It appears obvious that agreement continues about books not being equal to let alone usable instead of direct apprehension.
On May 24, 3:27 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > " if you understand" - my reference to the discussion of mistakes and > forgiveness is what I understand of your first paragraph. People make > mistakes (being small of heart can certainly be one) and forgiveness > of self and others is what gets us past it. > > "the nature of the One is many" - I agree - > > "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." - this seems a contradiction > to the previously quote. From my view, the one and many in us is > realized simultaneously in connection > > 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 lost me. To me, scripture, or the religious texts that have > been passed down through the ages and are read by multitudes, all have > truth. Not all of us see it, and those who do, usually have moments > in life when they do not see it, and moments in life when the > scriptures are realized, meaning, they become diagrams for living and > are realized as process for living, as you say, life as the One as > many. > > "You do not have to " also love " the Sufi tradition" - to be sure. > Nevertheless, I do. > > On May 24, 3:46 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > ... > > read more »
