How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?

[Dontaskme]

Was I waiting to be conceived? Is everyone yet to be conceived, waiting for that moment? Can you be as direct as possible with your answer?

No thing is or has ever been conceived except the concept in this conception.

Anything that can happen will happen because it can.

But nothing that happens happens to a concept. If it did, it would be like saying the word water got wet.

There's just life living itself - no beginning no end. Nothing was born so nothing can die.

[ken]

Everything that is yet currently un-created in our physical realm
already exists, in its entirety, in the cosmic and Spiritual realm.
These un-manifested creations are simply waiting for our minds
and senses to reach the proper stage of development where we can
recognize them, understand them and re-manifest them in our
physical dimension.

By that token, everyone who will ever exist, exists now. I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS on this.

It's not BS ...it's for real. There is no you Dalek because there is no other than you.

Extremely confusing wording, There is no you, because there is nothing besides you. Is that what you are saying here?
Surely you can find much more easily understood words to say than that, what it is 'you' are really trying to say and be understood here?
I think I know exactly what you are trying to say, but we need to look a bit deeper into you and i need you to clarify honestly and openly a bit further.

There is only oneness being and knowing all which is unconsciousness becoming conscious (known) known not by the action but by the re-action after the event. You the named body character react the already known by the one as this one becomes known to itself...as and through the manifest of itself.

When does unconsciousness become conscious (known)?
How and when does this happen?
When does this one become known to itself?
What will happen when it does know itself?

I will give you the answers to these questions after you provide yours. I just want to see how much has been revealed to you and far along you actually are into revelation.

It works on the same principle as a blueprint for a house. A house cannot just erect itself out of thin air. An architectural detailed outline or plan of action has to already exist. Actions are ever only one unitary movement. The mind/body mechanism is a reaction of what's already happened subconsciously before it is become aware of.

Revelation can not just appear out of thin air, as you suggest, and a plan of action is needed also, as you say. But if you have not found nor reached that final revelation of the One knowing Thy Self, or unconsciousness becoming conscious and knowing Thee Self, then 'you' would not already have had that plan of action, which already exists, revealed to you.

Do you have any idea of how to actually reach the final destination?

Everything that could possibly exist exists right now in the eternal now simultaneously.....for where else can anything exist or happen?

Let me see if I have this right:

If, and only if, the universe is eternal, and that in reality there is only a NOW, then it would follow that everything that could possibly exist exists right NOW.

I had previously seen (understood) that the universe is eternal, that in an eternal universe everything is possible, and that there really is only a NOW, but i had not thought about the fact that in an eternal universe where everything that could possibly exist does in fact exist right NOW. So, thanks. It makes perfect sense, to me. Is this what you mean?

This immediate now is full of pure potential unmanifest pure awareness without form or attribute, when awareness knows sensation it becomes conscious of itself and so consciousness is born, but only the mind is born not you the personal body... anything known is a reaction... this is how the subject / object duality plays itself out....but it's one not two.

Your language here,to me, appears confusing. Like i have said earlier on in this post. You seem to be very close to understanding the ultimate truth but are not exactly sure how to get there. Your wording does not show know how to reach there, only that you are just nearly there. But just reading others works will not give you the ultimate satisfaction that comes with finding truth by yourself. I think explaining the path of how you to can find The answers by yourself will provide a much better and far more rewarding outcome for everyone.

In your quote;

Is it meant to be unmanifest(ed)?
If it is meant to be 'unmanifested', then does that mean It has not manifested yet?
If it has not 'manifested pure awareness without form or attribute', then how can that be when you contradictory stated, "Everything that could possibly exist exists right now"?
What is 'awareness'?
How does 'awareness know sensation?
How does 'awareness become conscious'?
Does 'without form or attribute' mean invisible, non-physical and always existing?
Who/what is the 'it, which has become conscious of 'itself''?
What is the 'mind'?
What is the 'you'?
What is the 'you the personal body'?
How exactly does 'the subject/object duality play itself out'?
What is the 'it' in "but it's one not two"?
What exactly is 'one' not two?

This is hardcore metaphysics Dalek. It cannot be refuted.

Until the words you use are defined we can not decide if what you say could be refuted or not. Just because you say it can not be refuted does not mean that it can not be. I am sure your contradictory wording can be shown and better re-worded so then that could not be refuted. But as your work stands now, and has obviously been proven already, some people will refuted ALL of it because they do not believe it, and because of their belief they will always refute it.

