On 27 May, 12:50, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does God's flexibility irritate you, Pat? God is always 100% according
> to your logic. Don't make vam any less.
>
{snicker} In no way. I rely on God's flexibility, as I couldn't live
without it. Whilst God is still 100% because there is nothing ELSE.
> On May 27, 1:36 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
