On 26 May, 14:07, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat, its over. As far I am concerned, you've got it ALL wrong. Period. >
OK, I can live with that. Even though, on Oneness we agree, I've got it ALL wrong. Logic fault there, but I can live that. > Forget polytheism, I find infinite value and God's own beauty even in > idolators, pork eating blasphemes and beef eaters, the unschooled > aborigines who'd spit and piss on all scriptures of the world, and the > cartoonists for whom nothing is sacred enough to distort or twist in > order to derive some fun or communicate some message. Yup, so do I. It's all part of the plan. > I have no sense > of localised holiness whatever, in this world or your next world. You > might have the need for the protection of Quran and adherents, but I > only see you as a rabble rouser. > Actually, I think you see me as more than JUST that. > That is only to lay out how far we are from each other's paradigms. To > me, you are just a great blabber, who knows nothing even remotely true > and can add nothing whatsoever for even your own well being, leave > aside the world. If the reductions are reciprocal, between you and me, > I consider myself blessed ! > And I too, consider you blessed. As to why all the vehemence, I don't know. Nevertheless, I wil always hold you dear, as I wouldn't be where I am without your help. > On May 26, 5:38 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
