Albert Einstein – was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?

Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905 papers on special relativity and E=mc2, yet the physics community has never bothered to set the record straight.

Abstract
Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time magazine’s “Person of the Century”, wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

The most recognisable equation of all time is E=mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton (“Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another…”, 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E=mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.

Arthur Eddington’s selective presentation of data from the 1919 eclipse so that it supposedly supported “Einstein’s” general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science.

The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein’s record and reputation took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.

Introduction
Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read and write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and physicists read and write about physics. But they may all be competing for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly. The way they can do this is convince the funding agencies that they are more important than any other branch of science. If the funding agencies agree, it could spell difficulty for the remaining sciences. One way to get more money is to create a superhero-a superhero like Einstein.

Einstein’s standing is the product of the physics community, his followers and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating Einstein to icon status. The physics community receives billions in research grants, Einstein’s supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations like Timemagazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing Einstein on the cover as “Person of the Century”.

When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein’s supporters and the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a positive spin on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when Einstein’s paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, is seen for what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.

Special Relativity
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website states that Poincaré: (1) “sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity”; (2) “stated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity” (in his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated “a whole new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded”); (3) suggested that “mass depends on speed”; (4) “formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest”; and (5) “derived the Lorentz transformation”.

It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was. Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that “As far back as 1895, Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion”, and that “In 1900, he introduced ‘the principle of relative motion’ which he later called by the equivalent terms ‘the law of relativity’ and ‘the principle of relativity’ in his book, Science and Hypothesis, published in 1902″. Einstein acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.

In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity, Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept-namely, his treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock synchronisation, which is critical to special relativity.

Charles Nordman was prompted to write “They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré”, and “…in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him”.

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with “Einstein’s” special relativity theory as has the public. “Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else,” Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. “It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true” (Born, 1956). G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted, “It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz… ”

Due to the fact that Einstein’s special relativity theory was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would think that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was the world’s leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him nor thought he had done anything worth referencing!

Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable comments on special relativity theory. “From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics…would be, above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of light…because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light… No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation, he did not suspect any apparent velocity could surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking ‘local time’.” (Poincaré, 1905)

Einstein, the Plagiarist
It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems obvious.

Take this passage from Ronald W Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is how page 101 reads: “‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’…is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions…” (emphasis added).

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than underreference.

Wouldn’t one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einstein’s claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated, “The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature” (emphasis added) (Born, 1956). He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional.

Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent.

From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye: “Einstein’s explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz’s… Thus Einstein’s theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it… Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his ‘interpretation’. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases Einstein’s theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz’s, the apparent disagreement about ‘interpretation’ being a matter of words only?”

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he had never read Poincaré’s contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré’s ideas – for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed – wound up in Einstein’s paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” without being credited.

Einstein’s act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record straight.

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: “It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature…”

With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool.

Here is the definition of “to plagiarise” from an unimpeachable source, Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: “To steal or purloin and pass off as one’s own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism” (emphasis added). Isn’t this exactly what Einstein did?

Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness. Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to Lorentz’s contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein’s plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, “Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy”, where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, “The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory…” (emphasis added).

So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question: “What did Einstein know, and when did he know it?” Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).

The History of E=mc2
Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704). Brown (1967) made the following statement: “Thus gradually arose the formula E =mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900″.

One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E=mc2. Then the question becomes: “Who did?” Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S Tolver Preston, who “formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870s, based on the formula E=mc2“.

In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who deserves much credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had access to the literature and the competence to read it. In “Einstein’s E=mc2 ‘was Italian’s idea'” (Carroll, 1999). We see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.

In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined – e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles – yields the equation E=mc2.

According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E=mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed. This is similar to the careless handling of the equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero types. Occam’s razor rules here.

The Eclipse of 1919
There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to “Einstein’s” work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse.

What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington’s zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, “By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifyingthe ‘enemy’ theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science…” (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data-not verify Einstein’s theories.

Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington’s own statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid., p. 285): “May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1.30 pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its first glimpse of the sun: ‘We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith…”‘ (emphasis added). Eddington reveals his true prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein was proved right. But Eddington was not to be deterred: “It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned, might have been abortive”; “We developed the photographs, two each night for six nights after the eclipse… The cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended; consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result” (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).

Actually, Eddington’s words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found a shred of evidence that was consistent with “Einstein’s” general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science?

Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings? Did anyone besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical scientist.

Here are some quotes from Poor’s summary: “The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge o the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics”; “Not a single one the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein’s prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light“; “The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory… (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).

From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington could not wait to get out to the world community that Einstein’s theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did “appear” to bend as they should, as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity.

The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were discarded from the South American eclipse due to “accidental error”, i.e., it contradicted Einstein’s scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the “good” data were consistent with Einstein’s scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein’s theories conveniently got temporarily shelved-and the myth began.

So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory, experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for Einstein. Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking could comment that “The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity… It was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct evidence that space and time were warped”. Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?

The real question, though, is: “Where was Einstein in all this?” Surely, by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of Poor: “The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun”. Why didn’t he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? Why haven’t the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919?

What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise.

McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox: “They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light…”; “What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate”; “In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought” (emphasis added).

It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing “Einstein’s” theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington’s decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington’s glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the question: “Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?” This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the “enemy” theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.

The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, “Was this the hoax of the century?” and exclaimed, “Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!” McCausland stated that “In the author’s opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein’s general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science”.

It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.

Summary and Conclusions
The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate defenders of ethics, that scientific rigour is the measure of truth. Little do people realise how science is conducted in the presence of personality.

It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol. He thought he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away with it; hang in there long enough and his enemies would die off and his followers would win the day. In science, the last follower standing wins-and gets to write history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant and repeated dalliance with plagiarism is all but forgotten and his followers have borrowed repeatedly from the discoveries of other scientists and used them to adorn Einstein’s halo.

Einstein’s reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is Einstein’s alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second leg is the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and when did they know it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth or deception when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.

The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein’s physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if only one leg is sawn off, the stool collapses. There are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.

Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science fall?"

References

Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einslein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove.
Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London, p. 193.
Brown, G. Burniston (1967), “What is wrong with relativity?”, Bull. of the Inst. of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.
Carezani, R. (1999), Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.
Carroll, R., “Einstein’s E = mc2 ‘was Italian’s idea”‘, The Guardian, November 11, 1999.
Clark, R.W. (1984), Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York.
De Pretto, O. (1904), “Ipotesi dell’etere nella vita dell’universo”, Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte II, pp. 439-500.
Einstein, A. (1905a), “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper” (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.
Einstein, A. (1905b), “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?”, Annalen der Physik 18:639-641. Einstein, A. (1907), “Uber die vom Relativitatspringzip geforderte Tragheit der Energie”, Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384 (quote on p. 373).
Einstein, A. (1935), “Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy”, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 61:223-230 (first delivered as The Eleventh Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture at a joint meeting of the American Physical Society and Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh, December 28, 1934).
Hawking, S., “Person of the Century”, Time magazine, December 31, 1999.
Ives, H.E. (1952), “Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation”, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543.
Keswani, G.H. (1965), “Origin and Concept of Relativity”, Brit. J. Phil. Soc. 15:286-306.
Mackaye, J. (1931), The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, pp. 42-43.
Maddox, J. (1995), “More Precise Solarlimb Light-bending”, Nature 377:11.
Moody, R., Jr (2001), “Plagiarism Personified”, Mensa Bull. 442(Feb):5.
Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications Inc., New York, p.cxv.
Nordman, C. (1921), Einstein et l’univers, translated by Joseph McCabe as “Einstein and the Universe”, Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp. 10-11, 16 (from Bjerknes, 2002).
Poincaré, J.H. (1905), “The Principles of Mathematical Physics”, The Monist, vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis, September 1904.
Poor, Cl. (1930), “The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar Eclipses”, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/poincare.htm.
Webster, N. (1947), Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.

