--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > ...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.
And you want to deal *only* with the (negative) "practical implications" of bhakti while ignoring the "sentiment." > > > 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. :-) As Michael says, you don't get it. You make what Ken Wilber calls a "category mistake," trying to make a perspective from one state of consciousness apply to a different state. > > 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," No, that's the category mistake again. The impersonal perspective has *no* practical implications. In other contexts, you're able to make this distinction, indeed you insist on it. As with so many of your arguments, your position appears to depend on your need to come up with a putdown. That's part of your intellectual dishonesty I referred to in another post. It makes communication and understanding impossible, but of course that's what it's *designed* to do. You want whatever *you* say to be the only possible way to understand whatever you're talking about at the moment, so you deliberately use various strategems to attempt to short-circuit understanding of the other guy's position and portray it (and the person) as ridiculous. But the positions you take in order to accomplish this aren't consistent from one putdown to another. And when this is pointed out, you claim that consistency *itself* is ridiculous and "low-vibe," and imply that your inability to be consistent is somehow a virtue, when in fact it's simply a dishonest debating tactic. ------------------------ 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/
