search wrote:I believe peace comes with truth, and constant peace through constant truth.
Some truths are not easy to swallow. But for a realist, the hardest truth, once accepted, allows for a certain peace of mind. With the acceptance of however unpleasant the reality, that it is reality, then one can ‘peacefully’ and ‘willingly' do what is necessary.
Scientific truths are established after hard work and years of researching ,spiritual truths are a realization and cannot be unproved through scientific data or reasoning.
Like the presence of soul , or the spirits who taught Prophets , can we prove them scientifically?. Yet we have a whole deal of scriptures revealed through spirits.
Interesting tangent, to make this about science versus belief.
In the philosophy of science, nothing can be absolutely proven, only absolutely disproved. ”Proof” means ”tested practically” or ”actually done”. You cannot prove that what happened yesterday or even a million times before will definitely happen tomorrow. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Probably but ...
Therefore only those things that can be disproved fall into the purview of science, and defines science. That said, what falls outside of the scientific method is not necessarily false nor true nor anything, it is a ”subjective interpretation of an experience"
All those were not lies or hallucinations or fabrications or imaginations. Those experiences are something which science cannot explain.
A lot depends on what criteria one is examining these, and that depends on tiem in history, education and knowledge of the ‘explainer’. For example, someone "talking in tongues” may be said by those if his faith to be filled with the Holy Spirit, while others, my old Christian mum, would say he is possessed by devils. A shaman using mushrooms to reach an alternative dimension may be said to be reaching an alternate reality to converse with ancestors or allies, or may be said to be affecting his brain chemistry to experience only what is artifially induced and manifests according to his culture.
A depth psychologist would say that although the latter explains how, it does not negate the truth of the former.
Among those ”whole deal of scriptures”, well, many are contradictory. Unless by ”true” you mean ”not literally, but poetically hinting at human subjective experiences” , they cannot all be literally true, .
If literally true, then, is Dada Lekhraj the only one God has spoken through, as he said? If so then the Christian belief in Jesus is not true. If the Christian belief in Jesus is true, then the BKs are not. If God speaking directly through the Koran is true, then both Christianity and BKism are wrong. And so on.
We all accept objective truths. We all blink when something sudden darts near our eyes. We all pull a face when we unexpectedly eat something ”off” or extremely bitter. No-one but the insane will walk off a cliff believing they won't fall. Some may do it suicidally
because they know what the result will be. We cannot scientifically prove that gravity will do its duty just one more time, we can only go on past experience, and that dictates our expectations of probability.
We need to agree that science and scientific methods ,though evolving have their limits.
All de-finit-ions are finite, by definition!.
When my need for peace has been met , should I not cling to that which gives me peace , why should I let it go?
What do you do with your peace? Chase more peace? Thats it the way of the opiate addict.
I do not have the OCD of proving everything wrong?
Do you have the OCD of accepting
everything as right? Do you have the OCD of proving
anything wrong? Of course you do, or you would not survive long. If someone spoke of walking off cliffs and flying only depends on your faith (those who don’t fly were lacking in complete faith? ).
If God is True ,then certainly there are certain things which are true , and as a seeker when I reach those truth and my personal reasoning accepts and appreciates them , why should I forsake them due to some others reasoning or experiences.
If there is Truth, then certainly there are thinga that are untrue. Is my personal reasoning infallible? Do I rationalise DESPITE evidence to the contrary, what I want to be true, and use selective logic to fool myself? Can i ever accept I was wrong and take on board the unpleasant truths of who I was, so I can move forward?
If God is not true , why are we all searching for Him?
That assumes a lot, that we are all searching for ”him” . I for one am not, and I know many others of that view, therefore your premise is wrong. maybe you could consider that the idea of ”God” is a carrier of certain human desires or qualities, a collective singular noun for conceptual ideals which we cannot otherwise hold in our "puny earthling” intellects.
If it is not with the BKs , honestly I do not know where else to find God.
Gee, what did humanity do before BKs?
Many of my confusions have been cleared through the Murlis and I am at most of the times amazed at their relevance to my ongoing situations.
"When the student is ready, the teacher appears”. You will learn from things and people as per your ability to comprehend and interests at the time.Learning, however, needs to progress.
After the Murlis I am more comfortable and less angry with God and feel having better understanding and clarity of the scriptures.
Why angry with God? Can you not take responsibility for your own fallibility or accept those of others?
And the doctor wants you to keep coming back because he knows you aren't healed yet , and the moment you are out you could catch up infections and the disease may worsen.
Nice rationalisation. Like a son who loves being 'mothered’ by a mother who doesn’t want her child to grow up and leave home. Made for each other.