©2003 Richard Moody Jr
777 Treadlemire Road
Berne NY 12023 USA
Email: Slmrea@aol.com

Article Credit: Article Published by: Richard Moody Jr , Permission to reproduce the article in the same form has been taken from the Publisher on 22 April 2016.

http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm

Review of "Albert Einstein The Incorrigible Plagiarist"

Hagiophobia is defined as "a morbid dread of holy things." There is no question that the author of this book, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, is an exemplary sufferer from this too-rare complaint. For in our time Albert Einstein has been sanctified … perhaps even above Albert Schweitzer, who certified the holiness of all living things, himself included. Einstein's life having been told and retold by numerous hagiographers, Bjerknes has made it his aim to provide the market with equally numerous anti-hagiographies - this being apparently the sixth he has written. The publishers have burdened the latest with a disclaimer, "This book is intended solely for entertainment purposes." However, we all know that nothing entertains better than a good character assassination.

For this purpose the book employs the Socratic method, the asking of loaded questions - in the style of, "Was this man ever known to stop beating his wife?" Physicists, who lead the pack of Einstein idolaters, will dismiss Bjerknes's questions with contempt. But I think others will be impressed, if nothing else, by the sheer doggedness of the scholarship that has gone into the bibliography. This fills almost half the book and comprises 567 numbered endnotes, some of which stretch for more than a page and include extensive references to the literature. Among these notes will be found almost anything that has been written by or about Einstein or his ideas, to the present date. My own limited scholarly resources noted only one omission: Karl Popper, the philosopher who first (?) linked the names of Einstein and Parmenides, is absent. But Parmenides is here, as he amply deserves to be.

From the start we note a deep schism: the author would like to side with feminists who see Einstein's work as actually done by his much smarter first wife Mileva; but, since Bjerknes also wants to paint that same work as stolen from earlier investigators, he faces an abiding problem of whose character to assassinate. Here the Socratic method proves a life-saver: Rather than offering a definitive choice, he provides weaponry for assassinating both Albert and Mileva, and leaves it to the reader's political preference, an open question, which candidate to take as the priority target.

Given all this smoke, how much fire is present? Einstein (or Einstein-Marity, the first wife) stands accused primarily of "plagiarism" in respect to the basic ideas of the special relativity theory. Narrowly construed, plagiarism refers to the copying of an earlier author's published words. No such charge can be laid against Einstein. The author exhibits not a single instance of word-copying or what the litigious would term copyright infringement. But that is not what Bjerknes means. He is referring to the theft of ideas without acknowledgment. Here the case is much stronger and also much fuzzier. Einstein's 1905 paper (which - amazingly - was originally submitted to Annalen der Physik under the name Einstein-Marity, according to the first-hand account, cited here, of Abram Joffe) contained not a single reference to earlier work. This is frowned on in modern science, and should have been challenged by the editor even then. For Einstein would have been a poor scholar, indeed, if he had failed to read Poincare's prior work on relativity, which explicitly enunciated the Principle of Relativity. One can understand omission of any reference to the much earlier work of Wilhelm Weber, who developed the first and last relativistic formulation of electrodynamics in terms of relative coordinates, velocities, and accelerations - since such would have directed attention to the persistence of absolutist elements within "special relativity" theory. (The "observer" or "frame" is such an element - a tertium quid extraneous to the intrinsic elements to be described in nature, and wholly absent from Weber's theory. Minkowski's covariant symmetrizing of the quid among all its quiddities alleviates, but does not eradicate, this echo of absolutism.)

Another dilemma of the author in respect to special relativity is whether to concentrate his attack on the theory itself or on its creator. If the theory is no good and was in fact stolen by Einstein (or by Mileva) from predecessors, then it would seem the blame for this no-goodness should fall most heavily on the latter. Error plagiarized is not error sanitized. Its provenance aside, Bjerknes clearly distrusts the special theory (as does the present reviewer); but the book makes little serious contribution to the comparatively vast (though little known and little regarded) literature of its logical criticism.

Einstein's (or Einstein-Marity's) originality consisted in adjoining the Poincare relativity principle to the Maxwell equations (which contain only one field propagation velocity parameter c and thus necessitate what we now call "Einstein's second postulate") and in showing that these stark logical ingredients suffice to imply a kinematics based on the mathematical coordinate transformations that Lorentz had already spelled out. Clearly the ideas pre-existed. But, as all inventors know, it is not permissible to patent ideas. If the combining of pre-existing ideas in new patterns is to be called "plagiarism," then it would not be an over-statement to say that all scientific progress and all invention depend on just this kind of plagiarism … for what did Newton do but plagiarize from the giants on whose shoulders he acknowledged standing? He neglected only to attach names to the giants. So did Einstein. In both cases the behavior was perhaps a trifle magisterial … and also perhaps more than a trifle forgivable. Still, unpleasant doubts persist in the Einstein case: Bjerknes shows that Einstein's scientific publications reveal a lifetime pattern of similar magisterial behavior. The absence of attributions in the 1905 paper was not a one-off occurrence. For example, I quote from page 231 of the book: "David Hilbert, on whom Einstein went calling for help, published the general theory of relativity before Einstein. Why after many years of failure, did Einstein suddenly realize, within a few days after David Hilbert's work was public, the equations which Hilbert published before him, and then submit his, Einstein's, identical formulations?"

As you can see, this last (stripped of its Socratic question mark) constitutes a genuine charge of plagiarism … but it is not backed by chapter and verse citation, equation number by corresponding equation number, word by word. Lacking such substantiation, the charge cannot stand in court. In law, equations, like ideas, cannot be copyrighted or patented. Still, here is more smoke. It is doubtful if all such can be permanently cleared away. But one would like to see scholarship comparable to that of Bjerknes applied to the task. Otherwise, a polluted atmosphere and a bad odor linger.

In conclusion, I recommend the book to Einstein scholars and to sociologists of science as a genuinely valuable bibliographical resource for further research on the man and his times - and as a target for the Einstein hagiographers to shoot down if they can. Other readers, in search of more than entertainment, must proceed with caution.

(Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.)

(From Infinite Energy Magazine, N. 47, 6 October, 2002)

http://www.infinite-energy.com

Werner Heisenberg, perhaps THE world’s greatest scientist on the subject of atomic physics, was very surprised to hear that a nuclear bomb was exploded over Hiroshima

"Now, as promised, I return to the nuclear bomb hoax, which greatly benefits Israel. Note that everyone involved in spreading this "Samson Option," blackmail and scare tactic is Jewish. You even mentioned another obviously Jewish name, Rosenblum I believe it was, AGAIN reiterating this blackmail that Israel has this enormous power.

Israel wants the world to think that they have a 44 magnum, but really all they have is a 22 caliber, IF AT ALL. They could be SCRUBBBBBBBED off the face of this Earth, as Alan Sabrosky has REPEATEDLY stated should happen. And when Alan Sabrosky said this, he was revealing the TRUTH that he knows. It was like a gaffe. I thought it was an odd thing, because, "what about Israel’s nuclear weapons ? "

Apparently, when he wrote articles, he was careful not to let the cat out of the bag, but in the passion of a radio interview, he let loose what he knows to be true. Alan Sabrosky was CLEARLY not speaking about fantasy or wishful thinking in his statement, and he wanted to get people angry, as he said. NOW. Think about it. If Alan Sabrosky REALLY believed that nuclear weapons were a reality, he would NOT have made that statement, because then it would just have the opposite impact —- it would just make people bemoan that Israel is very powerful, and there is nothing we can do about, and America is on the hook to do whatever Israel wants, or else she will throw nuke bombs all over the place. This would NOT make people angry at Israel; it would just make people FEARFUL of Israel.

