I began my life obsessed by the subject of God and immersed in the research of all the diverse religions. Mine has been a long, too long route to Damascus. And a deep Night of the Soul.
Finally the existence of God began bringing me more restlessness than Its possible absence.
Because, ¿What kind of God could have created such a thing? What could be the Nature of THAT?
The presumption of the religious men, who pretend to be the authorized spokesmen of God’s Word, seems to me absolutely abominable. There isn’t a greater Blasphemy than pretending to know what God is, wht God looks for o what God wants. And it is the upmost Blasphemy, because it means sheer Nonsense.
"If you think you know what the hell is going on, you're probably full of shit."
Robert Anton Wilson
Some days ago a couple whose little daughter got restore from a usually fatal illness, was praising God “for having realized the miracle” of saving the child’s life”.
That most natural attitude in the majority of people, brought me instead a sensation of unbearable horror. Because, What happen then with the thousand children that died on that same day? Which was God’s will in these cases? Did God spare this little girl's life and abandoned the rest?
In a situation like this - that most certainly presents itself daily in thousands of different forms with people as fervent believers as those were- to believe in a god that exists in a participative way in the destiny of men produces in me an indescribable uneasiness.
That is why I consider Wittgenstein one of the great religious philosophers, and I have used as a title his last phrase in the Tractatus:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Religious philosopher I have said, because there isn’t a more certain and deep religion than Silence, which is the only that does justice to THAT about nothing can be "think of", or "say about". The immensurable pile of words that men have spent through the centuries to speak about that about nothing can be say, gives us a clear notion of the tremendous ignorance in which mankind drowns itself today and always.
Could someone call my position "agnosticism"?
May be.
For me it is simple reason and plain common sense.
Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen"
03 September, 2007
Suggestion for Psychologists and Students of Psychology
After 30 years of professional practice of Psychology and Psychoterapy, I believe that the most fast and efficient way to learn psychology is to study Etology. Studying animal behavior you are going to learn psychology faster and better than reading all of Freud, Jung and Lacan works.
Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
XXX Century Avatars
Such is the amount and deepness of people's credulity and the fickleness of historians, that it will not be surprising that in the XXX Century, Donald the Duck and Mickey Mouse could be remembered as great blood and flesh spiritual masters and founders of religions!
Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
Vivekananda in the streets of Calcutta
Identification
Every "spiritual"teaching that we may ever need is condensed in the following:
If you don't "identify" yourself, the circus suspends its performance immediately.
If you "identify"yourself, the circus begins its performance once again.
The fact that so much has been written about "spirituality" and the alleged "spiritual life" is a clear proof of the kind of crooks that are usually leading ashrams, founding churches or creating religions.
Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
True Spirituality
True Spirituality is an intimate affair.
Wittgenstein used to vaguely talked about “'das Mystische”, a realm inaccessible to analysis or articulate description.
I have used the word “true” attached to “spirituality”, because any manifestation that goes away from that indispensable “intimacy”, must be suspected. This obviously includes any relation whatsoever with organized religions, that in this sense, must be observed as possibly anything, except Spirituality.
I quite understand that my statement is rather nasty, but I don’t think that Spirituality can be bent and twist to fit into anything of the sort.
In organized religions we have morals, codes, rules and a lot of collective manipulation. But Spirituality is rather alien to all of them.
This seemingly extreme opinion is really in concordance with the essence of Jesus sayings in the Gospel. Not that I need to arrive to an agreement with what the Gospel said, but just for the record.
Wittgenstein “vagueness”, which has been criticized, here and there, could not be otherwise, taking into account the elusive nature of the issue involved. As Lao Tzu clearly wrote, “The Tao that could be explained is not the real Tao”.
Once the true role of organized religions is understood –to establish some particular moral standards that mostly will serve the needs of the most powerful men and corporations at a given time and place- it must be also clear that any pretended wisdom about what lies before or beyond this life, is just a rather conceited supposition.
The all-embracing power of organized religions has always come from the alleged visions of the alleged visionaries of the alleged Gods. Too many allegations for the rational mind to be comfortable with.
True Spirituality is a process that comes and goes mostly in Silence. It is a rather unseen activity, but its fruits are and have always been visible and tangible: kindness, tenderness, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and peace. Not precisely the sort of fruits that we are watching coming out from organized religions in today’s world.
Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
Two comments on an Article by Sam Harris at Newsweek
Commenting Sam Harris article "The empty wager" at the online version of Newsweek:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/04/the_cost_of_betting_on_faith.html
I wrote the following:
Sam Harris is, together with Richard Dawkins and a little bunch of first line scientific writers, one of the few that is confronting the madness of a belief structure that has, systematically and inexorably, led to innumerable collective catastrophes. He is worried, very much so, and with outstanding reason. Religious belief as has been preserved by organized religions, is a calamity that has to be confronted by rational minds all over the world. The clash between those beliefs and super-advanced technology will provoke further holocausts, poisoning, in way to that final destiny, our daily lives in every possible manner. 100% support to Dr. Harris work.
After posting my initial comment, I took a look to other commentators. I think that many rationally prone people would agree with me, and I most certainly do not want to offend any person that feels otherwise, but each time somebody defends his or her faith on account of a man or god, whose accountability rests on the far past (like Buddha, Jesus, or whoever) saying I am a Buddhist, or I am a Christian, etc, I cannot help but think in the following comparison, I imagine a person two thousands years from now, proclaiming: I am a Mickey Mouseian, or a Donald Duckian...
Can just we grasp whatever we can from God HERE AND NOW without resorting to some past, improvable and alien experience?
Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
Sam Harris on his "The End of Faith" 1 of 4
Philosopher Sam Harris discussing issues included in his bestseller "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason". This series at YouTube consists of 4 small videos, which I am posting here. This is an abridged version of the full AVI which is about 1 hour 25 minutes long.
Both Sam Harris and, before him, Richard Dawkins, have began a sort of "holy" war against religious beliefs. I am saying "holy" because in some ways both scientists seem to be applying a similar sort of zeal as religious pundits do to defend their views.
Despite everything that I could say -because I am far away from agreeing with everything they propose- - Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins campaign represents a much needed and purposeful "rational dam" to organized religions outrageous conceptions and their obnoxious effects on every field of human life
Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