The words needed to explain revelation fully need to be easily understood by every adult person and be ordered in a way that they could not be refuted by anyone. Slowly but surely I am working on this.

I don't know if I've personally explained it well enough to be understood, but there are plenty of others on the internet that can do a better job than me...Bentinho Massaro who is about 28 years old can explain this perfectly.
The thing is, you have to really want to know this knowledge otherwise you'll just call it out as BS ..but it's up to you to find ultimate truth, if your happy with the status quo then that's fine too.

How can we find your so called ultimate truth?

I for one certainly will not accept something just because it said or written. I need to be shown how to find ultimate truth so that i can find it by myself and see it for myself. What about you, what do you need?

You can research the fact for yourself Dalek... it's hard for the mind to grasp at first, but once grasped you will kick yourself. I'm not making this up, I would never do that.

I really wish you would not use the 'it's' so often. Looking back and relating 'it' to what is actually meant takes time. Using the exact word that you mean helps you yourself and others to better understand you.
What is the 'it' you are referring to here?
Why is 'it' so hard for the mind to grasp at first?
Actually, what is the 'mind'?

Answer these and every other question honestly and openly that I ask of you, then I am sure you will better understand what I am actually doing here.

Normally we only see the manifest we believe our self to be that only, but we have a counter part of our self, and that is one without a second, but no one takes any notice of that one.

Do you take any notice of the 'one'?

What does that one actually say and/or do?

You say, "we have a counter part of our self", then immediately you follow it with, "and that is one without a second". The reason your writings can be very confusing to me is because they can be so contradictory.

Let us see if this is what you are saying:

A person sees them self as a thing (something)? For example, a doctor, or a teacher, or a mother, or a son, or a christian, or a muslim, or an american, or a german, etc., etc., etc.,
When a person speaks of itself as being that thing that person sees it self, and thus believes, itself to be that thing only?
The person believes that thing is the real self?
However, there is a counter part of that self that it believes it is? I just found the contradictory part. If you say, we have a counter part of our self, then you yourself are also saying and believing in this self. Saying it this way is saying that in fact there is A self. When the truth is there is no self? Is that close to what you are saying?
Are you saying that the one who is the counter (or other), from the self a person only thinks they really are, is actually the only real one? Is that right or nearly right?

I can take this much further, whilst explaining everything all the way deep down, but I will wait for your response first.

[Dontaskme]

Extremely confusing wording, There is no you, because there is nothing besides you. Is that what you are saying here?
Surely you can find much more easily understood words to say than that,

Yes that's what I'm saying.

How does the original face / the imagless be known to itself without looking in the mirror at itself as a reflection.

The reflection and the one reflecting (mirror) are the same one... That's who you are. That's what everything is.

You are both the transparent mirror (the seer) and it's reflection (the seen) can't know the seen without the seer. Can't know the seer without the seen.

The seer is known in the seen, but the seen cannot know the seer because it is what's already seeing. (known)

There is only you, because there is no other than you.

[Dontaskme]

I for one certainly will not accept something just because it said or written. I need to be shown how to find ultimate truth so that i can find it by myself and see it for myself. What about you, what do you need?

Nothing written or spoken is ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is the silence out of which writing and speaking arises and falls without a trace, leaving the silence ever intact. This is ultimate truth right here and now. Nothing to get, it's already got you.

[Dontaskme]

Do you take any notice of the 'one'?

I am the one, eclipsed by my shadow. The shadow is seen but never I

I is known in my shadow, but never seen.

[Dontaskme]

Are you saying that the one who is the counter (or other), from the self a person only thinks they really are, is actually the only real one? Is that right or nearly right?

It is the thought that has created the two points of self and other...where there is only Self.

Thought identified equals other... without the thought there is no other...without other there is no you.

[Dontaskme]

Revelation can not just appear out of thin air, as you suggest, and a plan of action is needed also, as you say. But if you have not found nor reached that final revelation of the One knowing Thy Self, or unconsciousness becoming conscious and knowing Thee Self, then 'you' would not already have had that plan of action, which already exists, revealed to you.

Do you have any idea of how to actually reach the final destination?

