Your response is more obfuscating than clear. First, this is not about one person and another. It is about attitudes, smallness of the heart ( the ultra importance to petty rituals and marks of exclusive identity ), if you understand, and world view, acceptance of diversity and ways of life ( violent animosity towards ' kafirs ' ) ... that pervades whole populations subscribing to that faith and religion.
Secondly, the nature of the One is many, as is here and now, right before us, as the universe, the creation and the creatures, you and I, manifest in our ( pure ) hearts. It is Love, and numerous forms of its expression and denial. There is nothing unseen, unprovable, ineffable, or mystery, about that ! The One, as it is ... One, without a second or other, without the least differentiation, without any nature whatsoever, is witnessed in the ( flawless and subsumed ) intellect. No text is required or necessary for that ! In fact, any scripture that does not deny itself in deference to the One beyond all texts and religious tenets, that seeks to perpetuate itself instead is a false one. That is the truth. You do not have to " also love " the Sufi tradition. I appreciate and prefer it because it is focussed on Love, not on rituals, even if through it, and on One, not on texts, even if through them. On May 25, 12:06 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > Why would one person read scripture, and realize the text as living > processes within themselves, thus becoming good, and others not? this > is a very good question, and the answer may include ones ability to > set aside self will (or alignment with divine will) and ego and the > giving of oneself to the mystery of the unseen, unprovable, ineffable > nature of the One. In doing so, all other aspects of self are also > realized, none excluded. Those that bring their own agenda to the > text, will simply be using the text for their own agenda. those that > can begin to live the scripture move beyond the cause and effect you > are looking for. > > PS: I also love the Sufi tradition. > > On May 24, 2:28 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What are you saying ? Is it that people, who profess and are known to > > be following the scripture, may not be good, gentle and loving, but > > the scripture may still be ideal, without flaws ? > > > If that is indeed what you are saying, then I would view that as a > > belief that is incorrect, and patently wrong. Because the proof of any > > thing lies in the effects it causes, the consequences it germinates, > > which effects and consequences are empirical and serve as evidence in > > rational terms. > > > The holders of such beliefs are usually the ones who subscribe to > > feelings of ' holiness,' and are therefore too hamstrung to challenge > > beliefs for the merit they actually have, rather than that they are > > supposed to have. > > > Islam has great virtues of brotherhood, in practice, but little else > > because much of it is temporal pertaining to values and ways of life > > as relevant and suited to 6th Century Arab world. That's why their > > adherents, values and way of life, are such oddities in 21st Century ! > > > The Sufis, on the other hand, who are focussed on Love ( in the > > heart ) and the One ( in intellect ), soon outgrow all things temporal > > in the Quran. Their humanism is universal and inclusive of all > > diversity, all faiths, all faithless too, all colour, all cultures, > > all ways of life. > > > I'd dismiss and reject Islam only on the way it has ostracised and > > persecuted the Sufis, the way Sunnis do to Shias, and Shias do to > > Parsis and Bahais, and all do to Ismailis ... that same train of > > exclusivity. What merit does such a religion in the 21st Century have, > > that practises such ostracism, persecution and exclusivity ? > > > On May 24, 9:35 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I suppose with any faith, we can site followers who can live in love > > > and peace after coming to the scripture, and those that cannot. > > > Reading the scripture and living the scripture are two different > > > things. Islam is no exception. This does not mean the scripture is > > > flawed, although that seems to be argued ad naseum, but rather goes > > > back to the conversation of mistakes and forgiveness. > > > > On May 24, 12:11 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > And that is, I repeat, the only hallmark of a true messiah ... when > > > > his word leads people to being good, gentle and loving. The Jewish > > > > temple means little, and the number of adherents is really irrelevant, > > > > when the merit of thought and speech is to be considered. > > > > > We've discussed Quran forthrightly with the participation of a Muslim > > > > member a couple of years ago, with all its interpretive flaws and > > > > consequent crap temporals, that has resulted in such behaviour among > > > > its adherents as we witness today. Such certainties as it mouths is of > > > > no merit in itself, if it does lead people to being good, gentle and > > > > loving. > > > > > I'd much prefer the less certain, if it results otherwise ! > > > > > On May 24, 7:44 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I see your point, although all of the people that I know that consider > > > > > themselves of the Baha'i faith are good, gentle, loving people. To > > > > > that end, I would say he was successful. > > > > > > On May 24, 9:55 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 24 May, 14:21, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have not read this, and lots of other stuff. My reading has > > > > > > > become > > > > > > > quite narrow in scope, but that may change again in my life. I > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > read what comes to me that has a ring of truth to me, and it > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > validates my latest realizations. Quite a wonderful process, > > > > > > > really. > > > > > > > I would some day like to get back to literature...so much of it is > > > > > > > beautiful. So little time, so much to read...that is, if you > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > time in your reality... > > > > > > > Well, it's not so much as to whether or not I include it, it's > > > > > > whether > > > > > > or not it is actually included. It is. Otherwise, you could read > > > > > > this before I wrote it. Only the One that has access to all time at > > > > > > once can do that. And, thus, knew, millenia ago, that this little > > > > > > post was a vital part of the whole. I wouldn't bother reading "The > > > > > > Book of Certitude". It was/is, more or less, an attempt from a > > > > > > person > > > > > > raised within Shi'a Islam, to make the claim of being the return of > > > > > > the Hidden (12th) Imam in a very subtle way, i.e., do everything but > > > > > > actually state it. Unfortunately, the book, when contrasted to the > > > > > > clarity of The Qur'an, is a mishmash of ideas that are NOT > > > > > > internally > > > > > > consistent and, thus, do not add clarity or certitude but, rather, > > > > > > detract from the Qur'an that it was intending to comment upon. It's > > > > > > an attempt to sway both Christians and Muslims into accepting the > > > > > > author's 'way forward', wich, although admirable, the way outlined > > > > > > is > > > > > > too muddled to see, in my opinion. In short, it was another attempt > > > > > > to be 'the Gospel of the Next Messiah' written before said Messiah > > > > > > claimed the title. Whilst there ARE followers, the majority of the > > > > > > population of the planet have never heard of Baha'i or Baha'ullah. > > > > > > Therefore, I don't think he was a very successful Messiah. He > > > > > > certainly never rebuilt any Jewish temple nor intended to; what sort > > > > > > of Messiah is THAT? ;-) > > > > > > > > On May 24, 7:22 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 23 May, 20:03, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > perhaps with a focus like the B'hai, that brings the > > > > > > > > > individual to > > > > > > > > > becoming rather than possessing as the basis of the social > > > > > > > > > contract, > > > > > > > > > it may some day come about. > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, but have you read their "Book of Certitude"? I have, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > there is more uncertainty in it than any other 'scripture' I've > > > > > > > > read. > > > > > > > > I'm sure, like most people, they mean well, but the faith > > > > > > > > itself is > > > > > > > > ill-founded although well-intentioned. And the Book of > > > > > > > > Certitude is > > > > > > > > confounding. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would > > > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > > it AS a scirpture; but then, hey, it's better than David > > > > > > > > Koresh...of > > > > > > > > THAT, I'm sure. > > > > > > > > > > On May 23, 1:59 pm, DarkwaterBlight > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Quite a tall order OneCell, I think that is pointing in the > > > > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > > > direction but I highly doubt that the powers can/will be > > > > > > > > > > able to agree > > > > > > > > > > on much other than we need to save the planet in order to > > > > > > > > > > save > > > > > > > > > > ourselves!LOL!Surely this statement reflects self intrest > > > > > > > > > > as well! > > > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 11:34 am, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to your question,archytas, here is a direct > > > > > > > > > > > quote from the > > > > > > > > > > > article: > > > > > > > > > > > "Ultimately, the transformation required to shift towards > > > > > > > > > > > sustainable > > > > > > > > > > > consumption and production will entail no less than an > > > > > > > > > > > organic change > > > > > > > > > > > in the structure of society itself so as to reflect fully > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > interdependence of the entire social body—as well as the > > > > > > > > > > > interconnectedness with the natural world that sustains > > > > > > > > > > > it. Among > > > > > > > > > > > these changes, many of which are already the focus of > > > > > > > > > > > considerable > > > > > > > > > > > public discourse, are: the consciousness of world > > > > > > > > > > > citizenship; the > > > > > > > > > > > eventual federation of all nations through an integrated > > > > > > > > > > > system of > > > > > > > > > > > governance with capacity for global decision-making; the > > > > > > > > > > > establishment > > > > > > > > > > > of structures which recognize humanity’s common ownership > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > earth’s resources; the establishment of full equality > > > > > > > > > > > between men and > > > > > > > > > > > women; the elimination of all forms of prejudice; the > > > > > > > > > > > establishment of > > > > > > > > > > > a universal currency and other integrating mechanisms > > > > > > > > > > > that promote > > > > > > > > > > > global economic justice; the adoption of an international > > > > > > > > > > > auxiliary > > > > > > > > > > > language to facilitate mutual understanding; and the > > > > > > > > > > > redirection of > > > > > > > > > > > massive military expenditures towards constructive social > > > > > > > > > > > ends[iv]." > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 9:19 pm, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The majority seem scared of anything like this Onecell. > > > > > > > > > > > > Peoples like > > > > > > > > > > > > the Amish still live under wider protection, and the > > > > > > > > > > > > B'hai are > > > > > > > > > > > > persecuted in Iran. How do we protect our sustainable > > > > > > > > > > > > communities > > > > > > > > > > > > from bandits and mad, violent religionists? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21 May, 21:48, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a different perspective on Prosperity. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > article below was > > > > > > > > > > > > > copied from the Baha'i News > > ... > > read more »
