On 26 May, 17:30, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > It is very interesting, Vam, that Pat's view arouses such such emotion > in you. I also (along with DWB) find his posts fascinating, his > knowledge of scripture deep, and his view interesting. Surely, not > ALL of his view can be wrong, if being wrong is possible (in any way > but relative), and that you continue to state that it is - well, I > find it interesting and will leave it at that. I also had the thought > that it might be golden shadow at work, as Pat stated previously. I > wonder if you confuse his relay of scripture with his view, as with > your statement, "you may have the need for the protection of Quran and > adherents." Pat's statement was that according to the Quran, Islamics > were not to fight with Christians and Jews. He used this statement to > support the view that Islamic scripture is misinterpreted by many > factions today. I don't see this as irrational or rable rousing, > quite the opposite! >
Yes, thanks Molly. That was EXACTLY what I was intending to say. Thanks for pointing it out. I was going to do it myself (and would have by now, had I access to the Internet at home), as I think that part of my message was completely lost on Vam, as (I think!?) he took offense to the fact that Islam protects some people and not others--in particular, Hindus. But Shari'a DOES accept 'Brahman' as being an equivalent name for Allah, as both are monotheistic Gods and Shari'a does accept Advaita Vedanta (the particular Hindu faith to which Vam ascribes) as being the 'proper', originally intended Hindu viewpoint and recognises that the polytheistic views were a later 'dis- integration' (literally) of the original concept. Yet, God moves us in various ways for His own end, not ours. So I accept Vam's actions as being actions of The One and, therefore, necessary, even though I, for the moment, can't fathom the exact reasons. God's ways are NOT like our ways and are, at times, very tricky to understand. Of course, reconcilliation is never possible without, first, having a 'separation'; may be that's the key. Time will tell and only God knows His goals in full. > I know that you are both bright and generous people, so I find this > clash a real puzzle. One thing I know, we all don't need to agree, > but respect keeps the peace. I respect you both, and hope you can > come back to some kind of compassionate communication. > I'm always open and am as puzzled as you are at Vam's reaction. Especially in light of the fact that he was trying to put himself forward as a rational man (which he IS 99% of the time). But we all have our off days and, for all I know, his take on my statement was just another straw in a basket that had been filled by things totally un-related to me. As far as Vam's and my beliefs go, we agree that there is only one God, so, if I'm ALL wrong, he must be wrong in those areas where we agree. Not exactly a rational/logical standpoint, from my point of view. > On May 26, 9:07 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pat, its over. As far I am concerned, you've got it ALL wrong. Period. > > > 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. 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. > > > 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 ! > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
