On 25 May, 21:35, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Vam, your request is noted and appreciated. For now, I for one, will > allow a little more rope. Long ago we ceased being rigid when it comes > to rationality, so unless we return to the days when any other view > was shouted down (and/or banned), while at the edge, I don't believe > that Pat has crossed over any line that we have accepted in the last > couple of years. > > Of course, I would have no problem with a new topic discussing such > things. In fact, it may be time for us all to review our standards > around such issues. >
Thanks!! Is the issue quoting scripture? Or is the issue mentioning topics derived from scripture? Or is the issue mentioning something that someone else gets their knickers in a twist over? To me, this last issue is the most important one as it seemed that Vam took offense to the Qur'an not protecting Hindus. Actually, I think Hinduism generally prospered under Moghul rule except, of course, at the very beginning. The Muslims certainly put no lasting dent into the Hindu population base, as modern numbers bear out. The issue the Qur'an has with Hinduism is that most of it is polytheistic and, of course, the premiss of the Qur'an is that it is a revelation by the One True God, who could not accept polytheism, as He knows better. However, Vam is an adherent of Advaita Vedanta, the non-dual view, i.e., old school Hinduism. Islam (and by that, I mean the current mainstream Shari'a interpretation) has always viewed that the Advaita approach was the correct one and that it would NEVER have a problem with a person who, if asked what God's name was, they replied "Brahman". As long as the word has an 'N' at the end, it implies a God that is One and that is completely compatible with Islam. Therefore, there was no reason for Vam to take that statement personally, as he is NOT a polytheist. And, surely, he knows the difference between non-dual and dual? The statement was a statement of fact in that I expressed a fact (that the Qur'an mentions protected people), it was not intended to slur anyone or degrade anyone. And I would hope that people, by now, would know me better than to think I was trying to stir up trouble in 'Little Google'. > On May 25, 7:10 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > " According to the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are 'protected people' > > who should not be fought ... " > > > What's wrong with non - Christians and non - Jews, that actually > > constitute more than half of the world population ? Why are they any > > the less deserving of peace ? > > > It's precisely because of such indefensible ' tribalism ' and divisive > > crap that the scripture should be rejected by all rational people of > > the world ! It's a sham, to be speaking of One in the same breath. > > > Pat, you should thank the mods for allowing your defense of such > > irrational, divisive and inflammatory stance, on a rational forum that > > Minds Eye is. > > And, if you disagree with it, as any rational mind would, the > > appropriate constituency to address your opposition would be found on > > an Islamic forum ! > > > Through this post of mine, I am actually asking the mods to disallow > > such regressive crap here. > > > On May 25, 5:22 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 24 May, 20:46, 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. > > > > Yes, but it's the 'teachers' of the faith that have muddied the waters > > > of the text rather than the text being muddy itself. The > > > 'students' (Taliban, in Arabic, if you will) have followed poor > > > teachers and not learned correctly. According to the Qur'an, > > > Christians and Jews are 'protected people' who should not be fought, > > > but that doesn't seem to be the way the events are playing out these > > > days. > > > > > 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. > > > > Doesn't Surah 112 (Al Ikhlas) state that fairly clearly? > > > > Surah 112: Al-Ikhlas (The Oneness Of God) > > > > In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful > > > > 1. Say: He is God, the One and Only; > > > 2. God, the Eternal, Absolute; > > > 3. He does not beget, nor is He begotten; > > > 4. And there is none comparable to Him. > > > > It doesn't get much simpler than that and the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) > > > said that that Surah was "one third of the Qur'an"; that is, one third > > > in 'content of meaning'. > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
