I?m interested in finding statements and/or arguments to the effect
that our beliefs are not choices we make, particularly in the context
of religion. In particular, I suggest that one doesn?t ?choose? to
believe in God. While it is true that a person can research, reflect,
think, pray, hope, talk to others, etc., about religious questions,
they either find materials and arguments that cause them to believe
(to varying degrees of conviction), or they do not. Therefore, while
any number of religions can claim that one should ?believe,? this
advice seems misguided, and the entire ?free will? dimension of
religious belief is irrelevant. Even if atheists would ?like to
believe in God,? they simply don?t and really can?t. Comments with
arguments to the contrary are welcome, but the answer should focus
primarily on support for my conjecture.

Dear Mharoks, 

I could find support for the argument that one "doesn't choose" to
believe (or not to believe) in God from two arngles:
- Biology
- Sociology

The biological theory claims that out brains create God. "Persinger
can artificially produce a wide range of anomalous experiences by
driving the brain with his EM helmet and technology. He identifies the
temporal lobes as the biological basis of the god-experience.
Bombarding the brain with certain frequencies in certain regions
produces different results. As impulses move through the temporal lobe
and deep into the brain, they interfere and interact with the complex
electrical patterns and neural fields."

"To explore his theory, Strassman conducted extensive testing,
injecting volunteers with the powerful psychedelic, synthetic DMT. DMT
is so powerful it is physically immobilizing, and produces a flood of
unexpected and overwhelming visual and emotional imagery. Taking it is
like an instantaneous LSD peak.
[...]
He suggests the mysterious pineal gland is implicated in the natural
production of this mystic molecule, as metaphysical teachers have long
claimed. The pineal has been called the spirit gland and may be the
biological basis of spiritual experience. The only solitary, or
unpaired gland in the brain may initiate and support a variety of
altered states of consciousness. "
(SOURCE: Iona Miller, "HOW THE BRAIN ?CREATES? GOD, The Emerging
Science of Neurotheology", Asklepia Foundation, 2003, nwbotanicals.com
<http://www.nwbotanicals.org/oak/magick/createsgod.htm>).

Read more about it: 
God Module@Everything2 
<http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=god%20module> 

Feeling in the soul / Atheist Articles
<http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/soul.html> 

Jonathon Scott Feit, 2003 "Probing Neurotheology?s Brain, or
Critiquing an Emerging Quasi-Science" A paper presented at a symposium
on Critical Theory and Discourses on Religion at the 2003 Annual
Convention of the American Academy of Religion, Atlanta, Georgia, USA,
November 22-25, 2003
<http://www.citizenculture.com/about/neurotheolo.pdf> (Critique on
this theory). PDF document.

Steve Connor, "'God spot' is found in brain", LA Times, Wednesday 29
October 1997, <http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm>

D. Trull, "The God Spot", Enigma,
<http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/Creationism/is_the_human_mind_touched_by_god.htm>

Robert Lee Holtz, "Brain's 'God module' may affect religious
intensity", Broadcasted on BICNews 31 October 1997,
<http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Health/health19.htm>

"A "God-module" in the human brain?", Published in: Perspectives: A
Journal of Reformed Thought v.14 n.2 (1999) p.17,23.,
<http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/GodModuleInBrain1999.pdf> (PDF
Document!)

"The Brain and the Soul"
<http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/BrainAndSoulTalkNotes.pdf>

"God Module" 
<http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Science/God%20Module.htm> 
A Review of  "Can We Be Good Without God? Behaviour, Belonging and the
Need to Believe."  by Dr. Robert Buckman
<http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm> 

So, a first (contested) theory is that God is related to some brain
function. That means, that of course, this is not are biological
choice, whether we "feel" God or not.

A second theory is the sociological one. This has less to do with the
actual feeling of "believing" as in a "believer's behaviour", since it
is viewed as impossible to have an empirical tool that would tell us
if someone really believes, or just acts "as if", telling us that they
believe, when in fact they do not.

