--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, *you* define bhakti.
Through my life. > You've already tried to keep people here from > dealing with it critically. As if I could. But I don't have your missionary zest. <snip> > As you define it, which you won't. :-) I take your advice.. <snip> > It's not my path now. I've given it a shot in the past, > when it seemed relevant. Here we come to the core of the matter. You were messed up before and now project it on to everybody. But listen: I did not say, that nothing can go wrong, and that people couldn't do stupid things (obviously you know what you are talking about), but I pointed out that bashing Bhakti *as such*, just the sentiment of it, when ever you see it is wrong. Not that you have to follow it - you follow whatever you like. I just point out, that not knowing the sentiment yourself (or obviously having a problem with it), you will not recognize it in others, and your interperetation of their words tend to be one-dimensional stereotypes. As Irmeli mistook MDG tone of reverence for egoism. > (That is, when my feeling for > a teacher was such that I really had no choice.) Hear, hear... ;-) > But > that is not relevant now. Thats all I am really saying: You have nothing to do with Bhakti right 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. You haven't claimed complete enlightenment yet... Therefor a lack is permissable > > > ...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. Yes I want you to respect the sentiment of Bhakti *despite* your preconceptions of possible misuse. Like I would ask you to respect the sentiment of Love despite for its multiple possible misuses. Its rather very simply. > 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. Actually I can very well live with both. > > > 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. Right. As I said, Rushdie made mistakes. That I admire his style doesn't mean that I have to agree with him on too many subjects. Unlike you I can differentiate. > 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. Blah blah > 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. First prove that you are living in the real world. When is your book being published? ------------------------ 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/
