Nicely put but I'm not sure it addresses most of my comments.

Gnosticism speaks of the duality between spirit and flesh with flesh being evil. Christianity is ONE and three. — Nikolas

There are certainly many pairs of elements and agents who are seen as set over against each other in Gnosticism. Many of the separated pairs are seen as sources of evil and suffering. On the other hand, some of the Gnostic Christians were less inclined to identify the "flesh" as the source of evil than their Pauline brethren. The division itself was seen to be the problem.

The trinity was an important concept for some Gnostic Christians. Consider verse 44 from the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven. — Funk and Miller translation

↪Nikolas I thought the rationale of Christianity was that it was open to all and any who believed. That it's not a path for spiiritual adepts, like Tantric Buddhism. — Wayfarer

True, but who believes? We don't have inner unity but the human organism is a plurality. We are many. We believe one thing for an hour and then forget bout it and believe something else. What we believe is defined by what we do so he who follows in the precepts of Christ is Christian. If we can't, we are pre-Christian with the potential to become Christian. What we really believe is a big question.

There are certainly many pairs of elements and agents who are seen as set over against each other in Gnosticism. Many of the separated pairs are seen as sources of evil and suffering. On the other hand, some of the Gnostic Christians were less inclined to identify the "flesh" as the source of evil than their Pauline brethren. The division itself was seen to be the problem.

The trinity was an important concept for some Gnostic Christians. Consider verse 44 from the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.
— Funk and Miller translation — Valentinus

Granted there are as many sects in Gnosticism as there are in Christendom. Is the universe evil as some sects of Gnosticism believe? If not, what IYO is objective evil and how is it distinguished from the good?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil predates Man on earth. What does evil refer to?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil predates Man on earth. What does evil refer to? — Nikolas

The only tree of knowledge I know is the kabbalah. Knowledge isn't evil per say but you may be commanded to remain ignorant/simple - in which case seeking knowledge then becomes a transgression.

Those two are some pretty difficult questions.

Martin Buber made some interesting observations regarding that tree in his book Good and Evil. What I found most interesting there was how the first psalm compared the happy person to a tree with roots and the wicked out on roads that petered out.

Regarding the idea that we live in something evil by default, I view the Gnostic versions of that as suspect as the notion that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil predates Man on earth. What does evil refer to?
— Nikolas

The only tree of knowledge I know is the kabbalah. Knowledge isn't evil per say but you may be commanded to remain ignorant/simple - in which case seeking knowledge then becomes a transgression. — Tom Storm

Is seeking knowledge evil and remaining ignorant the good? This doesn't make sense to me. Why would a God create knowledge and call it evil? If knowledge is evil why create our potential to receive it in the first place

I'm not being critical but just asking questions that anyone interested in the meaning and purpose of our universe and Man within it would ask. Is there a logical premise or skeleton of our universe that would reveal its meaning and purpose in which the questions of objective good and evil would be reasonable. ?

s seeking knowledge evil and remaining ignorant the good? This doesn't make sense to me. Why would a God create knowledge and call it evil? If knowledge is evil why create our potential to receive it in the first place — Nikolas

That's not the interpretation I am making. And the question you pose has nothing to do with my proposition. I never said knowledge was evil. But not following God's command is wrong. He is very specific about not eating that bloody fruit.

That's not the interpretation I am making. And the question you pose has nothing to do with my proposition. I never said knowledge was evil. But not following God's command is wrong. He is very specific about not eating that bloody fruit. — Tom Storm

But Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She acquired knowledge of evil. Why should God deny this knowledge when Jesus descended to our planet to awaken Man to the harm of ignorance concerning objective good and evil? Is there a way this all makes sense?

Is there a way this all makes sense? — Nikolas

Yes, many ways. God puts people to the test. Do not eat the fruit. Do not do anything God asks you not to do. Obedience is fidelity. But if you must concentrate on the fruit, it is knowledge that is the issue - the betrayal of purity. Which in the end facilitates Adam and Eve's pursuit of their own desires and ideas about right and wrong - free will instead of God's will. The first step in the separation of people from God and the tragedy of good and evil becoming mixed together in creation.