The nuclear power plants in Japan are real. Some people think that in order to say that nuke bombs are a hoax, that it is necessary to say that nuclear power plants are a hoax as well, and they serve as "dump loads" for a power grid. They also think it is necessary to say that E = mc^2 is false, or to say that the nucleus has never been split. This is not necessary. There is nothing wrong with the SCIENCE; there IS something wrong with the government propaganda, and nuke explosions have NOT been reproduced in laboratories independently. The reproducibility of an experiment is a NECESSARY requirement for it to be science. They ALSO don’t fit in with the THEORY of the physics of nuclear fission. Some people say, that "if nuke power plants exist, then nuke bombs must exist." This is wrong, and it is a fallacy of applying CHEMICAL thinking to nuclear phenomenon. They just assume that nuclear power is like gasoline, and if gasoline can run an engine, then it can be made into a bomb which explodes. In chemistry, HEAT facilitates the chemical reaction to continue. BUT, in nuclear phenomenon, heat is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in stimulating more nuclei to fission. The ONLY thing that is relevant is whether the nucleus absorbs a SLOW neutron. There are NO "next atoms," they are NOT lined up like bowling pins. You might have seen these diagrams of nuclear fission. Wikipedia has a number of them. But, they are VERY misleading, because they are NOT drawn to scale. If a uranium 235 atom were the size of Yankee stadium, then the nucleus would be the size of a marble, and the neutrons the size of mustard seeds. Imagine shooting at a marble in the center of the field from up in the stands. Do you think you would hit it ? On average, 2.4 neutrons are released as a result of fissioning of U 235. The fission fragments, often Barium and Krypton, fly away. HOWEVER, they are trapped in the lattice of other uranium atoms, which have NOT split. Those neutrons are going to have a long, long, LONG way to go before they are going to hit another nucleus. Only a small number of nuclei fission, and a lot of heat is generated. BUT, the heat will cause the metal to melt, including melting any container that holds it together. If the uranium pours out, it will no longer be a critical mass, because shape is very important. It has to be balled together in a sphere, so that neutrons as a result of fissioning are not just released into the surrounding air, and get a chance to hit other uranium nuclei.

In the Manhattan Project, it is interesting that Oppenheimer, a Jew, was selected, by the Jew, Barnard Baruch, a mover and shaker in the Roosevelt administration. There were certainly scientists who were MUCH more qualified than Oppenheimer to head up the project. But propaganda was the most important thing. Indeed, MANY top scientists doubted that a nuclear bomb would be possible, including Einstein. In Einstein’s letter to FDR, he said that nuclear power plants might be possible, and MUCH LESS possible were nuclear bombs. This is because he understood the difference between a chemical reaction, and a nuclear reaction, which is the mistake that many people make.

Werner Heisenberg, perhaps THE world’s greatest scientist on the subject of atomic physics, and a Nobel Laureate, was very surprised to hear that a nuclear bomb was exploded over Hiroshima ( I would say he realized the truth, because he knew the physics ). Heisenberg realized that a moderator, or non-fissile matter, was required to slow down the fast neutrons that are released as a result of fissioning of U 235. Only U 235 fissions, and it only fissions if it absorbs a SLOW NEUTRON. This fact is stated in MANY elementary physics and chemistry textbooks. They can’t deny it, because when Enrico Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize, his citation specifically stated " slow neutrons," ( look it up ), and in his Nobel lecture, he has a section on slow neutrons, and the moderator he used to slow down the fast neutrons was paraffin.

All the physics you need to know, in my opinion, to conclude that the PHYSICS of nuclear fissioning, which will support nuclear power plants, will NOT support a nuclear explosion, is contained in this lecture —- type into the youtube space : UC BERKELEY PHYSICS NUKES

Of course, Prof Mueller, a Jew, is not going to say that nuke bombs are a hoax, and he might have deluded himself into believing that they are real. He gets very flustered by a student’s question on the difference between nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. I don’t blame him, for trying to explain the impossible. But a CLASSIC, is the hand waving he does at the end when he attempts to describe the nuclear explosion. Very importantly, he ADMITS that initially, the explosion is ONLY as powerful as an explosion of an equivalent amount dynamite. But, he says, in mid air, there is a SECONDARY fissioning which boosts the explosive power. But, this secondary fissioning is IMPOSSIBLE, because a critical mass was required to be assembled in the first place. If it is hard to shoot ducks while they are assembled on a pond, it is going to be MUCH harder to shoot and hit them as they are flying away and scattering.

Further, this professor does not adequately emphasize the slow neutron vs fast neutron problem, for uranium 235 to fission. But this is very important, because it is further indication that URANIUM will surely NOT explode. But note, that Iran IS enriching uranium, but the URANIUM bomb is said to be ABSURDLY simple to produce, with just a gunshot device bringing only two subcritical pieces of U 235 together. ANYTIME you have highly enriched uranium ( U 235 ), you can easily make a bomb. Yet, as our friend Texe Marrs says in this youtube clip — (type into youtube : OBAMA TELLS THE JEWS NO MORE ), the CIA as well as the Mossad are absolutely sure that Iran has NO nuke weapons program. Indeed, they know this very well, because they know that that enriched uranium will not explode.

Prof. Mueller says his Ph.D. thesis adviser was Luis Alvarez, who he says flew over Hiroshima and witnessed the dropping of the bomb. But, there is something that you should know about this guy. Sure, he was a great scientist, but he is also a LIAR, willing to engage in some government propaganda.

For the JFK assassination, he prostituted himself by analyzing the events in Dealey Plaza, and concluded that the Warren Commission was 100 % correct !!!! Yes, look up Luis Alvarez on Wikipedia.

Sad to say, physicists are no different than politicians, journalists, and ( non revisionist ) historians ) in that they cannot say what they really believe, because they are dependent on government grants. Thus, physicists are in a similar situation to those involved in the man made global warming hoax ( google : THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE )and the HIV = AIDS hoax.

Watch on youtube this — type into youtube : NUKE LIES BY JESSE), but search on youtube for one of the several clips of the explosion of "ivy Mike." It is obviously PURE Hollywood, with that suspense building countdown, ominous Wagnerian, scary music, and cutting away. They used some very bad acting, too, because those witnesses do NOT look they are about to witness a real event at all — no sense of trepidation or fear — even the pretty lady. Who was responsible for Ivy Mike ? Two Jews, Teller and Ulam. Teller had the AUDACITY to claim that he was on the American mainland and recorded an enormous blast with a seismograph.

Be careful to ONLY pay attention to NUKE LIES BY JESSE, because there are A LOT of propagandists put there putting out silly stuff to make the notion of nuke bombs being a hoax look ridiculous. There is this guy with a shiny suit talking like an evangelical preacher with this ridicu;ous claim about the position of the Sun having something to do with nuke bombs. There is another guy who says the Earth does not go around the Sun. Look, I am ONLY interested in ESTABLISHED science and science theory, and I am showing that the physics does not support nuke bombs exploding with anywhere near the force that is claimed. I have no belief in nor any interest in UFOs as space aliens, predicting the future, psychic phenomenon, but, I believe that the notion that God exists and there is an afterlife id plausible.

The bombing of Hiroshima, even if you search for more extensive footage, looks NOTHING like you would expect from a single blast, because there is no central area with the greatest damage, and it getting better going out in a radial pattern. Further, the buildings are all knocked down in a RANDOM manner, without any type of radial pattern of blowing down.

