Thank you for this post. I first read it early Saturday morning after I had written a letter to my daughter which might have caused a tiff but did not and we had a postiive discussion on Sunday. Your post prompted some "breathing space". My initial reaction was to sense tears welling up in my eyes and then a kind of peacefulness. Your impressions might be a bit dreamy and ethereal but I think I get your meaning.
On May 15, 9:25 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > I notice that you've taken my observation personally, which was > farthest from my intent. I was still speaking of the idea ... that > organised religion has no place in 21st Century. When you suggested > with a ' but ' ... that people have cravings and have need of > controls, I persisted. > > Allow me to say that I have huge regard for you, the life you've > experienced, the men you've dealt with, the children you've raised, > your happiness and unhappiness, the little pleasures and small > regrets, the age that has caught up with you, the body, the mind, the > fine upbringing recalls, your memories, your appreciation of arts and > letters ... from whatever I know of you from you posts. > > But I also know that you are not the life you've experienced, the > experiences with men, the children, the memories, the body or the > mind. You, as I know, are quite another, privileged to have or be all > these but absolutely free of it, untouched and unaffected, except for > those identities and attachments that pre - claim you in your waking > and dream states, but only out of sheer habits of the mind that > coalesce as ' ego.' > > In truth, it is as you might be in deep sleep, having already > discarded it all, pure, free of all cravings and fear, of all > attachments and identities, having nothing whatsoever to do with any > other thing, person, experience ... past, present or future ! > > But that's me and what I know. You could respond, agree or rebut, or > enlighten in any other way, if so inclined. You are the topic here ! > Being off topic, I hope the mods and the members would forgive me for > the digression. > > On May 15, 8:53 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I like this forum and am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression > > though I suppose there are disagreeable radical hermits who would like > > it as well! I hope you don't think of me that way but perhaps you do. > > I have trouble keeping my thoughts and opinions fixed- sometimes I > > simply must disagree with myself or there's another point of view that > > alters my own. Usually there is a delayed reaction, a struggle or > > battle of thoughts and one wins the day. :-) > > > On May 13, 8:15 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The craving brings us here. I spoke of how we could be going here on. > > > Why ? Because I've experienced the goodness of living so ! > > > > Do you find it disagreeable to you or simply radical, as you seem to > > > imply ? > > > > On May 13, 11:58 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think humans crave rituals and controls whether in religion, > > > > military, government, business and so on and would feel rather lost > > > > without them. Or would all the spiritual hermits twitter? > > > > > On May 13, 1:43 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Religion, as an organised and institutionalised entity, has no place > > > > > in 21st Century ! > > > > > > However, religion as an idea, a practice or way of life, could be in > > > > > the public domain, as an option ... leaving the rest up to the > > > > > individual ... if, whether, what and the how of it. For which, all > > > > > freedoms and responsibility should rest with the individual. There > > > > > could be churches or mosques or temples, even priests. But no > > > > > organised hierarchy, no back seat drivers, no accumulation of wealth, > > > > > money or power. No flock. No shepherd. No calling of faithfuls. > > > > > > On May 13, 5:57 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > When it's 'cult' leaders people scream for blood. Nevermind, mixed > > > > > > [symbols]... > > > > > > > Anyways, I was thinking they should let the nuns be with the > > > > > > priests, > > > > > > keeping things all in the church but theres the contradiction of > > > > > > 'natural law' and sex. And again, abuse of authority. Can this be > > > > > > salvaged? I'm not too sure, perhaps they should just enter the 21st > > > > > > century like the one in Contact who said, 'You could call me a man > > > > > > of > > > > > > the cloth. Without the cloth.' > > > > > > > On 5/12/2010 9:55 AM, vamadevananda wrote: > > > > > > > > Indeed ! > > > > > > > > On May 12, 5:48 pm, Pat<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 11 May, 21:44, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ > > > > > > >>> All neatly documented.... > > > > > > > >> I wonder how many of 'the accused' had actually paid for > > > > > > >> indulgences. > > > > > > >> If they did, then 'the Vicar of Christ' has approved their > > > > > > >> actions by > > > > > > >> turning the other cheek, i.e., turning his face away. Surely, > > > > > > >> it's > > > > > > >> time to impeach the Pope. You'll KNOW it's true, if the New > > > > > > >> Benedictine Authorised Version has the quote "Come onto me, ye > > > > > > >> little > > > > > > >> children" in it. Yeah, OK, I may have churned a few stomachs > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> that, but, hey, anything goes when you proclaim yourself 'Vicar > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> Christ'. It's time to lose that office and face the fact that > > > > > > >> no one > > > > > > >> can proclaim to be, via creed, 'God incarnate in stead'. It's a > > > > > > >> title > > > > > > >> that gives FAR too much license; so the result is licentiousness. > > > > > > >> What else would you expect?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