However, this theory claims that "our beliefs are not our choices"
from a different angle: during the socialisation process, we also
"inherit" our beliefs and general attitudes. During our childhood,
when these beliefs are shaped, we rarely have choice. Here's a story
that might illustrate it: the real story of twins who have been
separated after their parents' divorce: one stayed with his father in
Trinidad and was raised as a Jew, while the other returned with the
mother to Germany, where he actually came to believe in Nazi ideology:

"[...] After the parents split, the identical twin brothers' lives
took radically different turns. Oskar returned to Germany with his
mother where he was raised a Catholic and, in the spirit of the Nazi
era, joined the Hitler youth. Jack stayed in the Caribbean with his
father who raised him as a progressive Jew. Years later, a brief
meeting found the young men on opposite sides of the ideological and
ethnic spectrum. The two hardly knew each other when they met again
and began to appreciate each other during a 1979 United States
research project on twins. In Oskar and Jack the brothers tell their
incredible story, permitting us to observe their similarities and
differences and to ponder the meaning of identity." (SOURCE: The film
Oskar and Jack, Germany 1996, Director: Frauke Sandig,
<http://www.sfjff.org/sfjff16/kqed96.htm#twins>). [By the way, I've
seen this film and highly recommend it].

When someone is brought up within a certain faith, his/her beliefs are
not his/her choice. Thsi goes all the way back to the fathers of
sociology. Marx's claims about religion in society were that it is
being enforced on the masses through their socialisation (he didn't
use this term), it is not a choice, and it helps to shape the "false
consciousness" in which they live. This is the theory. However, if
that is so, how can we explain religious conversion?

When Stark and Bainbridge (1985, 1987) studied religious cults (that
is, religious groups that are novel, and draw believers to convert to
them, as opposed to conventional, established religions, to which
people are already born), they found that "members of the cult are
encouraged to believe they were chosen, or made their choice to join
the cult" (SOURCE: a summary of their claims at : "Forms of Religious
Organisation", <http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_rel_11.htm>).

Read further: 
It's Not a Choice --Amen!
<http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/mail/nochoice.htm>  

Belief and Choice
<http://www.systems-thinking.org/theWay/sre/rex04.htm> - a dialectical
model showing that even when we believe that we choose, we choose to
believe in preset beliefs.

Kenneth A. Strike, "Freedom of Conscience and Illiberal Socialization:
The Congruence Argument," Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 32,
No. 3, 1998

ILKKA PYYSI?INEN , "Folk religion and theological correctness" Temenos
39?40 (2003?2004), <http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/ipyysiai/index_files/Pyysiainen_folkrel.pdf>

I hope this answered your question. Please contact me if you need any
clarifications on this answer before you rate it. My search strategy
was to search for specific terms ["god module"] as well as for general
search terms as "belief is not a choice".

---

Request for Answer Clarification by mharoks-ga on 14 Feb 2005 21:01 PST

Hi politicalguru,

Thanks for an interesting, though rather unexpected, approach to
answering this question. I was previously aware of some research
linking specific chemical and biological processes to religious
experiences and visions (specifically, the use of LSD by people
intensely interested in religion and subsequent "enlightenment"
experiences), but I'm thankful for your more recent information on
this topic. Your second line of reasoning regarding the enormous role
of parental influence was likewise familiar to me (but thanks a lot
for bringing the movie Oskar and Jack to my attention - sounds
spectacular). Although parental influence is strong, it clearly is not
overwhelming, as many people disagree with their parents, and new
religions (or cults) are constantly being founded.

Psychological research also seems relevant to understanding why people
who either believe or do not are impervious to arguments to the
contrary. A great deal of research shows that people are experts at
making sense of and explaining events to fit their preconceived
notions. Thus, a believer can readily interpret essentially any
evidence or feeling as confirmation that what they believe is true,
and they are remarkably resistant to even strong evidence that would
seemingly disconfirm their beliefs. Some outstanding work in this area
includes the following:

Festinger, Leon, Riecken, Henry W., & Schachter, Stanley. 1956. When
prophecy fails. New York: Harper & Row.

Tumminia, Diana. 2002. In the dreamtime of the saucer people:
Sense-making and interpretive boundaries in a contactee group. Journal
of Contemporary Ethnography, 31(6): 675-705.

Zygmunt, Joseph F. 1970. Prophetic failure and chiliastic identity:
The case of Jehovah?s Witnesses. American Journal of Sociology. 75(6):
926-948.

Work in psychology also has implications for the biological/chemical
argument, because the equivocal experiences involved can be
interpreted very differently by the person experiencing them. Some
might interpret the experience as God (of some stripe or form), while
others interpret it as a profound peace, an infinite happiness, etc).
This is reminiscent of the work on the social construction of
emotions.

