--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > * The infidel Salman Rushdie has insulted our Holy > > > > Prophet. You not only have our blessing to kill him; > > > > if you do you will be rewarded financially in this > > > > life and earn eternal life in heaven. > > > > > > Actually, I'm just reading him right now [shalimar the clown ] > > > therefore no time to give you an extensive answer to your > > > clichee-loaded and very selective compilation ;-) > > > > Whatever. The top quote is from Amma. The other > > paraphrases are from equally-famous or infamous > > teacher/guru/religious leader types. > > > > The bottom line is that *every one* of the people > > who treated the words of these teachers as if they > > were "orders" believed thoroughly that they were > > following *good* orders. > > Maybe, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking > about - the sentiment of Bhakti. Not Bhakti as path, with > all its specifics as you wrongly believe.
Ok, *you* define bhakti. You've already tried to keep people here from dealing with it critically. That's not going to work, any more than it did with Rushdie or with the Muslim cartoons. And now when someone *does* deal with it critically, the self-appointed "defender of bhakti" just claims that the critic doesn't understand it and bails. > It really has nothing to do with me at all. I don't > see anything in this whole random collection but > another attempt to dump Bhakti... Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along. That is how *you* see it. That's not the *only* way to see it. The way I see it is that bhakti has its plusses, and its benefits. It also has its perils. You seem to want me and others to focus only on the benefits without considering the perils. > ...most of the things have nothing to do with Bhakti anyway. As you define it, which you won't. :-) > There is just this vague pretense of concern and warning, > hardly a disguise for your anti-Bhakti sentiment. Again, that's the way *you* interpret things. I would say that my little "test" is pretty pragmatic, and brings up a question that any bhakti should be able to deal with without emotion and reactivity. > And how would you know what Bhakti is, as you just > admitted that it's not your path... It's not my path now. I've given it a shot in the past, when it seemed relevant. (That is, when my feeling for a teacher was such that I really had no choice.) But that is not relevant now. > ...(not that it should be your path... Oh? You've changed your tune. Just a few posts ago, you were saying that the absence of bhakti in my posts and in my life revealed a terrible *lack* in that life. > ...but you also seem to have no use for the > sentiment of it.) Dude, what you want is for people to respect the "sentiment" of bhakti while ignoring the practical implications of bhakti. > > But some were, and some weren't. > > > > I know you don't really have to deal with this, > > because after all you believe that the universe > > really runs everything, and that no one really > > makes any decisions anyway, but hey dude... > > Not that one again... why do you continue to talk of > things you really didn't get right? First you accuse > me of preaching you, and then you bring it up ad > neaseum. Hey, you're the one who is on record as saying that no one makes any decisions in life, and that it's the universe that runs everything. Live with it. :-) > It's obvious you can't deal with an impersonal > perspective. It's equally obvious that you can't deal with the *implications* of your "impersonal perspective," any more than you can with the *implications* of your contention that bhakti is a good thing. > > if > > the universe was running Jonestown and the fatwa > > against Salman Rushdie, it's really fucked up. :-) > > Rushdie surely made some mistakes. He is very cynical, > yet he is a genial writer. Midnight Children is really grant. And yet, only a few posts ago, you were agreeing with those who say that people should not write critically about Islam because it disturbs the sensibilities of those who are on an Islamic bhakti path. Seems to me you want the ability to live in the *theoretical* realm of the things you believe in, while consistently ignoring the *practical* implications of the things you believe in. That's fine, but if you want to be taken seriously by someone who lives in the real world, I think you should be able to do both. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