In the description of the effects upon the Japanese, there has been a very inordinate amount of "purple prose," especially in passages from John Hersey’s "Hiroshima" and this really makes me question it as an accurate account, and not just propaganda. I think Hiroshima was just carpet bombed, or fire bombed, just like Tokyo was. Tokyo suffered much more damage, and this is acknowledged by everyone, even if they accept that Hiroshima was hit by a nuke bomb.

Since you are interested in the Libya bombing, get a load of some of the photos of explosions from "coalition" forces. Google : GUARDIAN.CO.UK LIBYA AIR STRIKES — IN PICTURES

Now, search for the one that really, REALLY looks exactly like a mushroom cloud of a nuke bomb. But, I thought that ONLY nuke bombs produced mushroom clouds ! You see, we have been LIED TO. The photo is obviously a conventional bomb, but without the cars in the foreground, you would have no way of knowing this !

Another thing you should read is this —- google : NY TIMES RETHINKING THE UNTHINKABLE ATOMIC ATTACK

Now, I thought that nuke bombs could destroy whole cities, destroy whole countries, and destroy the whole world ! The cold war propagandists really whipped up a fear over nuke bombs ! And, in view of Ivy Mike, which was said to be 500 times more powerful than the bomb that supposedly destroyed Hiroshima, being a hoax, we should at least acknowledge that they are HIGHLY exaggerated, if you do not want to admit they are a hoax. Note that nuclear fusion plants do not exist, and no experiment has ever been performed in which more energy has come out of a nuclear fusion reaction than has been put in, in 59 years since this supposed event. Scientists making such claims have been proven to have been mistaken. Remember cold fusion in 1988, in Utah ?

Read the book on the history of the atomic bomb, by the late, great Eustace Mullins, at https://www.iamthewitness.com

This book is short and to the point. Although he doesn’t conclude that nuke bombs are a hoax, he reveals an awful lot of LIES of propaganda that we have been told about things like " dropping a bomb on Hiroshima was necessary to get the Japanese to surrender." Further, it was necessary to keep the American public very scared about the Cold War and the USSR, that way they would agree to fund the Pentagon and the big expenditures. Also, there might have been a fear that the American public would conclude it didn’t NEED the US government anymore.

The Japanese wanted to surrender to the Americans, because they were losing very, very badly, and the USSR threatened invasion. They NEEDED America as an ally against Russia and China, very powerful countries close by, that had historical wars of enmity with Japan. The USSR might have wanted to settle the score with the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, which was humiliating. No group in the history of the world has had a greater incentive to go along with a lie than the Japanese did about the supposed nuke bomb. They desperately needed that alliance with America —- it allowed them to play the victim, and thus be exonerated for being the bad guy with Pearl Harbor, and it gave them an excuse NOT to fight, and save their samurai honor, because, after all, there was no use in fighting " such a cruel bomb."

I am not making light of the suffering the Japanese have endured. Hiroshima was firebombed, as were many other cities in Japan. Just want to be clear.

If Israel really believed that Iran were developing nuke bombs, then they would have nuked Iran by now, with the nuke bombs everyone thinks they have. Note how they keep saying that " by the end of this year, Iran should have enough fissionable material ready for a nuke bomb" But, haven’t they been saying this for MANY years now ? The nuke bomb hoax is important not only because it is the ONLY excuse for war, but because it gives Israel an enormous amount of power with its "Samson Option."

Remember the late Carl Sagan ? I used to think he was an entirely good, peace-loving Jew. But, he REALLY indulged in this nuke bomb propaganda, all throughout COSMOS, and in the fall of 1983, he appeared on TV discussing a show called " The Day After." He really got into this concept of a "nuclear winter" which would completely block out the Sun all over the Earth. But, remember before the Gulf War in 1991, Carl Sagan predicted that Saddam setting oil wells on fire would ALSO produce his fabled nuclear winter ? It didn’t happen, did it ? Search for this on Wikipedia, under Carl Sagan, when he made this statement.

Remember the enormous scare over anthrax in the fall of 2001 ? It really didn’t amount to much, did it ? What about in 1998, when Sec of Defense, William Cohen ( a Jew ) held up a 5 pound bag of sugar like he was going to dump it everyone, saying that Saddam could dump this over a city ? Remember Cokie Roberts asking, " could you put that bag down, please ? " Remember on Nightline, hosted by Ted Koppel ( a Jew ), it was stated that Saddam’s anthrax stock pile was so great, the real question was " how many PLANETS could it destroy ?"

So, I submit to you, that at the very least, nuke bombs are an exaggeration, in which they are just like "dirty bombs," if not a total hoax, that very greatly benefits Israel.

mooninquirer // Mar 22, 2011 at 10:28 am

Correction: I obviously didn’t mean the Federal Reserve Act of 1964; I meant the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Dear Michael Collins Piper :

I just used the comment about your background at the AFP and Louis Farrakhan, as a segue into two things that are criticisms of your " Final Judgment," : that there were so many other ways in which the Jews benefited from JFK’s assassination, in what LBJ did differently, including on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that they should surpass the notion that it was so Israel could develop nuclear bombs, and (2) nuclear bombs themselves are probably a hoax, and those of us fighting Zionism should be very careful about repeating this Jewish propaganda which is the ONLY excuse for a war with Iran, and greatly benefits Israel, since if we tried to, as you have emphatically stated "isolate and STRAAANGLE" Israel, then she would just hurl nuclear bombs all over the place, making sure the whole rest of the world suffers a holocaust, since the Israelis can " still smell Treblinka.

***

Vanunu - part of a media campaign to pretend Israel has nukes

Mordechai Vanunu aged 41 family of 11 children born Morocco moved 1963 to Israel. 1971-74 Israeli army. 2 Nov 1976-27 Oct 1985 at Dimona reactor in Negev desert. 1 year later told Sunday Times. Pub 5 Oct 1986 'The secrets of Israel's nuclear arsenal.' Lured to Rome, kidnapped, tried Jerusalem district court for treason, aggravated espionage, collection of secret info with intention to harm Israel's security. 18 year sentence. Past 10 years in solitary confinement.

***
On Vanunu, you're assuming he was actually jailed. I suspect he was a carefully briefed agent all along. However, I agree he wouldn't have known everything - in particular, he may have assumed the stuff he saw genuinely worked. Possibly it did - perhaps nuclear power is genuine, but nuclear bombs aren't?

(1) I don't think he was in solitary for years. Everyone remarks on what good spirits he was in, how healthy he looked, and generally how wonderful he was. My belief is that he was simply let out - maybe his food etc was supplied to cells in some intelligence place, so nobody would be any the wiser.

(2) If someone is strung along, you have to be pretty sure he won't make some mistake. So the equipment he had access to, the contrived negligence in allowing his smuggled camera in, and so on would have to be worked out in great detail. Suppose he made a mistake, and revealed some tell-tale detail which scuppered the entire tale? So on balance I'd guess there was detailed briefing by his handlers.

(3) It all had to look convincing - consider when he wrote on his palms, and pressed his hands to a vehicle window. Or the abduction event, when, if genuine, he would have been terrified of being found and arrested. Or the fact that one reason for keeping him jailed was that he still knew secrets; if true, why didn't he spill them earlier?

(4) Part of the point of a leak was that Israel gets a fortune from the USA, but the USA is not supposed to fund illegal nuclear powers - or something like that. Frank Barnaby, at the meeting I attended, stressed that. Vanunu's role, and Rupert Murdoch's, was to leak the idea that Israel had nuclear weapons, in a sensational 'scoop', while Israeli officials could simultaneously deny it. And incidentally Israel never allowed inspection of Dimona. At least not to non-Jews.

From a posting by 'Christopher Brooks' on June 2005, who quoted it - 'taken from a blogger called Cytation' - though the source site, which may have been Russian, seems not to have that file now.