I see that the two you were speaking of the passage in the Bible, which I think is the hardest of all, or certainly it really worried me. That is the passage about the unpardonable sin: 'whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.' You mentioned it in connection with the idea of the Trinity, but it is has far wider implications for the idea of an unpardonable sin seems so contrary to the whole emphasis on forgiveness in the New Testament. When I have mentioned this idea to a number of people who are Christian's they don't really seem tot have thought that much about it. However, having agonised over it, I was a bit reassured to discover later that Jung and Kierkergaard had both struggled over this.

When I read the passage I lay awake worrying about it and I was troubled for about a year. I was so puzzled about what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was and, somehow, became convinced that I might have committed it. I was 13 at the time and did not confide in my parents but did tell a friend. The RE teacher ended up hearing about my worry and called me in, but he was not completely helpful because he seemed to think that I had done something which I felt ashamed about. However, I did manage to look up the idea in some reference books and it did seem that the whole idea represented the whole rejection of the spirit of Christ's teachings and that the reason why the person could not be forgiven was because the person, having rejected Christ, would not wish for his forgiveness. But I never saw the passage as being one about the essentiality of the Trinity idea, although that is an interesting interpretation. Personally, I would say that the passage you referred to was the initial anxiety I had with the Bible.

Okay, and if we decided who is a Muslim and who is not, would there be the same concerns about who is really Muslim and who mistakenly thinks s/he is a Muslim? Do we want to close our borders to Muslims because they could be terrorists or do we want to stand for religious freedom? If we stand for religious freedom who gets to chose who is a Christian, who is a Muslim, who is a Jews, etc.. Can I claim to be Buddist without being a member of a Buddhist group? What are the boundaries of religious freedom?

I don't really have a strong view on this. I am attracted to some Buddhism ideas - but isn't everyone? I don't see any Asian cultures that I would swap for mine. I am always most interested in how cultures manage poverty, illness, work and law and order. — Tom Storm

I think how a country manages poverty is very much an economic matter. The US was totally dependent on charity and government had nothing to do with the welfare of people until Roosevelt and the Great Depression. Some people continue to fight against the government managing welfare issues. Some European countries are more advanced in the government taking care of welfare matters and it seems secular people are more in favor of a government that does manage welfare issues, while there are Christians who want to keep the government out of doing what charity should do. In fact, Christianity is known in the US for getting people to accept poverty before the US moved from an industrial economy to a consumer economy.

Generally speaking, Christian charitable and missionary organisations have been well ahead of Buddhists and Hindus when it comes to actually doing stuff. — Wayfarer

Again, I think this is an economic matter. In the US, not that long ago, Christianity helped the poor by assuring them they were closer to God than the rich. I was strongly impressed by Jesus and poverty being closer to God. Although I decided I am not Christian, I internalized fear of working for the money instead of the cause. In the past, Christian leaders have worked with the US government to get people to accept poverty and not rebel in protest against low wages and poor working conditions. Christan leaders worked to mobilize the cold war against those "godless people". Christian leaders have supported war and it was the Christian Right and the invasion of Iraq that ended my belief that is wrong to argue against Christianity. Billy Graham was one of those leaders and he did a marvelous Christmas show announcing God wants us to send our sons and daughters into the Iraq war, you know the war that was the "power and glory".

How do you know of the charitable work being done by Buddhists and Hindus that makes you feel comfortable determining they are not as charitable as Christians?

Yes. Of course it is. When you have well-rounded education you not only have well rounded individuals but more empathy and lack of violence in the streets. — javi2541997

I think I love you! I have returned to buy old, grade school textbooks because there is a new committee to study education for democracy and I want to organize something locally to build public support for a return to education for democracy. In book after book, there are stories about family and community that at one time created a different reality from what we are experiencing today.