Still, while these lines of thinking seem relevant, I was really
hoping for something a little more along the lines of philosophical
reasoning, which I am quite unfamiliar with. Consider this example:
Someone asks you to believe that you personally can levitate.
Regardless of how much you'd like to believe it, you simply don't.
Saying that you "choose not to believe it" seems somewhat ridiculous.
You don't "choose" not to believe it, you just don't believe it.
Furthermore, reading extensively about levitation and encountering
others who believe (without evidence) in levitation is not likely to
change your mind. Thus, for someone to try to convince you to "accept
Jesus" or "believe in God" is fairly meaningless. While you could
become convinced that God exists, perhaps through intense study, it
seems like the whole conception of faith really involves pretending to
believe or trying to believe when you really don't (i.e., when there's
no reliable evidence). If someone has a religious awakening
experience, and interprets it as God speaking to him, then this person
really no longer needs faith as such. I would imagine that both
philosophers and religious scholars have discussed such issues in
great depth, and I was hoping you'd unearth some of their arguments.
Still, I commend you on the material you have found, and won't rate
you poorly if you stop your investigation.

In response to the comments: (1) tibiaron seems to be saying that God
communicates to only some small subset of people, and those few He
blesses reliably know He exists. While this may be so, the undeniable
fact that huge numbers of people have intense yet conflicting
convictions regarding God means that either God is messing with
people's minds (possible, but seemingly unlikely), or at least some of
the people are deluding themselves (much more likely). How so many
people can have such strong convictions regarding the nature of God,
when so many others believe just as strongly in opposing views on the
nature of God, is a fascinating question in its own right. To me, the
fact that so many different groups believe intensely while disagreeing
about the nature of God makes it seem emminently more reasonable to
conclude that conviction is irrelevant to the truth of a belief (a
conclusion that psychological research also supports).

The comment by pugwashjw at first seems merely to cite justifications
for his or her own belief (and I suspect that belief is likely to have
come first, only to be justified later), but then makes a comment
about free will that doesn't really seem relevant to the question at
hand (please clarify if you disagree). The whole point of my
conjecture is that we don't have free will to believe whatever we
want, so merely saying that "God gave us free will" doesn't address
the issue. rai130 and guzzi add further comments primarily aimed at
pugwashjw's line of thinking, and not directly aimed at my original
question. Still, thanks for all these comments, and I hope to see more
(but hopefully they will stay focused on the primary question so this
doesn't become another rambling and unproductive debate between
believers and non-believers). Thanks!

---

Clarification of Answer by politicalguru-ga on 15 Feb 2005 04:51 PST

Thank you. I guess this depends on your beliefs (OK, convictions)
regarding free will vs. some other elements shaping our lives
("destiny" was popular among the Greeks, less so with philosophers
today; environmental factors, as mentioned before, are popular also in
modern philosophy - see for example Foucault, or better so - everybody
hates Foucault - Althusser, on how even linguistic structures and
everyday objects shape the way we think and believe; as you can see,
there's always the possibility that it is all physiological).

Sartre of course would take it to another angle - of course we choose
to believe, all "reasonable" people (I am not sure what Sarte had to
say about people with very low IQ) are responsible for all of their
actions, and believing is in essence an action.

Pure reason --> a reasonable person could choose whether to believe or
not. Rousseau got himself in real trouble with trying to develop this
line of thought: and he had to put something out of pure reason (God)
and believe that there's some sort monitoring mechanism ruling the
world http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/rousseau.htm>.

There's no clear cut answer for this question: it sometimes seems that
Sartre is underestimated outside France; but also that philosophers
like Althusser or Gramsci were right: our consciousness is sort of
"predetermined" by our environment and Sarte's "responsibility" and
choices are limited by the environment: a person is not (only) "what
he makes of himself".

Thanks for the great job at tackling this tough question, politicalguru!

It's difficult to find God VIA the five senses.  He usually
comunicates on a higher lever, which can be powerful but difficult to
describe to others.  A powerful conviction that he exists is valid
evidence, even though the scientific community has trouble accepting
it.