You are already there / here now.
You are that one knowing itself.Known in the appearance.

You could not possibly appear if you were not already here.

The you creates the you by appearing to itself as known.

It's self creating. Like smoke and mirrors.

There are two aspects of Self. One is dead the other one is alive.

Life is just another word for death.

Life creates the body.

Memory creates the I.

[Dontaskme]

I really wish you would not use the 'it's' so often. Looking back and relating 'it' to what is actually meant takes time. Using the exact word that you mean helps you yourself and others to better understand you.
What is the 'it' you are referring to here?
Why is 'it' so hard for the mind to grasp at first?
Actually, what is the 'mind'?

The it I am referring to is the same it in ''it is raining''

The mind doesn't grasp nondual reality because it lives in the mind of the known, duality. It's all it ever knows.

It lives in the mind because quite frankly there's not a lot else going on anywhere else. There is a place of perfect peace, but no one lives there.

That there is here right now. Can't get there from here. Here is everywhere and nowhere right now.

[Dontaskme]

Saying it this way is saying that in fact there is A self. When the truth is there is no self? Is that close to what you are saying?

There is only Self which is naked without name or form.

Sometimes the naked Self likes to wear a suit in order to be in uni form, but the suit does not make the form, the form made the suit while the naked one looks on.

[ken]

By the way, if nothing is the only thing I know anything about, then there is no use in I talking about anything else.

There is no separate Self there is only Self....separate selves are appearances of the one Same Self appearing as more of itself, but it cannot be more of itself than it is already, it can only pretend to be more of itself.

Self, with capital S, is real and does not pretend anything. ken's big Self is dontaskme's one Same Self.

Self is not a thing, no one lives in Self, Self has to pretend to live in it's own dream of itself, it has no other way of existing, but no one is dreaming the dream of I exist except the dream character itself which is an illusory character in the dream dreamt by no one.

dontaskme's "dream character" is ken's one of the 7 billion or so selves, i.e., a self with the little s. This little self is not illusory to itself. Little selves only see what they want to see and believe what they believe is true, right and/or correct, even if what they believe is actually completely untrue, false, and/or incorrect. This includes ken as well as dontaskme. But what is actually real true, right and/or correct is obvious to the big Self. Even what all little selves, including ken and dontaskme, actually are are known by the big Self.

Appearances are known instantly one with the knowing - who or what that knowing is is unknown, except the story (knowledge knowing) that comes with every appearance as it arises but that knowledge is illusory since this knowledge is thought based.

JUST BECAUSE "who or what that knowing is is unknown to dontaskme then that in of itself does not mean who or what that knowing is not known by Its Self, i.e., the big Self. Remember dontaskme that you are just a little illusory self, yourself. You only think you are right here. How could the illusory dontaskme know what the One big Self knows or does not know?

It's the 'I' thought or the 'separate self' thought.

There is no one OR other.

The big 'I' Self knows. The little 'i' self thinks, 'it knows'.

The separate self only thinks it knows, it does not know

If dontaskme's 'separate self' is what i call a person, and that is a 'person', is just the thoughts (and feelings) existing within a human body, i.e., the little s self, then we are in total agreement here.

In fact I wrote the sentence above your quote here before i read your sentence.

it is an illusion or just an invisible thought, it identifies the thought as belonging to it, but thoughts do not come from the body, no one knows what a thought is or even seen one...

True, no person has seen an actual thought from the physical eyes, but we have all seen thought through the actions of a human body. We call these actions, behavior. How a human being behaves or misbehaves is solely because of the thoughts from within that body.

Actually all thoughts do come from the body. Through the five senses of seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, and touch thoughts are created, form, produced, caused, etc. and stored within the brain as memory.

If the truth be known the thought/s existing NOW, within a human head, are actually the only thing that can be known, for sure. For example, the actual thought of 'I am looking at the blue sky' is the only thing I know, for sure. I do not know what blue is, for sure. I do not know what sky is, for sure. I actually do not know what I am looking at, for sure. The only thing that I can be absolutely and totally sure of is the thoughts been had or having within the body.

bodies don't know they exist, the heart or the liver or the arm they don't know they exist, only the thought does and that is not a thing....