Can you find old textbooks? If you can find them we can bring the past into the present. With a book you can show people the "thought" is not your own but comes from books of a past that was different from the present. Look for information about what international banking has to do with turning us into products for industry and the production of national wealth. It takes money to make money and a properly educated mass is good for bank loans.

I think this is a transition period. We need wealth to have good education and medical care, libraries, the arts, etc. We are new at having so much money. Hopefully, we will regain wisdom and do better. :heart: :flower:

↪Tom Storm ↪Valentinus
I see that the two you were speaking of the passage in the Bible, which I think is the hardest of all, or certainly it really worried me. That is the passage about the unpardonable sin: 'whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.' You mentioned it in connection with the idea of the Trinity, but it is has far wider implications for the idea of an unpardonable sin seems so contrary to the whole emphasis on forgiveness in the New Testament. When I have mentioned this idea to a number of people who are Christian's they don't really seem tot have thought that much about it. However, having agonised over it, I was a bit reassured to discover later that Jung and Kierkergaard had both struggled over this. — Jack Cummins

I was bothered by this question also until I realized that only exceptional people who understand the power of the Holy Spirit could sin against the Holy Sprit. I found this explanation in Lost Christianity:

Jacob Needleman, quoting “Father Sylvan”

"Forgiveness is the seeing that carries the holy force of reconciliation. God forgives; Christ forgives; but actually, the power of forgiveness lies with the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit connects no-thing with everything. We misunderstand God and Christ so everything is forgiven. We can curse out God but it is meaningless. However the power of reconciliation or connecting above and below can be taken advantage of which is basically demonic and impossible to erase from the seed of the soul. It has replaced the power of reconciliation. But don't worry about it. Real Satanism takes skills that we are incapable of as we are.

This is why real esoteric teaching is done in private and not written down. It protects the ignorant curiousity seekers from themselves.

It is interesting that you were concerned about the passage in the Bible about the unforgivable sin, because I have only ever come across one other person who has told me that they were worried. It was when I was starting my upper school and it did affect my school work. The RE teacher did seek to reassure me but I was annoyed that he seemed to think I must have done something, But it was the first time that I really began worrying about hell, and at a later stage of adolescence that I began worrying again in relation to real sins.

However, at some stage in school, I did learn from the same RE teacher that what was taught to the disciples was different from the rest of the people. But, generally the fear of hell was what led me to look outside of Christianity, and even now, I do find I get anxious if I try to read the Bible or if I go to church. I think that the distress of the whole time I worried about the passage in the Bible has left me with a deep psychological scar. However, this may go beyond this because I know so many Catholics who have a big guilt complex generally.

How do you know of the charitable work being done by Buddhists and Hindus that makes you feel comfortable determining they are not as charitable as Christians? — Athena

I think it’s a matter of fact, although I’d have to research it to find the specifics. It’s not that they’re not as charitable, but that Christianity has an explicit command to care for the poor and sick. But I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Again, I think this is an economic matter — Athena

Economics - where money and resources are prioritized is almost entirely a reflection of the cultural priorities of a society.

How do you know of the charitable work being done by Buddhists and Hindus that makes you feel comfortable determining they are not as charitable as Christians? — Athena

I have worked with Buddhist and Hindu community members have made this point to me often. But clearly there are individual practitioners who do are highly charitable.

I don't know if it's so much that we need religion or that we need to understand the world. Or even that we should need religion at all. Let me explain.

The difference between science and religion fundamentally lies in the relation both have to the world and truth more generally. Religion explains the world. Science tries to describe the world. Because of this, religion is a belief as it can never be proven : you need faith to believe in God. On the contrary, science does not need faith to hold true, and relies on proof. Yet science is never exact and theories are wrong or incomplete. Because of this, science as a whole has a faulty or incomplete relation to truth. Quite paradoxically then, it is science that is never true but tries to get closer to truth, while if you have faith in a religion then that view of the world is entirely true.