As a regular contributor to questions religious, I can state that
there was a time when I did believe in evolution. And even maybe that
we might not be alone in the universe. But when it was pointed out to
me that there were scriptures in the Bible relating directly to the
earth, in the book of JOB, written by Moses in the wilderness in 1473
B.C.E. They are ..
JOB 24;7..He is stretching out the north over the empty places [the arctic??]
[b] hanging the earth upon nothing [ earth as seen from space]
JOB 24;10..He has described a circle opon the face of the waters [ the
moons shadow upon the ocean during an eclipse]..to where light ends in
darkness.
ISAIAH 40;22 [written by Isaiah 732 B.C.E.] " There is one who is
dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as
grasshoppers. The one who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine
gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell".
The question arises, how did those early Bible writers know the
knowledge that the earth was round, UNLESS THEY WERE INSPIRED WITH
THAT KNOWLEDGE DIRECT FROM THE SAME GOD THAT CREATED THE EARTH AND
HEAVENS IN THE FIRST PLACE..Genesis 1;1.
If the Bible is true in this instance, and knowledge in it is from
God, it goes against common sense that parts would be true and parts
not.
The early Bible characters had dealings direct with God. Jesus did not
come on the scene, as a man, until 2,000 years ago. Exodus 6;3 written
1512 B.C.E. says "And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as
GOD ALMIGHTY, but as respects my name, Jehovah [ YHWH] I did NOT make
myself known to them". This scripture makes the distinction between
God's title [ God Almighty] and God's name [ Jehovah]. And right
through the remainder of the Bible, it is God's NAME that should be
praised and sanctified. At Roman 10;13 it says " For everyone who
calls on the NAME of Jehovah, will be saved. A sensible careful study
of all the scriptures actually builds up faith.  But faith should not
be blind, accepting the word of anyone just because of the position
they hold. Roman 10;2 says "For I bear witness that they have a zeal
for God, but NOT according to accurate knowledge". And verse 10;10
says "For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but
with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation".
God has given us free will, and if we choose to use that free will to
blindly believe what someone teaches us, right or wrong, then it is
possible to go through our whole life, even happily, but still
ignorant of what is true. Because we are not robots, our free will 
gives us all the opportunity to change our life, for better or worse.

Pugwash... "The question arises, how did those early Bible writers know the
knowledge that the earth was round [?]"

By observing the environment around them. Early-modern man (ie
Copernicus) did not have a monopoly on that knowledge. That an earlier
culture came to the same conclusion (not that Isiah 40:22 does
irrefutably describe the earth's true form - there are a myriad of
other interpretations of that passage (as there are for all the
passages you quoted)) is in no way suprising.

Lack of free will is expressed by belief in deity. It is more than
coincidence that one usually adopts the irrational religion of one?s
upbringing, though one cannot avoid a certain degree of sympathy for
animism.

Best

Hi mharoks. No I wasn?t really responding to pugwash, merely an
economical response to your (as always) eclectic question -- offering
a ?statement? of adoption and of ?free-will? with respect to religion.
I could expand upon politicalguru?s super answer, describing  the
mechanisms by which one (and I include myself) ?believes? without
schism, be it religion or anything else transparent. However, this
(and a rejoinder to the Black Pig?s captain) would consume many a page
:-)

Best

for rai130. Opinions on a subject are whar we all enjoy reading, but
we must try and back up our statements with other information. I use
bible scripture because I believe what it says. You say there are many
interpretations of any one scripture. Please give some examples. And
as for Copernicus, full marks to him for studying the stars,
considering he lived in the middle ages. But he did have access to the
Bible and most likely read the scriptures I have quoted. Which would
have given him some guidance to write his material. I am interested in
how else the two scriptures...hanging the earth upon
nothing....and...above the circle of the earth...can be interpreted.
Both were written long before Copernicus.

Hello,

The concept of Human beliefs at large is covered in the explanation
give below. It relates to "I do not believe in going to temples or
worshipping god in daily life. Ibelieve destiny is in our own hands.
Then why is god there?"


Half-hearted faith ... this is the crux of life ... most people in
this life either have a wavering faith in God ... or they do not have
any faith in God whatsoever.

Before I proceed further I shall repeat a story, which was narrated to
me as a joke by my daughter when she was quite young (my younger
daughter always made it a practice that after return from school she
would tell me all the jokes she had learnt for the day) -

It so happened that a village where lived a priest who had immense
faith in God suffered natural calamity. It rained and rained for days
... all hell broke loose ... the whole village was flooded. This
priest owing to his allegiance to God refused to vacate the premises
on the pretext that he was not a sinner ... rather an obedient servant
of God and he expects God to come and protect him.