When you say thought is not a thing, this is not completely true, from my perspective. 'No thing', as I explained before, is space, and, 'nothing', is not any thing, no single thing. A 'thought/s', however, is part of what makes up a person. Internal feelings/emotions is the other part. Both thoughts and emotions are invisible and non-physical, as far as we know.

any knowing of any thing are simply thoughts arising from no where or no thing...

Thoughts arising do NOT come from no where or no thing. Thoughts arise FROM the five senses through the human body FROM the environment from which the body exists in. For example, a human body living in, lets say, 2000 years ago from what is generally known as the year 2016 would not have a thought about living with a mobile phone. In fact they most probably would not even believe it was possible if another person told them about it. This is obviously because there were no mobile phones around in that environment at that moment. Whereas, in the year 2016 some human bodies have the actual thought, 'I can't live without a mobile phone'. That is because mobile phones are so common in the environment and so widely used in the year 2016. Although the actual thought is false, if the person, i.e., the thought itself, believes it is true, then no amount of proof or evidence will show that person otherwise. If a person believes it is right, then it/they are not open to finding, and thus knowing, truth.

Another example is when a person believes we, all human beings, could not live in peace and harmony. They have this belief because of the environment they are living in in the year 2016. The truth is however, that all of us living in peace and harmony is extremely very easy and simple to achieve. If any person, however, believes otherwise, then they are not open to, and thus will never know, the truth.

Thoughts arise from the environment that a human body lives in.

Thoughts (and emotions), themselves, is the person, the little self, which is held within the brain. The brain thinks, what is right, from the thoughts stored within it.

Thinking is NOT knowing.

Knowing, ItSelf, is the One, the big I, which is held within the Mind. The Mind knows, what is right, from the combined thoughts stored within ALL brains.

ALL knowledge has come, and continues evolving from ALL the brains that ever existed.

There is only One Mind, existing within every human body. Although this is not yet fully realized, the truth will become known.

Again, any body reading this please feel free to challenge me on this or on anything else.

Pure empty awareness or nothingness is the Self, from out of which appears everything. Awareness has no existence apart from the appearance of story it tells itself via the imagined separate self arising in itself as thought. No one knows how this is happening, only that it is.

The big 'I' knows exactly how this is happening.

No one is actually alive or doing anything.

Define 'no one' here?

What do you mean 'no one is actually alive'?

There is just pure aliveness living itself...out of which a phantom emerges that says I am living this aliveness, but that I is illusory, it's just a thought arising in this aliveness that's already living itself. This doesn't mean there is nothing to do, or say, or be ... it just means no one is doing it, that the doing is done by the one, which is everything experiencing itself as everything, except there is no one having the experience, there is only the ''experiencing'' of this one. The separate I is an experience arising in one awareness... experiencing itself as a separate I being aware....it's the dream story of me, stories of I exist have no independent existence outside the one timeless unborn unmanifest awareness experiencing itself as that character living in time and space ... just like a dream character in a dream.
No one is story telling or knowing, or reading the story, it's happening all by itself appearing and disappearing in nothing. Thinking provides stories, explanations, theories, observations, assumptions, beliefs ...not truth and reality.
Thinking mind, thoughts and the inner narrative are immaterial existing as illusions (concepts), not as reality (separate things). What comes and goes in ever changing form and thought form is not real, what always is essential emptiness 'is'.
Is, is bare awareness absence of conceptual activity.

Let me have a guess here, you have a lot of trouble trying to get people to understand what you are actually talking about, am I right?

If so, then that is because of the words you use and your uncertainty in what those words actually mean. This is clear to me.

So what's written here exists as story, explanation, point of view, not as truth and reality. Know one knows what anything is except the story it tells itself, via the way I've already explained.... no one is reading, writing, being here, or knowing this ... for this is already the known, but not by the character, the character is the known appearing as and through the mind eye as an idea.
The importance of understanding mind as story-teller is recognising that when I look at 'what is' I am not seeing how it is but as I think, believe, assume it is, or how I want, prefer, believe it should be, or simply as it appears to me... without any thought about it is is simply nothing at all but this immediate not knowing pure aware aliveness. Life living itself.

I can't make this any clearer ken.

[/quote]

Oh yes you could. The truth is you can not make this any clearer, at this moment.

Answer every sentence with a question mark that I have and do ask you, openly and honestly, then you will become clearer, and then you could make this a little or lot more clearer. We will have to wait and see.