Interesting half-way position which assumes USA has nuclear weapons, but not Israel

Israel Created Vanunu, Not Nukes
Vanunu is a Mossad cutout. Israel created Vanunu in order to add verisimilitude to their claim of having nuclear weapons. Israel has no nuclear weapons. It is a bluff. Israel has never had a viable nuclear weapons program.

The "policy of ambiguity" itself is the first sign, for if they did have nukes they would, like any other country who has them, furnish evidence, thus making their deterrent useful.

Nukes Are Too Close For Comfort
Next, Israel is too small to benefit from nukes. It doesn't have enough landbase to assure that their nukes could not be taken out in one fell swoop along with all their major cities by a first strike against them. Also, Israel's enemies are too close in proximity to Israel for Israel to consider nuking them. Israel would invariably suffer at least radioactive contamination if they attacked their neighbors. It may be even rendered uninhabitable.

Never a Nuke Test
Another reason Israel has no nukes is: Where and when have they tested them? All countries with nuclear programs have left evidence of multiple tests. Israel has not. Are they really trying to convince the world that they have a huge arsenal which they created without so much as a single test, let alone the hundreds that are the mark of a large and developing program? No ambiguity here.

Too Broke to Afford Nukes
Finally, follow the money. Israel has been on the dole from the beginning. Please tell me how it can afford a secret nuclear weapons program when in reality Israel's entire conventional military and its upkeep is part of a known welfare package? Simply estimate the costs of a nuclear weapons program and then look at the year to year flow of military aid to Israel and what it accounts for. You will find that there is no possiblity that Israel could come up with ambiguous trillions to accomplish this feat. Nor is it possible to believe that Israel would make its own nukes when it simply asks for and gets everything else military as a sort of political ransom to the long suffering Jews with their holocaust bludgeon and their insinuation into the affairs of Christianity.

And why would Israel spend money, money which it doesn't have, on something that would not be useful for it for the reasons as demonstrated above? Answer: It wouldn't.

Think About It
Israel merely demands that the United States arm it to the teeth with conventional weapons and then that the United States fight Israel's enemies for Israel. Clearly, if Israel wanted to start a nuclear war, it would simply demand the US fight it on their behalf and provide the neccessary bribes and blackmail. Israel does not need its own nukes when it has America's.

The conclusion is that Israel is not a state in any real sense. It is predominantly a haven for international Jewry. It's weakness as a state, as a treaty signatory, as a partner in international law, further shows that it is not willing to invest what is neccessary to have a nuclear weapons program.

Mordechai Vanunu never spent time in prison. He simply lived under an assumed identity for the 18 years following his over dramatized mossad arrest. His ongoing publicity is a continuation of Israel's deception of the world about its non-existant nukes. The Mossad's motto is "By means of deception, thou shalt do war."

"The Samson Option" Deception--Seymour Hersh Lends a Hand
Because the use of nuclear weapons would be suicidal in the Middle East it has raised doubts that Israel would actually use nuclear weapons – even if they had them. Seymour Hersh's book the Samson Option tries to convince the goy reader that Israel would commit suicide and take the whole world with it if pushed to using nuclear weapons. The book’s main purpose is to reinforce the idea that Israel has nuclear weapons, just as the imprisonment of Vanunu was designed to make us believe.

This bluff has been going on for a very long time – for at least forty years. I believe that the problems of convincing the non-Jewish world that these weapons would really be useful to the Israelis have made their charade suspect and less effectual than they have hoped – even with Hersh’s Samson Option assurances.

The Myth of the Neutron Bomb, and Other Vegetables
I believe that is why the neutron bomb was "invented". I use the word "invented" in the sense of propaganda, not scientific invention. The neutron bomb was supposed to kill people, but leave real estate intact and uncontaminated. No more need to commit suicide and take the whole world along. The neutron bomb could be used successfully in the Middle East without creating the proverbial glass parking lot. It became the better bluff.

But I find the whole story of the neutron bomb suspect. First of all it was "invented" by one Sam Cohen who claims to have received a peace medal by Pope John Paul II for his invention. It is decidedly strange that the Pope would give a peace medal for a bomb that kills people but leaves the infrastructure intact. If the neutron bomb is the more humane weapon why isn’t it used? If you read Mr. Cohen’s biography I think you may come away with the same sense I got – that this is just another Jewish myth with the underlying purpose of bamboozling the non-Jewish public. The number of Jewish frauds that I have discovered has made me inveterately suspicious of even the most  celebrated of Jewish icons – Einstein, Teller, Wiesel, Bettelheim, Freud, Boaz, Daniel Goldhagen, Stephen Spielberg, Jared Diamond, etc. I think Sam Cohen belongs on the list.

Source 

https://big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/index.html

On attachment and giving up

Q: If you are beyond words, what shall we talk about? Metaphysically speaking, what you say holds together; there is no inner contradiction. But there is no food for me in what you say. It is so completely beyond my urgent needs. When I ask for bread, you are giving jewels. They are beautiful, no doubt, but I am hungry.
M: It is not so. I am offering you exactly what you need — awakening. You are not hungry and you need no bread. You need cessation, relinquishing, disentanglement. What you believe you need is not what you need. Your real need I know, not you. You need to return to the state in which I am — your natural state. Anything else you may think of is an illusion and an obstacle. Believe me, you need nothing except to be what you are. You imagine you will increase your value by acquisition. It is like gold imagining that an addition of copper will improve it. Elimination and purification, renunciation of all that is foreign to your nature is enough. All else is vanity.

M: Also I am not afraid because I am nothing that can experience fear, or can be in danger. I have no shape, nor name. It is attachment to a name and shape that breeds fear. I am not attached. I am nothing, and nothing is afraid of no thing. On the contrary, everything is afraid of the Nothing, for when a thing touches Nothing, it becomes nothing. It is like a bottomless well, whatever falls into it, disappears.

Q: You are aware of eternity, therefore you are not concerned with survival.
M: It is the other way round. Freedom from all desire is eternity. All attachment implies fear, for all things are transient. And fear makes one a slave. This freedom from attachment does not come with practice; it is natural, when one knows one's true being. Love does not cling; clinging is not love.

M: ...Cut off imagination and attachment and what remains?
Q: The world remains. I remain.
M: Yes. But how different it is when you can see it as it is, not through the screen of desire and fear.

Q: No amount of effort can make me fearless.
M: Fearlessness comes by itself, when you see that there is nothing to be afraid of. When you walk in a crowded street, you just bypass people. Some you see, some you just glance at, but you do not stop. It is the stopping that creates the bottleneck. Keep moving! Disregard names and shapes, don't be attached to them; your attachment is your bondage.

Attachment is bondage, detachment is freedom. To crave is to slave.

Develop the witness attitude and you will find in your own experience that detachment brings control.

There are always moments when one feels empty and estranged. Such moments are most desirable for it means the soul had cast its moorings and is sailing for distant places. This is detachment — when the old is over and the new has not yet come. If you are afraid, the state may be distressing; but there is really nothing to be afraid of. Remember the instruction: whatever you come across — go beyond.