The floodwaters kept on rising ... a log floated by yet, the priest
refused to take the help of the log and swim to safety. The waters
reached the level of the second floor of the house. A boat passed by
... those on the boat requested him to board as that was the last boat
available but he refused ... waiting for God to come. The waters rose
further and further until it reached the top of the house. A passing
helicopter noticed the priest sitting on the top of his house and
offered him to climb up the ladder. He again refused ... hoping that
God will come and save him.

He finally drowned ... on reaching the abode of God he finally
confronted god with anger ... he pleaded of God that for all his life
he has served God dutifully yet when he needed him most ... God did
not turn up to help him. There was nothing much to say except for the
fact that God simply replied, "who sent the log, the boat and the
helicopter"!

I again repeat, "God, the Almighty Creator is a mere Dhrishta (an
onlooker) ... he never interferes with the working of his own
creation. Every Jiva (living being) is guided by the concept of karma.
We reap whatever we sow ... nothing more or less! The residual karma
of the past lives and the present life takes care of that during the
complete cosmic travel of Atman (the soul within). No living being can
manage without karma.

The priest was faithful to God, yet he failed to understand the basic
precept of spirituality ... God never interferes with the working of
his ... whatever has been created at the time of the big bang ... all
is self propagating ... the formations of the galaxies and stars,
solar systems and the planets, creation of life on planets conducive
to growth of life ... at no stage God interferes. No human being ...
rather no living being can perform even a single action without the
grace of God ... can a human being create a small pebble out of
nothing ... is it possible to create something out of nothing! It is
not ... those who think they can survive without the grace of God are
wrong!

I have had a close interaction with many atheists (non believers of
God) ... all agreed that though they do not believe in the existence
of God ... they believed in the concept of an energy source which runs
the whole cosmic system ... spell it by the name of water, Jal (in
Hinduism) or Pani (by followers of Islam) ... all drink the same ...
the source of all is the same. Either we believe in the existence of
God, the Almighty Creator or an energy source ... it is one and the
same thing! God, the Almighty Creator does not have a form ... it is a
mighty source of energy ... the combined power of all the purified
Atmans (souls) in the cosmos.

You were faithful to God one-day and the other day your faithfulness
vanished ... only because God did not try and help you out personally.
The failures did the trick ... you lost your faith in God! Is it the
failure of the God, the Almighty Creator or is it your personal
failure. Who suffers ... God or you! Still we desire and hate God
because of our ignorance. We are already sitting in the pit of sin ...
by undermining our faith in the system of God ... we are pushing
ourselves to a bottomless pit.

If you believe you can do away with God ... because you have more
trust in your thoughts, ideas and principles ... go ahead. The moment
God withdraws your thinking power ... all our ideas and principles
will die a dog's death. Have you ever tried to compare a normal farm
worker with the manager of the farm? The only difference you will find
is the difference in their thinking capabilities. There can never ever
be any other difference. It is only our thinking that makes us dress
properly ... prompts us to work hard and sincerely ... puts us much
ahead of the farm worker ... who is competent to do any physical work
other than thinking.

Mind power is the only gift of God which differentiates a human being
from an animal ... we humans have the power to think ... and to think
wisely! For, only as a human being can one reach the end of the cosmic
journey ... attain moksha (salvation). Our belief in the system of God
... our doings ... our daily affair ... God is never connected with
what we do in our lives. He created the doctrine of karma, which
guides and controls every human being rather living being forward on
its destiny.

If we perform a sin ... we pay for it ... we can never absolve
ourselves out of the sin unless we pay the price. We need to expiate
our sins if we are to lead a spiritual life. We are bound to suffer if
we have erred. The doctrine of karma will take care of that ... it is
a different matter that for a sin committed in this life we may be
punished in this very life or in the next manifestations.

We need to understand that it is our Atman (the soul within), which
has taken the body ... and not vice versa. Whatever karma we perform
... all fruits of our actions are enjoyed by our Atman (the soul
within) ... the body is required by the Atman (the soul within) only
to purify itself ... cross the cosmic Samsara (the manifest life) of
8.4 million manifestations ... a total cosmic travel of 96.4 million
years.

The journey starts at the time of the big bang (the time immediately
after the dissolution of the cosmos (the pralaya as we call it in
Hinduism) when God, the Almighty Creator which is but the size of half
a thumb (this has been clearly expressed in the Bhagavad Gita ... the
definition of God, the Almighty Creator can be summed up as the
combined power of all purified Atmans and during the time of pralaya,
dissolution of the cosmos ... the whole cosmos is reduced to half the
size of a thumb ... does it mean that all the Atmans, souls in the
cosmos combine together to form half the size of a thumb ... yes!)
explodes with a big bang.

