're going to take what I say literally...'...Snow asked abruptly:'What gave you this idea of an imperfect god?''I don't know. It seems quite feasible to me. That is the only god I could imagine believing in, a god whose passion is not a redemption, who saves nothing, fulfills no purpose--a god who simply is.

ഞാൻ :എന്നെക്കൂടാതെതന്നെ ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചം നിലനിൽക്കുമെന്നെനിക്കറിയാം. പക്ഷെ ഞാനില്ലെങ്കിൽ എനിക്ക് ഈ ലോകമില്ല, ഒന്നുമില്ല.ഞാനില്ലെങ്കിൽ നിങ്ങളുമില്ല . ഇല്ലാത്ത എന്നെ വ്യക്തിവാദി എന്ന് അധിക്ഷേപിക്കുകയുമില്ലല്ലോ ?ഞാൻ ജനിക്കുന്നതിനു വളരെ മുമ്പു തന്നെ ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. ഞാൻ മരിച്ചുകഴിഞ്ഞും അതുണ്ടായിരിക്കും. പക്ഷെ എന്നെ സംബന്ധിച്ചിടത്തോളം എന്റെ അസ്തിത്വമാണു ആദ്യത്തെ പടി .പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ അസ്തിത്വത്തെ ഞാൻ അംഗീകരിക്കണം എങ്കിൽ ഞാൻ ഉണ്ടായിരിക്കണം .അതിനു എന്റെ സ്വന്തം അസ്തിത്വത്തെ നിഷേധിച്ചിട്ട് കഴിയുകയില്ലല്ലോ ? എന്നെ നിഷേധിച്ചാൽ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിനു നിൽക്കാനാവില്ല .ഞാനില്ലെങ്കിലും പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് നിങ്ങളല്ലേ പറയുന്നത് . ഞാനില്ലെങ്കിൽ ആ പ്രസ്താവനയുടെ ചുവട്ടില ഞാൻ എങ്ങനെ ഒപ്പുവെയ്ക്കും? അതുകൊണ്ട് ഞാനുണ്ട് , പ്രപഞ്ചമുണ്ട്- ഞാൻ കൂടി ഉൾപ്പെട്ട പ്രപഞ്ചം. ഞാൻ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ ഒരു ഭാഗമാണ് .