Questioner: I see you sitting in your son's house waiting for lunch to be served. And I wonder whether the content of your consciousness is similar to mine, or partly different, or totally different. Are you hungry and thirsty as I am, waiting rather impatiently for the meals to be served, or are you in an altogether different state of mind?
Maharaj: There is not much difference on the surface, but very much of it in depth. You know yourself only through the senses and the mind. You take yourself to be what they suggest; having no direct knowledge of yourself, you have mere ideas; all mediocre, second-hand, by hearsay. Whatever you think you are you take it to be true; the habit of imagining yourself perceivable and describable is very strong with you.
I see as you see, hear as you hear, taste as you taste, eat as you eat. I also feel thirst and hunger and expect my food to be served on time. When starved or sick, my body and mind go weak. All this I perceive quite clearly, but somehow I am not in it, I feel myself as if floating over it, aloof and detached. Even not aloof and detached. There is aloofness and detachment as there is thirst and hunger; there is also the awareness of it all and a sense of Immense distance, as if the body and the mind and all that happens to them were somewhere far out on the horizon. I am like a cinema screen — clear and empty — the pictures pass over it and disappear, leaving it as clear and empty as before. In no way is the screen affected by the pictures, nor are the pictures affected by the screen. The screen intercepts and reflects the pictures, it does not shape them. It has nothing to do with the rolls of films. These are as they are, lumps of destiny (prarabdha), but not my destiny; the destinies of the people on the screen.
Q: You do not mean to say that the people in a picture have destinies! They belong to the story, the story is not theirs.
M: And what about you? Do you shape your life or are you shaped by it?
Q: Yes, you are right. A life story unrolls itself of which I am one of the actors. I have no being outside it, as it has no being without me. I am merely a character, not a person.
M: The character will become a person, when he begins to shape his life instead of accepting it as it comes, and identifying himself with it.
Q: When I ask a question and you answer, what exactly happens?
M: The question and the answer — both appear on the screen. The lips move, the body speaks — and again the screen is clear and empty.
Q: When you say: clear and empty, what do you mean?
M: I mean free of all contents. To myself I am neither perceivable nor conceivable; there is nothing I can point out and say: 'this I am'. You identify yourself with everything so easily, I find it impossible. The feeling: 'I am not this or that, nor is anything mine' is so strong in me that as soon as a thing or a thought appears, there comes at once the sense 'this I am not'.
Q: Do you mean to say that you spend your time repeating 'this I am not, that I am not'?
M: Of course not. I am merely verbalizing for your sake.

Q: What am I if not human?
M: That which makes you think that you are a human is not human. It is but a dimensionless point of consciousness, a conscious nothing; all you can say about yourself is: 'I am.' You are pure being — awareness — bliss. To realise that is the end of all seeking. You come to it when you see all you think yourself to be as mere imagination and stand aloof in pure awareness of the transient as transient, imaginary as imaginary, unreal as unreal. It is not at all difficult, but detachment is needed. It is the clinging to the false that makes the true so difficult to see. Once you understand that the false needs time and what needs time is false, you are nearer the Reality, which is timeless, ever in the now. Eternity in time is mere repetitiveness, like the movement of a clock. It flows from the past into the future endlessly, an empty perpetuity. Reality is what makes the present so vital, so different from the past and future, which are merely mental. If you need time to achieve something, it must be false. The real is always with you; you need not wait to be what you are. Only you must not allow your mind to go out of yourself in search. When you want something, ask yourself: do I really need it? and if the answer is no, then just drop it.

Q: How am I to fight desire? There is nothing stronger.
M: The waters of life are thundering over the rocks of objects — desirable or hateful. Remove the rocks by insight and detachment and the same waters will flow deep and silent and swift, in greater volume and with greater power. Don't be theoretical about it, give time to thought and consideration; if you desire to be free, neglect not the nearest step to freedom.

M: My experience is that everything is bliss. But the desire for bliss creates pain. Thus bliss becomes the seed of pain. The entire universe of pain is born of desire. Give up the desire for pleasure and you will not even know what is pain.
Q: Why should pleasure be the seed of pain?
M: Because for the sake of pleasure you are committing many sins. And the fruits of sin are suffering and death.

Questioner: There is a basic difference between us. You know the real while I know only the workings of my mind. Therefore what you say is one thing, what I hear is another. What you say is true; what I understand is false, though the words are the same. There is a gap between us. How to close the gap?
M: Give up the idea of being what you think yourself to be and there will be no gap. By imagining yourself as separate you have created the gap. You need not cross it. Just don't create it. All is you and yours. There is nobody else. This is a fact.
Q: How strange! The very same words which to you are true, to me are false. 'There is nobody else'. How obviously untrue!
M: Let them be true or untrue. Words don't matter. What matters is the idea you have of yourself, for it blocks you. Give it up.
Q: From early childhood I was taught to think that I am limited to my name and shape. A mere statement to the contrary will not erase the mental groove. A regular brain-washing is needed — if at all it can be done.
M: You call it brain-washing, I call it Yoga — levelling up all the mental ruts. You must not be compelled to think the same thoughts again and again. Move on!
Q: Easier said than done.
M: Don't be childish! Easier to change, than to suffer. Grow out of your childishness, that is all.

Q: I gave it up too. I do not read nowadays.
M: What you gave up is of no importance now. What have you not given up?. Find that out and give up that. Sadhana is a search for what to give up. Empty yourself completely.

M: The world is made of rings. The hooks are all yours. Make straight your hooks and nothing can hold you. Give up your addictions. There is nothing else to give up. Stop your routine of acquisitiveness, (...)

M: There is trouble only when you cling to something. When you hold on to nothing, no trouble arises. The relinquishing of the lesser is the gaining of the greater. Give up all and you gain all. Then life becomes what it was meant to be: pure radiation from an inexhaustible source. In that light the world appears dimly like a dream.
Q: If my world is merely a dream and you are a part of it, what can you do for me? If the dream is not real, having no being, how can reality affect it?

M: While it lasts, the dream has temporary being. It is your desire to hold on to it, that creates the problem. Let go. Stop imagining that the dream is yours.
Q: You seem to take for granted that there can be a dream without a dreamer and that I identify myself with the dream of my own sweet will. But I am the dreamer and the dream too. Who is to stop dreaming?
M: Let the dream unroll itself to its very end. You cannot help it. But you can look at the dream as a dream, refuse it the stamp of reality.
Q: Here am I, sitting before you. I am dreaming and you are watching me talking in my dream. What is the link between us?
M: My intention to wake you up is the link. My heart wants you awake. I see you suffer in your dream and I know that you must wake up to end your woes. When you see your dream as dream, you wake up. But in your dream itself I am not interested. Enough for me to know that you must wake up. You need not bring your dream to a definite conclusion, or make it noble, or happy, or beautiful; all you need is to realise that you are dreaming. Stop imagining, stop believing. See the contradictions, the incongruities, the falsehood and the sorrow of the human state, the need to go beyond.

M: No ambition is spiritual. All ambitions are for the sake of the 'I am'. If you want to make real progress you must give up all idea of personal attainment. The ambitions of the so-called Yogis are preposterous. A man's desire for a woman is innocence itself compared to the lusting for an everlasting personal bliss. The mind is a cheat. The more pious it seems, the worse the betrayal.

M: Whatever is conceived by the mind must be false, for it is bound to be relative and limited. The real is inconceivable and cannot be harnessed to a purpose. It must be wanted for its own sake.
Q: How can I want the inconceivable?
M: What else is there worth wanting? Granted, the real cannot be wanted, as a thing is wanted. But you can see the unreal as unreal and discard it. It is the discarding the false that opens the way to the true.
Q: I understand, but how does it look in actual daily life?
M: Self-interest and self-concern are the focal points of the false. Your daily life vibrates between desire and fear. Watch it intently and you will see how the mind assumes innumerable names and shapes, like a river foaming between the boulders. Trace every action to its selfish motive and look at the motive intently till it dissolves.
Q: To live, one must look after oneself, one must earn money for oneself.
M: You need not earn for yourself, but you may have to — for a woman and a child. You may have to keep on working for the sake of others. Even just to keep alive can be a sacrifice. There is no need whatsoever to be selfish. Discard every self-seeking motive as soon as it is seen and you need not search for truth; truth will find you.
Q: There is a minimum of needs.
M: Were they not supplied since you were conceived? Give up the bondage of self-concern and be what you are — intelligence and love in action.
Q: But one must survive!
M: You can't help surviving! The real you is timeless and beyond birth and death. And the body will survive as long as it is needed. It is not important that it should live long. A full life is better than a long life.
Q: Who is to say what is a full life? It depends on my cultural background.
M: If you seek reality you must set yourself free of all backgrounds, of all cultures, of all patterns of thinking and feeling. Even the idea of being man or woman, or even human, should be discarded. The ocean of life contains all, not only humans. So, first of all abandon all self-identification, stop thinking of yourself as such-and-such, so-and-so, this or that. Abandon all self-concern, worry not about your welfare, material or spiritual, abandon every desire, gross or subtle, stop thinking of achievement of any kind. You are complete here and now, you need absolutely nothing.
It does not mean that you must be brainless and foolhardy, improvident or indifferent; only the basic anxiety for oneself must go. You need some food, clothing and shelter for you and yours, but this will not create problems as long as greed is not taken for a need. Live in tune with things as they are and not as they are imagined.