Suppose that we are naturally curious, which by all means we appear to be. Then it would only be natural for us to try and understand the world around us. If science can only give us a partial view of what the world is like without ever fully being able to understand it, then it is unsurprising that people use religion as a relation to the world. This form of relation to religion is known as the theological state, and is the explanation of the world through belief.

While this is a possible answer, and most certainly is the case for a lot of people, I believe that need in of itself is a bad reason for belief. This is because need is essentially desire and this makes us consider religion only from a functional point of view, despite that not being the case. Religion is fundamentally irrational in the sense that it cannot be apprehended through reason. Because of this, if we try and see religion as functional then we are dutifully mistaken since function is associated to reason.

Some people have a need for religion, whether it is for reassurance, understanding or anything else. But I believe that if we are religious out of need then our belief isn't strong enough. Religion should flow through you instead of us trying to use it as a tool, and that I think is why people have a need for religion -but shouldn't.

Let me precise that I am an atheist. This does not mean that I disregard religion. Or faith. I believe that the principles that I just outlined should be applied to belief as a whole : we shouldn't believe in a cause if we expect something out of it in return. The same holds true for religion.

I wish you best,
Eliot.

But I never saw the passage as being one about the essentiality of the Trinity idea, although that is an interesting interpretation. — Jack Cummins

The way I view the matter is through how the the "holy spirit" is presented as an advocate in different ways in the text. In John 14:15, Jesus explains how it will be when he is gone:

"If you love me, you'll obey my instructions. At my request, the Father will provide you with yet another advocate, the authentic spirit, who will be with you forever. The world is unable to accept (this spirit) because it neither perceives nor recognizes it. You recognize it because it dwells in you and will remain in you."

So the matter of keeping the dwelling place is the work of the one who would invite the spirit to live there. One can sever themselves from this love through a kind of self destruction. In Luke 12:10, the harsh condition is combined with how the advocate supports you:

"And everyone who utters a word against the son of Adam will be forgiven, But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit won't be forgiven. And when they make you appear in synagogues and haul you up before rulers and authorities, don't worry about how or in what way you should defend yourself or what you should say. The holy spirit will teach you at that very moment what you ought to say."

Having the harsh condition presented together with the helpful one suggests that being a dwelling place is a different situation than being one who commits sins that hurt others. In that sense, Jesus, as a Rabbi, is drawing from the "wisdom" tradition of the Proverbs such as verse 16:

"The plans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.
All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes but the Lord weighs the spirit."

One outlook on the idea of the Holy Spirit, as overseeing the ego, is in, 'A Course of Miracles'.
Here is an example passage:
'The ego speaks in judgement, and the Holy Spirit reverses its decision, much as a higher court has the power to reverse a lower court's decisions in this world. The ego's decisions are always wrong because they are based on the error they were made to uphold. Nothing the ego perceives is interpreted correctly. Not only does the ego cite scripture for its purpose, but it even interprets Scripture as a witness for itself. The Bible is a fearful thing in the ego's judgement. Perceiving it as frightening, it interprets it fearfully.'

I realise that, 'A Course in Miracles' is criticised by some, especially some Christians, because it is a 'channelled' book, but for some, who have developed a whole attitude of fear in response to the Bible and Christianity it can be helpful, in working with the fear itself.

I think that your distinction between describing the world through science and explaining it through religion is an important one. I think that you are right to say that religion is irrational, but part of the issue I see with that is that we are not completely rational beings. Certainly, I try to develop the rational side of myself, but I am aware of irrationality in myself and my own thinking. I have thought through my own religious background of Catholicism, and don't hold onto them as I did I did, but I would not describe myself as an atheist. But, it is definitely good to have an atheist join in the debate because I did not intend for this thread to be one just intended for people who hold religious convictions.

From the quotes given, it sounds like there is a psychology being proposed that incorporates particular elements of "scripture" that would attempt to explain the roles of all involved. I think Kierkegaard would consider the interpretation to be as self serving as the motivation charged to the poor ego in that theory.

