On 25 May, 21:27, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “Thus the concept of a guru. But, what if God is one's guru, i.e., > Guru is my guru, if you see what I mean? “ – Pat > > RE: “…much of import that is transmitted from generation to > generation, from person to person, is esoteric in nature. Texts alone > can never do this due to their very nature. “ - orn > > Well Pat, your guru comment is opaque at best. So I find it difficult > to continue our conversation. (i.e. No, I do *not* “see what” you > mean.) > > I say this because when I went for a reference to hope to grok how you > are using the term, not only did I become more convinced that it was > impossible without you rephrasing your commentary. Without going into > my reference at length, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru) I will > copy/paste one short paragraph due to its informational content: > > “…A guru (Sanskrit: गुरु) is one who is regarded as having great > knowledge, wisdom and authority in a certain area, and who uses it to > guide others (teacher). In Sanskrit gu means darkness & ru means > light. As a principle for the development of consciousness it leads > the creation from unreality to reality, from the darkness of ignorance > to the light of knowledge. In its purest form this principle manifests > on earth as a divine incarnation (saint), a person with supreme > knowledge about God and all creation. Other forms of manifestation of > this principle also include parents, school teachers , non-human > objects (books) and even one's own intellectual discipline….” >
I capitalised guru to indicate the guru of gurus, i.e., God. Also, Guru is the term used for the planet 'Jupiter', i.e., 'Jove', i.e., Jehovah. It was a pun, son. > So as to not appear to be too involved in simple semantics nor even > possibly avoidance, what I had typed was much simpler than how I > believe you have interpreted my words at to their meaning. All I was > suggesting was that words found in a book, while of some use, are not > nearly as informative as learning from another human being. Yes, I > apply this doctrine to many levels of discussion; however, for the > current context, there need be no guru involved…at least not in the > expanded meaning of the term proffered by Wikipedia. Since even here, > I find it difficult to grasp what you mean by simple word usage, > something that may not have occurred *IF* we were talking together in > person, one can interpolate how difficult it is to grasp meanings > found in a text alone…especially in texts from other generations. > Agreed. I would have explained my pun, as soon as I saw the blank look on your face. I try to take my guidance from above in the knowledge that there is no better guru than the Creator Himself. Each of us has a 'direct line' to Him, whether or not we know that (or, if we do, do we then use it) is a different story. And, of course, the 'still small voice' that one person hears may be a bellowing that strkes another like a bell. Each hears Him differently, as one might expect. Probably down to our variance rather than His. > On May 25, 5:11 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 24 May, 17:53, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As much as I appreciate clarity, as Pat well knows, much of import > > > that is transmitted from generation to generation, from person to > > > person, is esoteric in nature. Texts alone can never do this due to > > > their very nature. > > > Thus the concept of a guru. But, what if God is one's guru, i.e., > > Guru is my guru, if you see what I mean? > > > > On May 24, 9:35 am, 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