Q: Is there any particular place you would advise me to go to for spiritual attainment?
M: The only proper place is within. The outer world neither can help nor hinder. No system, no pattern of action will take you to your goal. Give up all working for a future, concentrate totally on the now, be concerned only with your response to every movement of life as it happens.
Q: What is the cause of the urge to roam about?
M: There is no cause. You merely dream that you roam about. In a few years your stay in India will appear as a dream to you. You will dream some other dream at that time. Do realise that it is not you who moves from dream to dream, but the dreams flow before you and you are the immutable witness. No happening affects your real being — this is the absolute truth.
Q: Cannot I move about physically and keep steady inwardly?
M: You can, but what purpose does it serve? If you are earnest, you will find that in the end you will get fed up with roaming and regret the waste of energy and time.

M: What kind of Yoga do you want to practice, the Yoga of getting, or the Yoga of giving up?
Q: Don't they come to the same in the end?
M: How can they? One enslaves, the other liberates. The motive matters supremely. Freedom comes through renunciation. All possession is bondage.
Q: What I have the strength and the courage to hold on to, why should I give up? And if I have not the strength, how can I give up? I do not understand this need of giving up. When I want something, why should I not pursue it? Renunciation is for the weak.
M: If you do not have the wisdom and the strength to give up, just look at your possessions. Your mere looking will burn them up. If you can stand outside your mind, you will soon find that total renunciation of possessions and desires is the most obviously reasonable thing to do.
You create the world and then worry about it. Becoming selfish makes you weak. If you think you have the strength and courage to desire, it is because you are young and inexperienced. Invariably the object of desire destroys the means of acquiring it and then itself withers away. It is all for the best, because it teaches you to shun desire like poison.
Q: How am I to practice desirelessness?
M: No need of practice. No need of any acts of renunciation. Just turn your mind away, that is all. Desire is merely the fixation of the mind on an idea. Get it out of its groove by denying it attention.
Q: That is all?
M: Yes, that is all. Whatever may be the desire or fear, don't dwell upon it. Try and see for yourself. Here and there you may forget, it does not matter. Go back to your attempts till the brushing away of every desire and fear, of every reaction becomes automatic.
Q: How can one live without emotions?
M: You can have all the emotions you want, but beware of reactions, of induced emotions. Be entirely self-determined and ruled from within, not from without.
Merely giving up a thing to secure a better one is not true relinquishment. Give it up because you see its valuelessness. As you keep on giving up, you will find that you grow spontaneously in intelligence and power and inexhaustible love and joy.
Q: Why so much insistence on relinquishing all desires and fears? Are they not natural?
M: They are not. They are entirely mind-made. You have to give up everything to know that you need nothing, not even your body. Your needs are unreal and your efforts are meaningless. You imagine that your possessions protect you. In reality they make you vulnerable. realise yourself as away from all that can be pointed at as 'this' or 'that'. You are unreachable by any sensory experience or verbal construction. Turn away from them. Refuse to impersonate.

M: Attachment destroys courage. The giver is always ready to give. The taker is absent. Freedom means letting go. People just do not care to let go everything. They do not know that the finite is the price of the infinite, as death is the price of immortality. Spiritual maturity lies in the readiness to let go everything. The giving up is the first step. But the real giving up is in realising that there is nothing to give up, for nothing is your own. It is like deep sleep — you do not give up your bed when you fall sleep — you just forget it.

Questioner: I am very much attached to my family and possessions. How can I conquer this attachment?
Maharaj: This attachment is born along with the sense of 'me' and 'mine'. Find the true meaning of these words and you will be free of all bondage. You have a mind which is spread in time. One after another all things happen to you and the memory remains. There is nothing wrong in it. The problem arises only when the memory of past pains and pleasures — which are essential to all organic life — remains as a reflex, dominating behaviour. This reflex takes the shape of 'I' and uses the body and the mind for its purposes, which are invariably in search for pleasure or flight from pain. When you recognise the 'I' as it is, a bundle of desires and fears, and the sense of 'mine', as embracing all things and people needed for the purpose of avoiding pain and securing pleasure, you will see that the 'I' and the 'mine' are false ideas, having no foundation in reality. Created by the mind, they rule their creator as long as it takes them to be true; when questioned, they dissolve.
The 'I' and 'mine', having no existence in themselves, need a support which they find in the body. The body becomes their point of reference. When you talk of 'my' husband and 'my' children, you mean the body's husband and the body's children. Give up the idea of being the body and face the question: Who am l? At once a process will be set in motion which will bring back reality, or, rather, will take the mind to reality. Only, you must not be afraid.
Q: What am I to be afraid of?
M: For reality to be, the ideas of 'me' and 'mine' must go. They will go if you let them. Then your normal natural state reappears, in which you are neither the body nor the mind, neither the 'me’ nor the 'mine', but in a different state of being altogether. It is pure awareness of being, without being this or that, without any self-identification with anything in particular, or in general. In that pure light of consciousness there is nothing, not even the idea of nothing. There is only light. (...)
Q: And what about my possessions?
M: When the 'mine' is no more, where are your possessions?
Q: Please tell me, must I lose all by losing the 'I'?
M: You may or you may not. It will be all the same to you. Your loss will be somebody's gain. You will not mind.
Q: If I do not mind, I shall lose all!
M: Once you have nothing you have no problems.
Q: I am left with the problem of survival.
M: It is the body's problem and it will solve it by eating, drinking and sleeping. There is enough for all, provided all share.
Q: Our society is based on grabbing, not on sharing.
M: By sharing you will change it.
Q: I do not feel like sharing. Anyhow, I am being taxed out of my possessions.
M: This is not the same as voluntary sharing. Society will not change by compulsion. It requires a change of heart. Understand that nothing is your own, that all belongs to all. Then only society will change.

Q: I feel my hold on the body is so strong that I just cannot give up the idea that I am the body. It will cling to me as long as the body lasts. There are people who maintain that no realisation is possible while alive and I feel inclined to agree with them.
M: Before you agree or disagree, why not investigate the very idea of a body? Does the mind appear in the body or the body in the mind? Surely there must be a mind to conceive the ‘I-am-the-body’ idea. A body without a mind cannot be ‘my body’. ‘My body’ is invariably absent when the mind is in abeyance. It is also absent when the mind is deeply engaged in thoughts and feelings. Once you realise that the body depends on the mind, and the mind on consciousness, and consciousness on awareness and not the other way round, your question about waiting for self-realisation till you die is answered.