In The Concept of Anxiety, Kierkegaard separated the circumstances of sin from the realm of psychology by arguing that the choices we all have to make are not circumscribed by explanations of human nature. Being Kierkegaard, he made many psychological observations on the way to establishing that limit. You might be interested in a passage in his personal writings that his editors have pointed to in the work:

The difference between sin and spiritual trial [[i]Anfaegtelelse[/i] (for the conditions in both can be deceptively similar) is that the temptation [[i]Fristelse[/i]] to sin is in accord with inclination. Therefore the opposite tactic must be employed. The person tempted by inclination to sin does well to shun the danger, but in relation to spiritual trial this is the very danger, for every time he thinks he is saving himself by shunning the danger, the danger becomes greater the next time. The sensate person is wise to flee from the sight or enticement, but the one for whom inclination is not the temptation at all but rather an anxiety about coming in contact with it (he is under spiritual trial) is not wise to shun the sight or the enticement; for spiritual trial wants nothing else than to strike terror into his life and hold him in anxiety. — JP IV 4367 (Pap.VII A 93) May 5, 1847

Another Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, emphasized that the Holy Spirit had to be recognized as beyond the powers of human nature if the explanation for the Paraclete or advocate in The Gospel of John was to make any sense.

Now, there are interesting psychological approaches that provide sort of a negative image. In Ouspenski's In Search of the Miraculous, Gurdjieff refers to the first Christians as closed door dojos who were only interested in training in what they only discussed amongst themselves. As a result, G had no idea what they might have been up to.

The quote from Kierkergaard is interesting to me because I do remember reading that he worried about the unpardonable sin.

Regarding the book, 'A Course in Miracles', it does seem that it approaches the whole idea of the Holy Spirit on a psychological level. However, on some level, I do think that ultimately, as a 'channelled' piece of writing, that implies some higher source, and wouldn't that be the Holy Spirit. I have a Catholic friend, who does a lot of religious art and she describes her own work and inspiration as 'channelling' the Holy Spirit.

I think that in some ways the church may have used the term Holy Spirit to reinforce it's own views over those of other faiths. However, on a positive level, I think that it refers to the whole spirit and healing pointed to in Christ's life and message. But, even though I am interested in religion more in line with the theosophical tradition, I do still worry about what it would mean to really have committed the unpardonable sin. At one point, when I looked in the footnotes to the large family Bible in my parents' home, the suggestion was that it would be the whole reverse set of values, in which good is seen as evil.

The quote is interesting to you but does not engage you as some part of what you worry about.
That makes it sound kind of boring. I get how it bores people but I don't understand why a lack of interest does not resolve itself into an oblivion of reference. Nobody cared about certain distinctions after some point of time so talking about it became an irritating detritus to a formerly important matter to understand.

I planned to look at it in the morning, but started thinking and dashed off a reply, so I have to admit that I hadn't paid full attention to the quote. I will have a read of it again in the morning as it's after midnight. I definitely don't wish to see Kierkergaard as boring and would like to read more of his writings really.

I have looked at the quote you gave from Kierkergaard and not sure what to make of it out of context. I am sure that the idea of spiritual trial makes sense. I do feel that many, including myself, dislike the word sin because it seems to conjure up a picture of preachers telling people what they should and should not do. That is not to say that I think that the idea of sin, in its meaning of erring, should be underplayed.

I do plan to read more Kierkergaard because I do believe that he struggled 'spiritual trial' but I think that sometimes the language of religion does reinforce convention. Of course, the Gospels do really go beyond this, in the whole way that Jesus criticised the Pharisees. I do believe that the whole inner process of trial is important and one quote I do have access to from Kierkergaard's writing is,
'Despair is a Sickness in the Spirit, in the Self, and So it May Assume a Triple Form: in Despair at Not Being Conscious of Having a Self (Despair Improperly So Called); in Despair at Not Willing to Be Oneself; in Despair at Willing to Be Oneself.'

Of course, I am simply choosing a quote which I prefer but all this talk of sin in religion brought me to the despair in the first place, and I wonder if Kierkergaard was coming from that perspective too.

