On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:41 PM, new.morning wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:39 PM, new.morning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:21 AM, Robert Gimbel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A number of 'pundits' including Newt Gingrinch, have said that  
>>>>> this
>>>>> escalation in Israel, is the beginning of WWIII.
>>>>> What do people think of this analysis?
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was a famous high Lama from Tibet here in the US on Sept. 11,
>>>> 2001. They just happened to have the TV on when the planes hit the
>>>> world trade buildings and he commented then "This is the  
>>>> beginning of
>>>> WW 3".
>>>>
>>> So he has been proven wrong. Its been five years. No WWIII. There  
>>> is a
>>> statute of limitations on predictions. Unless he is saying,  
>>> "sometime
>>> between sept 11, and the end of time, WWIII will happen." Then  
>>> its not
>>> wrong -- "hey it dould happen in yea 2905, its just silly.
>>>
>>
>> No, you miss the point.
>>
>
> No, you missed the  point, which is not infrequent.
>
> It's been a chain reaction since then.
>
> And Desert Storm was a cause of 9/11. And US support of Saddam in 80's
> was a cause of Desert Storm. And the overthrow of the Shah of Iran was
> a cause of US support of Saddam in the 80s ...... how far back do you
> want to take the chain back? You might as well say the overthrow of
> the Shah was the start of WWIII if you are simply pointing out that
> one historical event leads to another. We can take it back to the
> Birth of Christ.

Again, you missed the point. 9/11 was the first attack by radical  
Muslim on American soil--unless of course you're claiming Muslims  
were attacking American Indians around the time of Christ. Presumably  
they used a time machine?

>
>
>
> Of course you'll just
>
>> obfuscate as usual...
>>
>
> Often it appears like that to a confused, irrational, conspiratorially
> paranoid mind.
>
>
>>>
>>> His students immediately asked him to not say any more,
>>>
>>>> because being omniscient,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh huh.
>>>
>>
>> Understandably this would be something you'd have to have experienced
>> to grok. Otherwise it just seems too wild.
>>
>
> Ok obie won. You appear gullible enough to believe some unknowne
> person is omnicient because his unknown students say he his -- but
> that is not my cup of tea.

No I just base it on hanging with some of these guys.

>
>
>
>>> Which is what he says, ofd course, that he is not talking about  
>>> islam
>>> as a whole, but (radical) fundmentalism. I am not so fond of  
>>> (radical)
>>> christian fundamentalists.
>>>
>
>
>
>> And really (if you watched the KW videos on terrorism)
>> you find that
>> it is this same pattern: ethnocentric gods and an egocentric moral
>> development with a "narcissistic emotional driver" pushing it
>> forward.
>>
>
> Um, that must be convincing to some of your position, I suppose, that
> Islam as a whole is a bad religion. However, I am, unconvinced by your
> stellar logic and facts.

Is Islam a bad religion? Not an easy answer (is there a *good*  
religion?) Swami Lakshman Joo felt that at one time Islam fulfilled  
an evolutionary need, but now it's time had passed. I think on the  
evolutionary scheme of things *any religion* that worships a god or  
gods will tend to have problems (and of course there are exceptions  
to every rule). For some reason, the god Allah, when worshipped by  
large groups of people tends to destabilize the collective  
consciousness of that nation. But one could say many kali-yuga  
religions are suspect.

>
>
>> You'll find this in many places.
>>
>
> Everywhere I bet.
>
>
>> What the kalachakra
>> prophecies are pointing to is that on a global scale what might be
>> most worrysome is radical islam.
>>
>
> Funny, I never heard HHDL say that. Even when I was present for KC.
> Well it was in tibetian so I might have missed a bit. So are you
> suggesting HHDL, who is he primary (only?) "conducter" of KC believes
> all muslims are evil and Islam is a bad evil religion?

And you won't in an introductory generation stage initiation, would  
you? The corpus of kalachakra literature in both Buddhism (and the  
pre-Buddhist Hindu kalachakra) is vast. Unless you were hanging  
around for a long time in retreat, I doubt most would hear these  
prophecies. And not everyone will interpret them the same way.

>
>
>> This makes sense: even though, for
>> example, it was the radical minority that was behind the English tube
>> bombings--the majority of Islamic brits supported their actions! Can
>> you say that the majority of radical X-tians supported Timothy
>> McVeigh's bombing? I don't think so...
>>
>
> Oh, that makes it clear and logical?

Worrisome. The PC party line is "these terrorist acts are only caused  
by a few", the lunatic fringe of radical Islam if you will--and that  
is true. However it's something else when the majority of the  
believers--the collective consciousness of a religion--supports such  
actions. Another example might be the great celebrations in Saudi  
Arabia after 9/11 which was totally blacked out in the American media.

I would feel just as worried if after the Oklahoma City bombing,  
millions of fundamentalist Christians supported the actions of Mr.  
McVeigh or started celebrating in the streets.

>
>
>
>>> I am beginnnng to worry about (radical)
>>> bigoted neo-buddhists.
>>>
>>
>> Well if they're pumping sarin gas into your subway, then I'd worry.
>> Rather than that worrying I'd recommend you visit the first great
>> university (Nalanda) and other sites that were destroyed in the  
>> past--
>> or the two million that disappeared in "east Pakistan" (Bangladesh).
>> You probably remember the concert but never knew of the genocide.
>>
>
> ok dokie. And this somehow proves that islam as a whole is a bad
> religion?

It is what it is. Black and white thinking though probably isn't  
helpful, but either is liberal green-meme first tier thinking IMO.

>
> That you present your points as serious arguments, how could anyone
> possibly take seriously your "insights", your interpretations of what
> you think you have heard spiritual teachers say, or your conclusions
> on spiritual or any matters.
>

Ah, I see, "killing the messenger", the ad hominem logical fallacy  
rears it's ugly head once again in your posts!  The MGM again...

They are actually from Lama Lewis, not me.  The article was labeled,  
perhaps you missed that?


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
 



Reply via email to