--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
> > <Irmeli.Mattsson@> wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > Generally I dislike in this post the tone of idealizing one person's
> > > work, and the egoistic approach of trying to make his work
crucial to
> > > human consciousness evolution in this time. 
> > 
> > You *dislike* it right? It's just judgement, that's okay. But I can
> > tell you why: Michael idealizes MMY's work, simply because he *loves*
> > MMY. The explantions he gives are logical, but the idealization is of
> > his heart. That's Bhakti, reverence, in Michaels case for the guru.
> > You dislike it, showing me that you don't have Bhakti, cannot
> > recognize it when you see it, and have even may feel disgust for it.
> > Poor you! Not that you should idealize or appreciate the MMY. But if
> > you have Bhakti yourself, that is Love for God, or for your teacher
> > etc, you will easily recognize it in others, like - lets say Muslims
> > who pray and don't like to be ridiculed for their religion. There is
> > nothing wrong with disagreement, but its the *tone* you dislike, and
> > you even think he is egoistic in that. Nothing could be further from
> > truth. Egoistic are those missing Bhakti. Again, poor you!
> > 
> > I have tried to make the case, that one can view MMY's action in an
> > impersonal way, as a tool of Brahman, like anybody else knowingly or
> > unknowingly. From all indications that we get from MMY it is very much
> > Knowingly, but never mind, one can look at this whole theme of a
> > staged evolution, as Michael was expounding it, in a completely
> > impersonal way, MMY only being a tool at the time, with no real
> > judgement involved. In that sense there is neither a necessity for
> > condemnation nor appreciation. But the appreciation shows Bhakti, and
> > there is a mutual appreciation among Bhaktas, as the Self is seen in
> > the Other, and not just narcistically inside oneself, as in CC. For
> > many the first focal point of the Self outside is the Guru. So much
> > for your *dislike* ;-)
> >
> ***
> Are you saying that the ideas of a person, who shows Bhakti should not
> be discussed or evaluated? 

No, of course not. I haven't objected to anything you disagreed about
with Michael, I have solely commented on your dislike for his
attitude. You said: "Generally I *dislike* in this post the *tone* of
*idealizing* one person's work, and the *egoistic* approach of trying
to make his work crucial to human consciousness evolution in this time."

I did not comment on any of your disagreements in the actual matters
(which weren't at all convincing, they were just a matter of stating
an opposing POV without giving any reasonable backup why that view was
preferable), but about your *dislike* of Michaels *tone*. I couldn't
help seeing your general attitude in this and commented on it. 

> You expect everyone to "know", that people
> having Bhakti are untouchable and their thoughts and actions are
> beyond criticism. 

No of course their thoughts and actions can be critizised, you are
missing my point. Just their attitude of Bhakti itself presents a
value in itself. I don't dump on it, but appreciate it. Very subtle
but important point.

> Who has created that law ? The true believers, and
> they threaten by it anyone, who  challenge their holy notions. 

First of all: Its not 'they', but me. AFAIK I am the first one to
bring this anti-Bhakti attitude of yours and others up as a topic, and
that rightly so. I don't think that you are getting my point at all.
That is, that not the object of Bhakti is beyond of disput, but rather
that Bhakti is a spiritual value in itself. If somebody choses to have
Bhakti - love and dedication - to someone, its first of all a matter
of his choice. The other thing is, I'm glad you bring it up again,
that you constantly dump on Bhaktas as 'True Believers' as if they are
sort of stupid, inferior etc. Truely speaking, I find this arrogance
disgusting. People who love, who have dedication, something that you
are obviously missing (I feel sorry for you about that) are portrayed
and ridiculed by this term by you and others constantly, as sort of
weak etc. The truth is that ALL Hindu scriptures regard this attitude
as indespensible for one's Sadhana. That doesn't mean that everything
what the object of adoration may do is therefore automatically
justified (but Michael gave very good *logical* reasons for his POV).
But the tone adoration itself should not be disgarded in the way you
did, and you actually constantly do.

> That is
> a very dangerous idea as human history shows.

That may be, but that's not what I am doing. You crossly misinterpret
me. Haha, you are just blaming all the wars on believers again, while
its clear that they were done by men of power, misusing the religions.
While I am speaking of the simple people who *practise* religion.

> A lot of cruelties have
> been done in so called righteous anger by the true believers.

I'm not talking about anger but about love. You again misuse the term
true believers to dump on Bhaktas

> I dislike your tone much more than Michael Goodman's, because in you I
> sense the fanaticism of a true believer, not in him. 

That's because you don't know me and are judgemental.

> I also sense that
> you were hurt and you deeply disliked my comment on Goodman's post.

I am not hurt, but I disliked your comment, yes. And so do I dislike a
lot of your extremely stereotype comments, I never commented upon.
> Does your thinking go like this: Because you don't perceive Bhakti in
> me, you can dislike my ideas fully freely, but not the possibly very
> odd ideas of a Muslim in whom you perceive Bhakti?

No, it's not about *ideas*. They ideas may be wrong in my POV. But I
appreciate their feeling level, and as long as this feeling level
doesn't hurt anyone, I have no right to dump on it. IOW you have every
right to disagree in the matter with Michael, but no right to
critizise him for his appreciation.

> I disliked in Goodman's post the way he uses his intellect to defend
> MMY by denying or "forgetting" many important facts in MMY's track
> record.

That's a different matter. But when you critize MMY you also forget
many things in his track record. You just tend to emphazise one side,
Michael emphazises another POV. It's a matter of evaluation.

>  When logic is used that way, it inevitably gets distorted. 

Same thing applies to you. Your POV is just as onesided. Netresult
(without much explanation): MMY  money and power and is greedy.
Period. And that you call an argument. I call it a judgement.

> A
> person, who uses one's intellect in that fashion is often easy "prey"
> for people, who don't let their disturbing emotions bend their

Oh, you are so concerned. Probably they don't know that they are being
misused. Why don't you leave that choice to the people, and once they
have love for someone, let them love? Why think that you have the
better judgment than they have? You are really not in charge of their
feelings. You have every right to discuss the matter itself, but its
ridiculus to challenge the feelings people have. It's nice if people
have love, no matter what.

> When someone becomes terribly hurt of  rather main stream theories
> like mine here, where no personal insults, name calling or threats are
> present, I interpret it to mean that I have made a hit.

Well, that's mindreading. For example you call people 'True
Believers', that's clearly a derogative term. I just point something
out to you, which is obvious to me. Then 'main stream theories' is an
appeal to the audience, therefore a logicl fallacity. Be assured,
you didn't make a point, which point anyway? Did the caricaturists
make a point, because Muslims where upset? 

> In other words
> my theories have touched the truth you are trying to deny.

Which would be?

> I do recognize Bhakti and I do respect it. 

Finally, it took a long time for you to say this. Is this just an
intellectual statement, or is it really something you can emotionally

> Apparently you perceive
> Bhakti only, when distorted use of intellect is present also. 

How so? How would you know? I can perceive Bhakti, AND logical
fallacities. But the you should concentrate on pointing out the logic
fallacities insted of attacking the Bhaktis attitude. That's my point
and nothing else.

> True believers hate clear intellect. 

Oh, but I don't hate Judy (and she has mostly appreciated my intellect
as well). Or do you want to say that Barry is a 'True Believer'.
Honestly, could you consider dropping this term from your vocabularly?
Would your arguments lose in power then? 

> They would want to burn alive
> anyone who challenges their distorted ideas. And they have done it
> innumerable times. 

That means you probably compare Michael to the inquistion right? Why
don't you use logical arguments instead of inapt comparisons and very
boring stereotypes?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to