There are cycles in human civilization,
transformation is necessary,
The teaching of cycles is correct, but transformation is not possible for man by himself, he needs guidance, which he can obtain from a divinely guarded tradition. Not the "return to paganism" or natureworship, which seems to be welcomed, is the way for 'transformation', but it is the way to error and finally the Fire.
 [We have the] freedom to disagree,
because "Reality is no more absolute."
So when did it ever stop being so. And in case it never was absolute, why do we have to be told?
- To disagree we do not need their permission, we will never agree to what is another face of the New Age-agenda, where things just do not add up.
for : typical for counter-tradition.
for : their message is clearly coined for the Hinduist followers, does barely apply to the modern Western mind.
 challenge - response
Our civilization is the story of domination,
But not only of domination.
the sacred is religion, religion dominates our lives
not in the secular West! shows/ a horizontal, therefore materialistic view, as it only admits for psychological relations/ phenomena, no transendance or spiritual path to God.
 When challenged, man looks to religion for an answer -> but there are
diff views-> conflicts [come about].
false thesis - also  the cause of conflicts are not "different views or perceptions of God". If they were the cause for conflicts and dissension, why come up with still another view of God or "definition of God". when we know it is impossible to define God! The causes for conflicts and dissension are man's greediness for the goods of
 crisis depends on our perception of God ??
 our aim: redefinition of God, this is the only possible way: a new experience of reality.
 We need a new experience of Reality, of One-ness with all there is. not poss through individualism and thevclaimng of a make-up religion and God.
[8b] they criticise the concept of] God [as being] separate of Man
 "Enlightenment" is an increased ability to see things as they are.=> the end of suffering
 Reality when defined becomes absolute =>conflict
11b] vision: an era free of religion
 religion is pesonal: create your own religion
 a world without religion is a world free from conflict. ->this is not unsacred,
 but the beginning of sacredness, of global spirituality.
 absolute truth has been man's obsession for a long time
 Reality is multifaceted, (Upan.:) Cosmic reality is One, and it shows itself in many ways.
 Buddha realized it cannot be found, but he found peace = Nirvana, someone said that nothing can be known => peace
 internal peace is global harmony.
 peace & harmony not through reforms, a new vision is required: the Golden Age.
[19b] If we search for the absolute Reality, we will miss the wonderful Now.
[20a] There are different views of God: which one is right?
 God is what you want Him to be, He is not independant of you.
[19b] Reality is one, and gods are many.
 All the so-called great men [he means Jesus, Buddha and so on] are ordinary men,
[19b] \but?\ gods descend from their locus serving mankind. ??
[19b] There is not one God, there is one reality and many gods, [which they see as being Christ, Buddha...] can be worshipped.
those who invent a lie against God Almighty: Su hud (11) 18
 man and God are mutually dependant, man and God they are not the same and not different. man and God are two ends of the same reality. so if they accept reality as being one, then from this follows that reality is absolute.
 God is not our problem or our challenge. well, would have guessed otherwise from what we have heard up tp now!\ punishing you is punishing himself!
[24b] The Ancients (Egypt, Greece) were wise men, women... this lost insight..
vision: resurrection of lost civilizations
 What if Reality is subjective? If all views are equally true, which
is the right view? if the are all true they are all right, seems to be the agenda / aim.
If Reality is subjective, where is the basis of conflict?
 Kalki: When contradictions coexist: the Golden Age
They ask "what if Reality is subjective?" but absolute Reality is objective, because ultimately it is the same for all human beings at all times and it is absolute, there being no 'other realitiy' beside it, and irrespective of how we define it, it is such - always, eternally, without limit.
If we understand this, we will see God as absolute, eternal, without limit. There is no need to worry about "different views of God: which one is right?" For a Hindu it is obvious that "there is not one God, there is one reality and many gods, [which they see as being Christ, Buddha...] can be worshipped." For monotheistic traditions, this is an unwelcome error.
When equally they say "our aim is a redefinition of God, this is the only possible way: a new experience of reality, (because) crisis depends on our perception of God, [they criticise the concept of] God [as being] separate of Man, for which may have been some tendency in the West, but not in Islam.