All Atmans (souls) scatter all over the cosmos and starts the journey
of the Atman (the soul within) ... this Atman (soul) which is now
imbibed with impurities can only purify itself by manifesting bodies
after another ... a total of 8.4 million manifestations (a total life
cycle of 96.4 million years) after which the body is said to reach the
stage of moksha (salvation). If we need to purify one KG of gold from
hundred KG lump of gold ore ... we can definitely say that is one KG
of pure gold is Atman (the soul within) in its pristine pure form but
it has to be separated out from 99% impurities. This separation from
impurities can only occur through the help of a body (a mining
machinery) ... the gold within the ore cannot separate itself of its
own ... it cannot do without a body ... it has to manifest one body
after another until it reaches the 8.4 millionth manifestation ...
attain moksha (salvation)!

I am a nonbeliever of rituals ... but I have hundred percent faith in
the existence of God ... throughout my life I have never been to a
temple out of my own conviction ... it was when I was young that I was
taken to the temple on religious occasions by my parents. My not going
to the temples does not mean I do not believe in God ... I always felt
that my God lives within the heart in my body. I never felt the urge
to go to a temple and pray to God. It was never required. Whenever I
wanted to pray to God ... I took care of his pupils ... for all living
beings on mother earth are sons and daughters of God. If I need to
serve God ... I need but serve his children.

If I prayed to God and wished for something ... then I was always
prepared to give something in return to God ... it may be a service or
anything for that matter. There is nothing like something for nothing.
Your belief that you do not believe going to the temples and praying
to God is your belief. It has got nothing to do with God or anybody
else whatsoever. You are responsible for your own deeds. The doctrine
of karma will take care of that. Every human being has been given the
power to break his life but to make our life ... we need to be
cautious ... it is not only the karma of the present life which is
affecting us ... the residual karma of the past lives is also to be
taken into account. It is the combined power of the residual karma of
the past lives and the karma of the present life that is governing.

Do not forget ... the cosmic system is a creation of God ... none is
supposed to meddle with the affairs of his. Your failures in life are
not connected to your going to the temples ... praying to God ... they
may be the result of the residual karma of the past lives ... if you
have not committed a sin in this life it is possible that you suffer
because of the sins you may have committed in the past lives. Why
blame God ... he is a mere Dhrishta (an onlooker) ... never
interfering with his own creation. At the most what you can do now is
to expiate for the sins committed in the last lives and get out of it.

I distinctly remember that when my younger daughter had appeared for
her class XII examination, she did not get the desired marks in some
of the papers ... she applied for rechecking but the result was the
same ... I came in contact with a person who offered to get the marks
increased by paying a sum of Rs 15,000 (US dollars 300). It was easily
possible which I came to know from the newspapers as many children who
were supposed to fare well even failed ... this happened for the
computer operator in the education department was happily obliging.

My younger daughter was so angry with God that why it had to be she
who is to suffer ... probably her examination sheet was changed with
that of the other. This anger remained with her for a long period of
time. She rather had lost complete faith in God. Yet, she always kept
the doors open ... it was sometimes later when I was recuperating from
an operation and the doctor had advised me to take a brief stroll
after the meals in the evening that she used to accompany me. She was
absolutely clear about her goal of life ... she was prudent enough to
ask, whether she should follow the path of truthfulness ... which is
full of insurmountable difficulties ... and the other was the middle
path ... sometimes being truthful and sometimes not!

I advised her to remain truthful for the full life ... she was somehow
not convinced! She wanted examples of people who had remained truthful
and yet survived the society. I could only give her one example ...
the example of Mahatma Gandhi ... she refuted saying Mahatma Gandhi
was a political personality ... he indulged in social service ... for
him ethics in business did not matter for he would never be required
to do a job ... serve someone other than the society. As she was to
follow a career in computer science ... she looked forward to a job in
the field of computer sciences. It was here she felt she would have to
face the trouble ... dealing with the society with full truthfulness
was something troubling her.

This became our daily routine ... I used to give her many more
examples and insisted upon her that she must not follow the path of
untruthfulness ... she never said yes or no! I inherently knew in the
core of my heart that she would remain truthful all her life ... how
satisfying it is for me to see her pursuing the desired goal in life
with full truthfulness. I only pray to God that she achieves whatever
success she dreams in life! I am not very sure whether she has again
developed her full faith in God but I know she is also not far away
from God.