. I want you to understand this ...

. Religion is dead. It has really lived too long, it should have been dead long ago. It has not done any good to humanity, it has done immense harm. It has divided humanity. It has given different groups of people the idea that “You are the real people of God,” that “You are special; other human beings are second class.” It has fulfilled the egos of Jews, of Christians, of Hindus, of Mohammedans – of everybody. It has created so many wars. It has killed millions of people, burned thousands of people alive, and all in the name of God. For your own sake you are being burned alive!

. Religion is one of the most criminal phenomena that have existed in the world. It is time that we declare it dead.

. But remember, every death is a beginning of something new; every death is not an end. On the one side it looks as if something has ended, but on the other side something fresh starts growing. The death of religion becomes the beginning of religio.

. The word “religion” comes from religio. Religio has a beauty of its own, which is lost in “religion.” Religio means an existential, an experiential phenomenon. The very word means coming to a point where you are one – one with yourself, one with existence. Religion which comes from the same root does not have that meaning. It, on the contrary, makes you split. Making you one is not its work; its work is to make you schizophrenic, to put you into a split state, to put you against your own body, to put you against your own sex, to put you against yourself; to divide you into parts, fragments, and create an inner conflict in you.

. All religious people are continuously fighting with themselves, because their biology says to do something, and their holy scripture says to do just the opposite. Their own being wants to grow in one way, but the priests direct them into some other way.

. Every religion has been trying to make you somebody else. No religion has allowed you to be just yourself. They are all afraid of your being just yourself; then their function is lost. Their function is to create conflict in you, to make you miserable, suffering, in anguish. Then naturally you have to seek help.

. They create the disease, and then they start praying for you to be forgiven. They are the criminals, and they are asking for you to be forgiven. And whom are they asking? There is nobody.

. So it is really a great exploitation by the priesthood of all the religions. They have destroyed every individual. They have made you Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, but they have not allowed you to become just an individual, a human being. You were born not as a Christian, you were born not as a Buddhist; you were born just as a human being. They have destroyed your innocence; they have misdirected your life. They have molded you into something which you cannot become; it is not your potential.

. This is not religio. Religio is accepting you in your totality, making you whole, healthy. And that opens the door to become one with existence. You are part of it; every moment you are part of it. You are breathing existence in and out every moment – you are eating it, you are living it in every possible way. No man is an island, we are all part of an infinite continent; that’s what I am calling existence.

. Religio will relax you. Religio will give you, for the first time, the dignity of being a human being, and the vastness of being part of the whole existence.

. Religion is dead, religio is born.

. Religion is something like marriage: unnatural, arbitrary, artificial, created by social convenience.

. Religio is like love: natural, simple. No law is involved in it; no society, no culture dominates it.

. Love is a law unto itself, and love gives you something that is immensely precious. You start feeling needed. You are not superficial, you are not just accidental; you are needed, you are fulfilling some essential need. Love gives you the first glimpse that existence wants you the way you are. There is no need to become Jesus Christ or Gautam Buddha. Nature does not like carbon copies. Existence likes originals. You, in your originality, are acceptable.

. But a Christian is a carbon copy; he is trying to become Jesus Christ, and in two thousand years not a single Christian has succeeded. In twenty-five centuries not a single Buddhist has succeeded in becoming Gautam Buddha. Is it not proof enough? You can go even further backwards. In five thousand years, no Hindu has succeeded in becoming a Krishna. It is simply impossible. Nature never repeats.

. They say history repeats itself – because history is not nature. History belongs to carbon copies, retarded people; naturally it repeats itself. They don’t know what else to do, so they go on doing the same thing again.

. Nature is very inventive. It does not create even two persons equal, even similar. There are four billion people on the earth today, but you cannot find two persons who are exactly alike. Even twins are not exactly alike. They may appear to be, but their mother knows who is who; their wives know who is who. There are differences – very subtle. Outsiders may be puzzled, but those who know them closely can see the differences in their individuality – in their gestures, in their way of speaking, in their way of thinking, in their way of walking – in small things. But the differences are bound to be there.

