--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > When someone takes that many words to say something, > > > especially on an Internet forum, you can pretty much > > > rest assured that your life will not be negatively > > > affected by pressing the Next key without reading it. > > > > You probably also don't read books or magazine articles. > > Books and magazine articles tend to be written by > real authors, not just some guy on an ego rant. > I tend to prefer to spend the limited time of > my life reading the former and not the latter. > Is that not Ok in your world? :-) > > [Did you notice that you are attacking ME personally, > rather than my concepts?] > > > > The last three 'scores' were my immediate reaction to > > > a short skim. I just thought that, because of the > > > near-hbakti reverence folks here have for the scientific, > > > I should supplement my subjective analysis with a little > > > objective analysis from Microsoft. :-) > > > > > > I repeat my theorem. Real bhaktis just live their > > > lifestyle, quietly. Fake or mood-maker bhaktis tend > > > to feel that they need to defend it. > > > > Sure, anyone who speaks for bhakti (and disagrees with you) > > should just keep their mouth shut. Barry says: I don't choose > > Bhakti, but I can distinguish a moodmaker from a 'real' one. > > By definition, the ones who disagree with me are 'moodmakers'. > > I repeat my theorem. Real bhaktis just live their > lifestyle, quietly. Fake or mood-maker bhaktis tend > to feel that they need to defend it. > > [Did you notice that you are attacking ME personally, > rather than my concepts?] > > > Bhakti shouldn't be defended. The POV of Bhakti should > > be ignored. > > That's just your self-importance speaking. NO ONE > said that the POV of bhakti should be ignored, or > that it shouldn't be presented. It just seems to > me that if someone is presenting it, they could > do so positively, on the basis of its supposed > benefits, and not on the basis of cult paranoia > that interprets anyone questioning it as a > personal attack. To his credit, MDG *did* present > what he felt were the positive benefits of bhakti. > You, on the other hand, did not. What you did was > attack me. > > Above I repeated my theorem. I now present its > corollary. Those who tend to consistently see any > intellectual criticism of their path as a personal > attack and overreact to it with a need to "defend" > that path don't really believe in it that strongly. > If they did, what *other people* believe wouldn't > really affect what they believe, let alone leave > them threatened, panicky, and abusive. > > They're just theories, dude. If you've got > different theories, present them. But don't tell > me not to present mine. That's not "defending > your path," it's spiritual fascism.
Hint: what I have termed a true bhakti, someone who believed in it thoroughly and felt strongly about it, might have reacted to my posts about MDG's post by choosing to present some of bhakti's benefits. Or to point out where he felt my logic or my arguments were flawed. Or simply to ignore the other person's opinion and present his own, to provide some balance. All of these things are great, and I don't think anyone here, including myself, would criticize you for doing them. They seem like a reasonable method of presentation for someone who believes strongly in something and wants to present it in a positive light. But you didn't do that. What you did -- again -- was claim that I said that people who don't agree with me should keep their mouths shut. I didn't. In your paranoia and oversensitivity, you imagined that. You said that I claimed I could tell a real bhakti from a mood-making one. I didn't. I presented a theory -- strongly labeled as such -- about which I thought was which. *You* chose to reply in a manner that, from my point of view, provides some substantiation for my theory. You claimed that I said or implied that bhakti should not be defended and that its POV should be ignored. I didn't. Just above I have presented a fairly civilized, socially-acceptable method by which a rational person could defend bhakti and present its POV. You might consider utilizing that method for a change. I think you'd convince more people of the benefits of your path that way. Drive through... ------------------------ 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/