It is only when we ask something of God and it is not given ... we
lose faith in the system of God! Is it right ... God shall never
personally come and help us ... it can always send us help in the form
of a log, a boat or a helicopter. We only need to understand the crux
of his system ... the moment everything becomes clear to us ... we
stop blaming God for anything. Praying to God ... asking for something
is something ridiculous. Materialistic riches are not bestowed upon us
by grace of God ... it is the result of our own karma and nothing
else. How much ever we pray ... no boon shall ever be granted unless
we do the requisite karma.

I have seen people working hard and promising God a donation of Rs
five (say dollar five) if they succeed in their exam ... when they
finally succeed they go to the temple and offer a charity of Paisa 25
(say $.25) ... why cheat God for it is not possible for a human being
to cheat God ... if we have succeeded in the exam it is only because
of our hard work and our faith in the system of God. Nothing else had
any role to play.

Now what is the doctrine of karma? It is simple ... what we sow ...
shall we reap ... nothing more or less! If only human beings could
understand that destiny is in our own hands and not in the hands of
God ... it will be only a matter of few days that we shall face
Satyuga (the golden era). Taking control of destiny is not a difficult
task ... but first we need to understand the process of how we can
control our destiny.

To take control of our destiny first we need to establish a goal in
our life ... 99.99% of the people in life never establish a goal ...
yet all the time they wish for something which they have not truly
earned! God never bestows anything without karma ... it is only our
karma of the present or the previous lives which shall decide the
course of our destiny ... and as our karma is in our own hands ... we
can decide our destiny. Many people argue with me that it is not
possible for them to get out of the sins of the past lives for the do
not know anything about them. This is where I shall be of help at a
later stage.

I am planning to bring out an e-book on "how to expiate for the sins
of our past lives" (this will be a priced publication ... slightly
heavily priced as I need finances to continue serving the society
through the medium of Internet for the time being and subsequently
TV). If we can completely absolve ourselves of the sins of the past
lives ... then there is no reason why we cannot take control of our
destiny in this life! This mantra would be so enchanting that ... in
the yester years ... Saints and sages charged almost $1 million per
person for the same (one lakh per mantra).

Having established a goal ... we must put all our eggs in one basket
and pursue it with all our might. There is no reason why we should
fail. I had a goal in life ... I wanted to meet God at the age of 11
years ... by the age of 13 my wish had converted into a conviction.
Even if I had to leave the family ... anything whatsoever ... I shall
go after my goal as if I was all alone on mother earth. It was just
not a feeling ... it was a conviction ... something which I had to
achieve in this very life. At 37 years of age God blessed me with his
vision ... I had realized God ... I had reached my 8.4 millionth
manifestation ... I have no life after this life ... I can only but
take moksha (salvation) in this life ... if I have done in ... So can
you ... or anybody else.

If you really desire that God should talk to you ... you need to rise
above the ordinary ... you have to become a self-realized soul! You
need to reach the status of Rama Krishna Paramhansa and Maharishi
Ramana ... in the last hundred and 50 years only these two persons
have realized God. Swami Vivekananda, Acharya Rajneesh (popularly
known as osho), Maharishi Aurobindo all failed to realize God in their
lifetimes ... you need to understand the meaning of self realization
before you can proceed on the journey.

Merely wishing to talk to God is something like wishing for God to
come personally as done by the priest. You can keep on waiting for not
one life but millions of lives ... God shall never come ... he shall
never talk to you ... unless you perform your karma. By awakening your
kundalini you need to come to the stage of Nirvikalpa samadhi ... this
is the stage when one can have one-to-one dialogue with God.

Having realized God I am able to talk to God every moment of my life
... does it mean that normal human beings are not permitted to talk to
God until they have realized God ... it is not so! By the grace of God
every human being has the power to talk to God every moment of his
life ... yes, we can talk to God in a different manner ... rather, we
can try hearing God. The sweet small inner voice, which prompts us
from within and guides us on the right path always and ever ... the
power of Atman (the soul within) is always there with every living
being.

Particularly, with us human beings having the power of discrimination
... we cannot only use this hidden power for our benefit but it is all
the time available to us on our cosmic journey. And what is an Atman
(a soul) ... it is but a minuscule part of God, the Almighty Creator.
The power of an Atman is almost equivalent to God, the Almighty
Creator.