. Religion has tried a very futile experiment, and almost destroyed humanity for thousands of years.

. The death of religion releases you from becoming somebody else. Now you can enjoy being yourself.

. We can call our commune, religio – a mystery school, a way of searching for one’s own spiritual being, a way of discovering one’s original face. Nobody has to become anybody else.

. And you are asking me, “God is dead, religion is dead, then what is left now?”

. In fact, those were the hindrances, which are removed, and everything that is essential is available now. Now you can be yourself without any guilt. Now you can be simply a human being without belonging to any organized religion. The moment truth becomes organized, it becomes untrue.

. I am reminded of a beautiful ancient story. A newly-recruited devil came running to the master devil, huffing and puffing, and said, “Something has to be done immediately! One man on the earth has just found the truth! And if he spreads it, what are we going to do? Our whole business is finished! He has to be prevented.”

. The old man laughed. He said, “You are a new recruit; you don’t know – my people are already there.”

. The young devil said, “Your people?”

. He said, “Yes, my people. The priests are already around the man, and they are organizing whatever he has found. That is my way of destroying truth, and it has never failed; for centuries I have been doing that. The priests – all the priests – are in my service! They don’t know it, but the moment truth is organized, it dies.”

. Why does truth die when it is organized? It dies because it is an individual experience. Can you organize love? Nobody has ever thought about it; otherwise it would have died. You cannot organize love. Love is something that transpires between two individuals. It does not need any priest, it does not need any book of instructions.

. When I was studying in the university I used to have a roommate – he was a little bit of an idiot, just the same as people are all over the world.

. He asked me, “Everybody talks about the fact that he has fallen in love, and some girl has fallen in love with him. It seems we are the only two persons in this whole university…. About you there is no problem, because you don’t want anything to do with any love, any woman, because you think they will be a distraction in your search. I don’t know what you are searching for, but I am at a loss. I want to fall in love. But how to fall in love? I have been to the university library looking for a book, HOW TO FALL IN LOVE; there is not a single book on the subject. And I cannot ask anybody else, because they will simply laugh. If everybody knows how to fall, then why don’t I?”

. I said, “You don’t be worried, I will teach you. You just choose the girl that you would like to fall in love with.”

. He said, “I chose her two years ago, but how to start? The moment she enters, I become so nervous in the classroom, I forget all about love. I forget even what the teacher is saying.”

. I said, “Don’t be worried. I will write a love letter for you. You simply post it to the girl and wait for the answer.”

. I knew the girl; she was one of the most beautiful girls in the university. She had been interested in me, but I had told her, “Right now, I am involved too much in my own work, in my meditations, and I don’t think you have patience enough to wait. But if you can wait, then I can promise you one thing: the day I become enlightened I will be ready. But not before that.”

. She said, “Enlightened? My God! How long will I have to wait?”

. I said, “Nobody knows. I may become enlightened in this life, I may become enlightened in another life. Nothing can be said, it is unpredictable. So the best is, for the time being you choose somebody else.”

. But she was persistent. So I approached her and said, “Just do me a favor.”

. She said, “Have you become enlightened?”

. I said, “No, not yet. But one of my friends is in a difficulty. He wants to fall in love, but he does not know how to fall in love. So you will receive a letter from him. Don’t discourage him – write him a beautiful letter.”

. She said, “This is tricky. Then I will be stuck with that boy – and I know your roommate, I don’t want anything to do with him.”

. I said, “You need not be worried.”

. And she said, “How can I write a very loving letter to that idiot? I cannot!”

. I said, “Then I will write it.” So I was writing letters from both the sides. And the boy was so ecstatic!

. He could not believe that just with his writing a letter, love began.

. But then the girl fell in love with somebody else. She told me that she could not wait, her parents were forcing her: either she had to choose someone, or they would. “You are my choice, but your enlightenment is a strange thing,” she said. ”I have never heard of anybody making such a condition, that when they become enlightened, then they will think about other matters. I have to choose; otherwise they will choose. So I have chosen, unwillingly. I will remember you, but I am getting married.”