Q: Please don’t tell me that I am dreaming and that I will soon wake up. I wish it were so. But I am awake and in pain. You talk of a painless state, but you add that I cannot have it in my present condition. I feel lost.
M: Don’t feel lost. I only say that to find the immutable and blissful you must give up your hold on the mutable and painful. You are concerned with your own happiness and I am telling you that there is no such thing. Happiness is never your own, it is where the ‘I’ is not. I do not say it is beyond your reach; you have only to reach out beyond yourself, and you will find it.
Q: If I have to go beyond myself, why did I get the ‘I am’ idea in the first instance?
M: The mind needs a centre to draw a circle. The circle may grow bigger and with every increase there will be a change in the sense ‘I am’. A man who took himself in hand, a Yogi, will draw a spiral, yet the centre will remain, however vast the spiral. A day comes when the entire enterprise is seen as false and given up. The central point is no more and the universe becomes the centre.
Q: Yes, maybe. But what am I to do now?
M: Assiduously watch your ever-changing life, probe deeply into the motives beyond your actions and you will soon prick the bubble in which you are enclosed. A chic needs the shell to grow, but a day comes when the shell must be broken. If it is not, there will be suffering and death.
Q: How is the person removed?
M: By determination. Understand that it must go and wish it to go — it shall go if you are earnest about it. Somebody, anybody, will tell you that you are pure consciousness, not a body-mind. Accept it as a possibility and investigate earnestly. You may discover that it is not so, that you are not a person bound in space and time. Think of the difference it would make!
Q: If I am not a person, then what am I?
M: Wet cloth looks, feels, smells differently as long as it is wet. When dry it is again the normal cloth. Water has left it and who can make out that it was wet? Your real nature is not like what you appear to be. Give up the idea of being a person, that is all. You need not become what you are anyhow. There is the identity of what you are and there is the person superimposed on it. All you know is the person, the identity — which is not a person — you do not know, for you never doubted, never asked yourself the crucial question — ‘Who am I’. The identity is the witness of the person and sadhana consists in shifting the emphasis from the superficial and changeful person to the immutable and ever-present witness.
Q: How is it that the question ‘Who am I’ attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints.
M: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine.
Q: How does a genuine crisis happen?
M: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour’s face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don’t respond.
Q: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it.
M: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily — it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The ‘I am’ is the door. Stay at it until it opens. As a matter of fact, it is open, only you are not at it. You are waiting at the non-existent painted doors, which will never open.

M: To insist, to resist, are contained in the will to be. Remove the will to be and what remains? Existence and non-existence relate to something in space and time; here and now, there and then, which again are in the mind. The mind plays a guessing game; it is ever uncertain; anxiety-ridden and restless. You resent being treated as a mere instrument of some god, or Guru, and insist on being treated as a person, because you are not sure of your own existence and do not want to give up the comfort and assurance of a personality. You may not be what you believe yourself to be, but it gives you continuity, your future flows into the present and becomes the past without jolts. To be denied personal existence is frightening, but you must face it and find your identity with the totality of life. Then the problem of who is used by whom is no more.

M: When the mind is quiet it reflects reality. When it is motionless through and through, it dissolves and only reality remains. This reality is so concrete, so actual, so much more tangible than mind and matter, that compared to it even diamond is soft like butter. This overwhelming actuality makes the world dreamlike, misty, irrelevant.
Q: This world, with so much suffering in it, how can you see it as irrelevant. What callousness!
M: It is you who is callous, not me. If your world is so full of suffering, do something about it; don't add to it through greed or indolence. I am not bound by your dreamlike world. In my world the seeds of suffering, desire and fear are not sown and suffering does not grow. My world is free from opposites, of mutually distinctive discrepancies; harmony pervades; its peace is rocklike; this peace and silence are my body.
Q: What you say reminds me of the dharmakaya of the Buddha.
M: Maybe. We need not run off with terminology. Just see the person you imagine yourself to be as a part of the world you perceive within your mind and look at the mind from the outside, for you are not the mind. After all, your only problem is the eager self-identification with whatever you perceive. Give up this habit, remember that you are not what you perceive, use your power of alert aloofness. See yourself in all that lives and your behaviour will express your vision. Once you realise that there is nothing in this world, which you can call your own, you look at it from the outside as you look at a play on the stage, or a picture on the screen, admiring and enjoying, but really unmoved. As long as you imagine yourself to be something tangible and solid, a thing among things, actually existing in time and space, short-lived and vulnerable, naturally you will be anxious to survive and increase. But when you know yourself as beyond space and time — in contact with them only at the point of here and now, otherwise all-pervading and all-containing, unapproachable, unassailable, invulnerable — you will be afraid no longer. Know yourself as you are — against fear there is no other remedy.
You have to learn to think and feel on these lines, or you will remain indefinitely on the personal level of desire and fear, gaining and losing, growing and decaying. A personal problem cannot be solved on its own level. The very desire to live is the messenger of death, as the longing to be happy is the outline of sorrow. The world is an ocean of pain and fear, of anxiety and despair. Pleasures are like the fishes, few and swift, rarely come, quickly gone. A man of low intelligence believes, against all evidence, that he is an exception and that the world owes him happiness. But the world cannot give what it does not have; unreal to the core, it is of no use for real happiness. It cannot be otherwise. We seek the real because we are unhappy with the unreal. Happiness is our real nature and we shall never rest until we find it. But rarely we know where to seek it. Once you have understood that the world is but a mistaken view of reality, and is not what it appears to be, you are free of its obsessions.

Questioner: How do we learn to cut out worries?
M: You need not worry about your worries. Just be. Do not try to be quiet; do not make 'being quiet' into a task to be performed. Don't be restless about 'being quiet', miserable about 'being happy'. Just be aware that you are and remain aware — don't say: 'yes, I am; what next?' There is no 'next' in 'I am'. It is a timeless state.
Q: If it is a timeless state, it will assert itself anyhow.
M: You are what you are, timelessly, but of what use is it to you unless you know it and act on it? Your begging bowl may be of pure gold, but as long as you do not know it, you are a pauper. You must know your inner worth and trust it and express it in the daily sacrifice of desire and fear.
Q: If I know myself, shall I not desire and fear?
M: For some time the mental habits may linger in spite of the new vision, the habit of longing for the known past and fearing the unknown future. When you know these are of the mind only, you can go beyond them. As long as you have all sorts of ideas about yourself, you know yourself through the mist of these ideas; to know yourself as you are, give up all ideas. You cannot imagine the taste of pure water, you can only discover it by abandoning all flavourings.
As long as you are interested in your present way of living, you will not abandon it. Discovery cannot come as long as you cling to the familiar. It is only when you realise fully the immense sorrow of your life and revolt against it, that a way out can be found.

M: ... give up the false ideas you have about your self. Both faith and reason tell you that you are neither the body, nor its desires and fears, nor are you the mind with its fanciful ideas, nor the role society compels you to play, the person you are supposed to be. Give up the false and the true will come into its own.

Q: I find being alive a painful state.
M: You cannot be alive for you are life itself. It is the person you imagine yourself to be that suffers, not you. Dissolve it in awareness. It is merely a bundle of memories and habits. From the awareness of the unreal to the awareness of your real nature there is a chasm which you will easily cross, once you have mastered the art of pure awareness.

Q: I am in a world which I do not understand and therefore, I am afraid of it. This is everybody's experience.
M: You have separated yourself from the world, therefore it pains and frightens you. Discover your mistake and be free of fear.
Q: You are asking me to give up the world, while I want to be happy in the world.
M: If you ask for the impossible, who can help you? The limited is bound to be painful and pleasant in turns. If you seek real happiness, unassailable and unchangeable, you must leave the world with its pains and pleasures behind you.
Q: How is it done?
M: Mere physical renunciation is only a token of earnestness, but earnestness alone does not liberate. There must be understanding which comes with alert perceptivity, eager enquiry and deep investigation. You must work relentlessly for your salvation from sin and sorrow.
Q: What is sin?
M: All that binds you.

M - Nisargadatta Maharaj