For example lets start with, What exactly is the mind?

By the way I understand ALL of what you are trying to say. You just have to understand that what you are saying can appear very confusing if not expressed in the right way. Although what you are trying to reveal is actually easy to explain, finding the right words to make revelation distinctly clear for everyone takes a bit longer.

[Dontaskme]

Self, with capital S, is real and does not pretend anything. ken's big Self is dontaskme's one Same Self.

Self can only be known to exist in the conception of itself which is illusory/pretence. Or in the dream of separation.


Does the BIG SELF of dolphins have to know how to swim?

[ken]

This is known only as it appears.

No one knows what is appearing... only that it is..

It doesn't have to know what it is because it's already being what it is....

The truth is It does not have to know what It is. But because that Creation It Self continually evolves and as you have already said, what could possibly exist already exists, then due to never-ending evolution a species will, and actually has already, right NOW evolved to have the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything. The Creating Being It Self is always being what It is, i.e., the Creator creating, and the species that has already evolved and thus has already been created to have the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything has already found, uncovered, and understands what Thee It is already.

and what it is can't be known by any thing other than what it is....

Do NOT be fooled by your own thoughts and think Thee One real and True Self does not yet know Its Self and is actually talking to you right now.

How much and how often do you really listen?

it only knows what it is by the sense it is...but a sense is not a thing to be known, no one knows what pain or pleasure is and from where this arise and falls away...same with every other intangible phenomena such as thoughts or beliefs... all arising in no thing .. falling into to nothing

When you say 'no one' what do you mean? Do you mean no person?

Also, please do not be so sure of yourself in what people can and can not learn. The human brains ability to store learned knowledge is truly amazing. What the open Mind It Self can learn, understand, and reason, is even far more amazing.

[''JUST MAYBE, if who or what 'IT' is, is discovered, then IT would know what IT is.'']

But who would discover this?

A person who Wants to be TRULY Honest and Open about their wrong behaviors, that is WHO.

Being TRULY Honest, Open and seriously Wants to change, their wrong ways, is also HOW any person can discover this.

except an imaginary knower...?

dontaskme's 'imaginary knower' is ken's person, the thoughts within a brain. Until Who 'I' am has been revealed to 'you', 'you will remain the person, or dontaskme's imaginary knower, i.e., the thoughts, and thus the thinker.

When you 'know', fully understand, how the Mind and the brain works, and know how to answer all the other truly meaningful questions in life, then you know how to differentiate between the thinker and Thee Knower.

The Mind already knows.
The brain only thinks.

[Dontaskme]

Although what you are trying to reveal is actually easy to explain, finding the right words to make revelation distinctly clear for everyone takes a bit longer.

I don't agree.

This can never be revealed using words, words obscure the pure clarity of what it is that's being spoken about. Words can be the catalyst toward a deeper understanding of ultimate reality, but the ultimate seeing comes from the tacit Self alone, not from the word.

Define 'no one' here?

What do you mean 'no one is actually alive'?

No one knows it is alive. The one that knows it is alive is knowledge or memory which is dead. Therefore nothing is alive, nothing is dead.

[Dontaskme]

There is no one OR other.

The big 'I' Self knows. The little 'i' self thinks, 'it knows'.

The knowing that beats the heart and moves the body is the same knowing that knows every thought. What that knowing is is unkowable.

[ken]

I will however give you one thing to study.

At least try and find out if there is a difference between the singularity at the big bang and the singularity at the black hole. That will help you figure out whether you can really correlate the two like yo do in your theory. Then it is up to you. You claim you are here to learn. See if you really want to or you are just mouthing it.

What I have read already there is NO proof that they are not one and the same.

And there you have it. You absolutely do not want to learn. You are here to teach your theory to other people.

Talk about not reading and not re-reading and learning. You have completely misconstrued what I have actually written.

What do you think it is that I absolutely do not want to learn?

If, as you suggest i have a theory, then answer this, what do you propose it is?

I doubt you will answer these questions. You have yet to answer any of my other clarifying questions.

You know, I had a theory once too.

Why do you say this like you and I have something in common here. You had a theory, whereas, I do NOT have a theory. See the difference?

And I told it to a lot of non-scientists and it blew them away too. So I started thinking that I was on to something really great. Which meant that I was something really great.