. I said, ‘You get married happily, and don’t feel that you are doing it unwillingly. I am responsible for making you sad, and for making you decide in favor of someone else. I like you, but as far as love is concerned, that involvement is possible only after my enlightenment, not before that!”

. She said, “Then what about your friend that you have been unnecessarily forcing upon me? He goes on writing every day. And you have made it such a mess that you go on writing in my name, and I have to post those letters. I read them and I say, ‘My God! That idiot!’ And you are praising him and telling him, ‘I will die without you, and I cannot live without you. You are my heart.’ What am I to say to that man?”

. I said, “You have simply to say that your parents are forcing you to get married.” And in India it is common, an arranged marriage. A love marriage is still not acceptable.

. So she told the idiot, “What can I do? I love you so much, but my parents have arranged my marriage. So now I will not be seeing you anymore, and you stop writing the letters.”

. He almost came to a nervous breakdown, crying, in tears. I asked, “What is the matter?” – I knew what was the matter!

. He said, “My love affair was going so smoothly. Every day a letter – I was writing, she was replying; everything was going so smoothly. And her father has disturbed everything. I will shoot that man!”

. I said, “That won’t help. You find another girl – there is no problem – and start writing letters again.”

. He said, “But I don’t know what to write.”

. So I said, “You do one thing. You go to the girl and ask for all the letters you have written to her.”

. He said, “What!”

. “You just tell her, ‘I need those letters, because I have not been writing them.’ And return her letters to her.”

. So he went to the girl and asked for his letters. But she said, “What will you do with those letters?”

. He said, “What will I do? Have I to live or not? You are getting married – I will have to write letters to somebody else. Now what is the point of writing the same letters again? I can use these letters. And here are your letters that you had written to me; perhaps you may need them sometime, because who loves one’s own husband? Who loves one’s own wife? You may need them.”

. The girl said, “You can have both the sets, because both are written by the same man.”

. He was very angry with me, but I said to him, “That is the function of a priest. I have not done anything unique; that is what the priests have been doing all through man’s history. They pray for you to God. They even bring answers from God to you – answers to your prayers. They make your prayer, they make the answers for your prayer. I have been just functioning like a priest – only the area was different; it was love, it was not God.”

. The priests have no function if there is no God. Then there is no prayer, then there is no holy book, then there is no ritual. The priest has nothing left. He wants an organized religion. He turns religio into its opposite and calls it religion.

. Religio is a freedom. Religion is a slavery. Dropping God, dropping religion, I have restored your freedom. Now you can be yourself without any fear. You can grow without copying anybody. You can just grow into your own unknown potential.

. You are asking, “What is left?” Everything becomes available; only blocks have been removed, hindrances have been removed. Now you can meditate. You cannot pray; prayer needs a God.

. Meditation needs no God. Prayer has divided humanity, because Christian prayer is different from Hindu prayer. Mohammedan prayer is different from Christian prayer. But meditation is the same.

. Here, this very moment… if you are all silent, it is the same silence.

. Silence cannot have any name, any label.

. And meditation is the ultimate growth of silence.

. Now you can be silent, you can grow deeper and deeper within yourself, searching for the center from where your life arises. The moment you discover that center, there is an explosion which is far more significant than any atomic explosion, far more luminous. The atomic explosion is destructive. The explosion that happens at your center gives you a tremendous energy to be creative.

. And it does not make you part of any organized cult, creed, dogma – no. It simply makes you a dignified individual, immensely blissful because you have found the greatest treasure in the world. There is nothing more to be found. In finding your center, you have found the very center of existence.

. You have found eternity.

. Now there is no death.

. And out of this experience arises lovingness, compassion, creativity. Even sitting silently, doing nothing, there will be a certain aura of bliss around you, a certain fragrance around you.

. You have come home.

Sounds like you are into advaita vedanta