They are asking: "If all views are equally true, which is the right view? If Reality is subjective, where is the basis of conflict?" As if this would be the solution, to reduce the absolute to the relative. Instead it will lead to even greater chaos! "We need a new experience of Reality, of One-ness with all there is." So also a One-ness with the false and the corrupt? Of course not! Limits have to be set. For this they need to redefine God!
Reality is both absolute and objective. But when they talk of "a new experience of Reality" this will certainly not come about through individualism and from a make-up religion and 'personally-defined'-God.
And what is wrong with the mystical experiences of the prophets (upon whom be peace) before us and the holy men and women from times immemorial? What is it that this group from India would want to add to their timeless experiences of the One?
They like to remind us that we have the "freedom to disagree, because "Reality is no more absolute," If they are all true in what they say and it certainly is in accord with the New Age - agenda, then what are their proofs for this mighty claim they are making here, that "Reality is no more absolute?"
But they do not have proof, except for lamenting as above, that "Reality when defined becomes absolute, then it will lead to conflict." And also "the concept of] God [as being] separate of Man makes us disintegrated. False: It is the turning away from God which makes us disintegrated, the denying of the unity of God, which pulls down the spiritual veil of darkness over our souls, / leading to a the impossibility of wholeness and unity in our lives.
Instead they want to impress us with: "Reality is no more absolute."
Then we have to as ask, when did Reality ever stop being absolute, now being relative? And in case it never was absolute, then why even tell us?
No, but to disagree with these contradictory teachings, we do not need their permission, we will never agree to what is another face of the coming of the system of the Anti-Christ, where things just do not add up.
There is not one God,
there is one reality and many gods,
[which they see as being Christ, Buddha...] can be worshipped.!!
Man and God are mutually dependant,
man and God, they are not the same and not different.
man and God are two ends of the same reality. Something true here, but how will it be used to serve group purposes?
So if they accept reality as being one, then from this follows that reality is absolute.
So that it is! A god totally immanent just as saying: 'You are god!'
Then why do I have to eat, to sleep, and eventually die?
"Reality is multifaceted, (quoting the Upanishades:) Cosmic reality is One,
and it shows itself in many ways.
Reality is one, and gods are many."
Why did they even mention it? To repeat it does not make it true or more plausible.
Then they attack the great teachers of humanity, thus displaying their contempt towards the best of mankind, saying that "Buddha realized it [knowledge of Reality] cannot be found, but he found peace (Nirvana)" and "all the so-called great men [meaning Jesus, Buddha aso] are ordinary men."
But this is false: Buddha most probably found it. And all the prophets found it [knowledge of Reality].
There is no peace from ignorance, impossible!
Because peace is an active and creative act, not passively evolving as by itself. If mankind were left for themselves, they would surely chop off their heads in no time at all. For peace we need knowledge, not anly kind of knowledge, but sacred knowledge, which comes about through a divine guidance in a trusted way, which is a revealed religion.
Their aim is what they call the "vision of an era free of religion
and that "religion is personal", and we are told: "create your own religion"
This is false: The inner aspect of religion is always personal, in the exoteric aspect, fulfilling the revealed laws, it is also so, as we are personally resposible.
As we saw above redefing God, averting from absolute Reality would be the road for salvation? No! They claim that "a world without religion is a world free from conflict."
But there will always be religions in this world, because man is innately a worshipper.
And not religions are not the cause of conflicts, see above - but man's stubbornness refusing to live up to its tenets
Here the New Age-agenda has clearly surfaced, and their anti-traditional subverting traditional concepts and values.
It does not help if they turn over the table, defining the opposite and positing 'a world without religion' this is not unsacred, but the beginning of sacredness, of global spirituality.
Their aim ... "internal peace is global harmony."
peace & harmony not through reforms, a new vision is required: the Golden Age.
comment: very doubtful! suspicious!
It is to fill the pockets of some sinister people who use desacralized Hinduism for Western consumption.
The Ancients (Egypt, Greece) were wise men, women...
this lost insight..
vision: resurrection of lost civilizations
Kalki: When contradictions coexist: the Golden Age
They mean: we know we are contradicting ourselves what we say does not male much sense, but follow us anyway.
We are at least sincere abut not being able to present a consisitent ideology ao New Age-religion. But the truth is they are liars all through.