A seemingly very quick and huge jump from what you think is really great to that in of itself meaning that you yourself is something really great also. I actually would not and do not follow that type of illogical type of thinking. Do you really think that what you think makes you a greater person than another? Where did this type of thinking come from?

So I too started interpreting everything I read to fit my theory.

There is that "too" word again. I do NOT interpret anything to fit my alleged theory. I just say what I see, view and think, which on, if not, ALL occasions to others seems to be wrong.

I have NEVER had the pleasure, yet, of blowing any person away nor EVER thinking i was onto something really great. What does that feel like?

Actually, thinking about that, I do NOT want to blow any person away nor do I want to be onto something really great. ALL I want to do now is learn how to express myself better. I just want to show how I came to see what I see.

If what I see is wrong, and like I just said, is seemingly all the time, does not really matter. What does matter is in how I came to see what I see.

And it all fit.

Why would make you think and say "it all fit" before you got your it checked out. Obviously one person alone would not know if it all fit.

I even sent my theory to a friend who is a scientist. Very decent guy. His reply was restrained and very polite but the message that came through to me was that I needed to read. The point he made to me was that if you want to take something beyond an existing theory, you need to master the existing theory first.

What I want do is show how to see past an existing theory. This applies for any theory at any period in the present, past or future. What theory actually exists at any given period is of no real significance. All theories by definition always change anyway. So for me, what there is to learn and see is far more amazing that just any old changing theory.

An unambiguous fact that can not be disputed is what is really important here.

So I started actually reading stuff. And I was lucky that because of my father's training, I found that my theory was wrong and could easily accept it once my egotistic attachment to my theory was gone. My whole theory collapsed but I learned a lot of new things.

Let me guess, those new things that you learn is what you want me to also learn, right?

Well what happens when you yourself learn new knowledge, and after that newer knowledge comes along, and then newer knowledge, would you like me to learn them also? And, then do you want me to learn the newest knowledge again and again and again and ...?

I am trying to show how to by pass that tedious slow way of looking and seeing and show a completely new way of looking and seeing the way that will show all how to find all meaningful answers by themselves. As I have stated the 'truth', an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed is what I want to reveal.

I am not saying your theory is wrong, but you are pretty much in the same boat as I was then. You think your theory is infallible. So does dontaskme.

Just because you thought something does NOT mean ken or others thinks the same also.

Well, you have two choices. Either continue as you are or try to see if your theory stands up to the test of new knowledge.

As I have said, the more I look and see the more of what I want to express stands up. More and more newer knowledge agrees with what I am revealing.

If you want to move beyond the big bang theory, you will first have to master it. And I think there are probably only 10 people in the world who understand the whole theory. Good physicists dedicate their whole lives to a small part of it.

As i have previously said I would never master the big bang theory as it stands now, this just does not interests me all that much. If some people dedicate their whole lives to that, then that is their choice.

Maybe those 10 people should get together and write a simple and easy to understand book describing the whole theory. But if the theory is going to be changed one day very soon, then actually there is no real reason in doing that, is there?

So best of luck, my friend. I have nothing more to discuss on this topic.

[/quote]

That is a shame you finishing up now. I was seriously looking for your help. I was hoping you would answer at least some of my clarifying questions, even just answering one of them would have really helped me. What I really want to learn is in how people react to being asked clarifying questions. But I guess the only help you could provide me is to read and re-read, which by the way is great advice, but greater advice would have been to tell me to read and re-read everything, and not just those things that you only want me to read and learn. I already know in order to learn how to write better is to read and keep reading. The more the better I already knew. What I was looking for from you was direct answers to my questions but since you have nothing more to discuss on this topic. Best of luck also.

By the way sthitapragya the topic of this post IS "How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?", which is what I was trying to do. I was showing you how, not necessarily in the search for those things have changed me, but HOW i changed from those actual things.

Obviously after taking your advice re-reading your original post you were searching for people who were on the path that you yourself were on before and wanting to redirect them to better way, which is only learning from what is being taught at a particular period.

You are the type of person who if the theory and the scholarly books of the period you are living in tell you something, then THAT MUST BE true. For example if you were living in earlier periods when the "good" physicists were telling you that the earth is flat and/or that the sun circles the earth, then you would insist others read and re-read the same books until they also believed this "truth".