We only need to understand that if a grain of wheat is a single Atman
then the whole mound of wheat is God, the Almighty Creator ... the
collective power of all purified Atmans in the cosmos. Before you
embark on the journey of self-realization ... think it hard whether it
is possible for you to travel the path traversed by Rama Krishna
Paramhansa or Maharishi Ramana. Even big stalwarts of spirituality
like Acharya Rajneesh and Swami Vivekananda failed to achieve
self-realization in their lifetime. In the case of Acharya Rajneesh it
was a single fault of his in the later stages of his life, which
plunged him from top to the bottom.

He advocated that by performing free sex ... it is but possible to
realize the spiritual goal early. He was hundred percent wrong. We can
only rise above the spiritual ladder by practicing celibacy ... and
that too for a continuous period of minimum 12 years. Only then shall
we be able to catch the lift of the spiritual life and go straight up
... this is the only path to awaken our kundalini ... and unless the
kundalini is fully awakened ... we shall never realize God.

In the case of Swami Vivekananda ... he never actually desired self
realization in this very life ... he followed the pattern of mother
Teresa ... instead he wanted to serve the society ... the
underprivileged ... those poor children of God who neither had the
means nor the will to stand up and say, Society! I am a part of you
... accept me as I am! Swami Vivekananda had very noble ideals ... he
had a darshan of God by the grace of his Guru Swami Rama Krishna
Paramhansa ... but that was for intermittent times. He never wanted to
dwell in the domain of God permanently. Maybe not in this but in the
next life Atman of Swami Vivekananda would definitely realize God.

Think of it ... why do you need to talk to God ... there has to be
reason ... I never wanted to talk to God ... I wanted to be with him
all the time ... and I achieved the goal of my life! Our sheer hard
work, patience shall ultimately win us the day. Hundred percent faith
in the system of God is a must. We also need to practice celibacy to
awaken our kundalini.

I shall give a small incidence in the life of Swami Vivekananda, which
shall make the matter more clear- Swami Vivekananda very badly wanted
to talk to God ... the reason being that before submitting himself to
his master Rama Krishna Paramhansa ... rather before surrendering
himself fully to his master and Guru Rama Krishna Paramhansa ... Swami
Vivekananda asked his Guru whether God would be willing to take care
of his family (by his family he meant his parents) ... as there was
none to look after them. Rama Krishna Paramhansa who knew the answer
... kept quiet. When Swami Vivekananda insisted upon an answer ...
Rama Krishna Paramhansa guided him to Ma Kali (who was also worshiped
by Swami Rama Krishna Paramhansa).

When Swami Vivekananda approached the temple of Ma Kali ... he would
become so engrossed in thoughts that were spiritual in nature that he
almost forgot asking the Ma for material benefits for his parents. He
returned to his Guru Rama Krishna Paramhansa who inquired of him
whether Ma has blessed him with all his wants. Swami Vivekananda
hesitatingly stated that the moment he entered the precincts of the
temple he forgot what he had come for. Rama Krishna Paramhansa
redirected him to go again and ask of Ma Kali for the material
comforts for his parents. He went again and the moment he entered the
temple the same happening repeated. When Swami Vivekananda returned
after his third visit with no return in hand ... he realized his
folly.

How could he ... a puny human being ask of Ma Kali ... for material
comforts for his parents ... when it was but possible for Ma Kali to
bless him with a gift of self realization in this very life ... to be
able to become free of the cycle of manifestations ... to be able to
reach the 8.4 millionth manifestation ... should be something what he
should ask for! What value is of the material comforts he is asking
for! What is the value of life of 70 to 80 years compared to the total
life cycle of Atman (the soul within) of 96.4 million years?

Swami Vivekananda immediately understood the complete truth ... he
never repeated the mistake. Instead he took a commitment from his
master Rama Krishna Paramhansa that he shall bless his parents so that
the basic needs of the family ... his parents shall always be taken
care of by the grace of God ... he left the care of his parents in the
hands of his Guru Rama Krishna Paramhansa. And only after Swami Rama
Krishna Paramhansa said yes, did Swami Vivekananda became a
disciplined disciple of Rama Krishna Paramhansa. And it is a fact of
life that the parents of Swami Vivekananda never were short of the
basic needs in life.


Vijay Kumar
(The Man who Realized God in 1993)