On 27 May, 15:40, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > One sure characteristic feature of the grotesqueness and monstrosity I > have spoken of is ... loss of capacity for critical thinking. Because > what one has built up in oneself has taken on a size and nature, and > life, of its own. It doesn't brook any doubt or criticism. In fact, by > then it is infinitely daunting to doubt, much less suspend belief, > because we've given all of ourself over to whatever it is that we've > built up. It is then more powerful than ourself ! That is what > delusions become in some special people. >
Spoken like a true reflection of your own unmovable view. You're talking of yourself, here, not me. You refuse to accept that my view may be correct and yours incorrect, thus monolithic. You daren't brook a doubt, due to the size of your monilith. And you refuse to suspend your belief even for a moment. This is, of course, the working of The One and not your 'fault'. You cannot help but be driven in the way The One sees best. Your exhortation above, ostensibly against me, yet again demonstrates I'm correct and that you have, indeed, fallen into the very trap you think I have. > Then, the least self - doubt would reduce us to ashes, to nothing. And > that would negate all our effort at building that which secures us, > all the nurturing of it we've done through all those days of > loneliness and insecurity ! > Thus the reason for your rant. I'm not lonlely? Nor insecure. > Not just that, having shared it with another, there is no way one > would accept dissent or disagreement, it amounting to same doubt and > criticism, prompting of same self - doubt, that is not admissible. > > Such a frog - in - the - well monster brooks no critical thinking, > least of all among others ! > Exactly, and you just can't accept that The One I purport is such a frog to your view. Again, this continued rant is more demonstrative of your own monolithic views that cannot be disturbed despite evidence to the contrary. You project you own failing views on me in a last- ditch effort to justify your view. Again, I can see why that might be useful, for the very reasons you explain. It was a very revealing, albeit Freudian, excerpt. Again, I refuse to accept that you are throwing ad hominem attacks at me. This is a real experiment by the One to test your flexibility in the face of your own monolithic views of the One. And The One knows best. > On May 27, 7:14 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Molly & Pat : > > > Stop discussing Vam, his knowledge, his faith, his God, his Brahman, > > his emotions, his vehemence ... etc. It really should mean nothing to > > you, since you know nothing in that regard. > > > There are matters and issues I've pointed out, quite strongly, as it > > deserved. As it still does. And I still believe the darkness and > > obscurity being spread by Pat, and you if you believe likewise, should > > be stopped forthwith. The shades of evangelism, if not proselytism, > > should be dusted clean. We can each discuss objective and subjective > > ideas, ontological theories and beliefs, personal experiences ... but > > only on the premise that they might, and often do, mean nothing to > > others. That doesn't render them any the less valuable and important, > > worthy of love and peace, and privileged. > > > Quite foolishly, Pat thinks because Hindus are not protected ... he > > has no idea what and where he's gotten into. I don't give a damn to > > his delusions, nor of Quran or all the Muslims and ... others. Nor do > > I have any delusions of saving the world. Nor is my One the same as > > you or Pat might believe. Nor is the God I know anything even remotely > > close to that which seems in your and Pat's espousals. Nor ... have I > > set myself as a Guru, all knowing, having any obligation to share or > > teach or correct ... etc. etc. ... I share what I know when the > > occasion offers, strictly in secular terms, except for traditions > > which I pointedly qualify, when I see someone desirous and preparedly > > simple. > > > So please refrain from anything pertaining to Vam. Just focus on the > > ideas and issues I have stated. That is what matters, as far as this > > forum goes. Which has been and still is its hallmark too. > > > I might have been equally scathing of scientists, religionists and > > atheists, too ... but only to correct the proportions, to counter the > > rabidness and shades of evangelical drive. I love each one of them > > individually, not through knowing them personally but through knowing > > myself beyond personality and individuality. Mostly I even have great > > regard for what they espouse, because I can see its relevance to > > humanity, what we are, in however limited or extended terms of > > domains, specific or generic, or accuracy. > > > What I oppose is someone telling me, and others : this is it ... this > > is all it is. > > > I still love the basics, the fundamentals ... because their > > interpretation is wholly open ! Theories, conjectures, beliefs, > > speculations ... are welcome, but only as they are. They may turn out > > be true. But until they do, nobody has any business projecting them as > > knowledge or truth ... as, this is it... this is all it is. > > > People who fit the One to themselves, their theories and conjectures, > > are grotesque, monsters in the making ... Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, > > Islamic extremists, Taliban ( as we know them ) ... > > > On May 27, 5:56 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > God is an invention of mankind. Nature invented itself. > > > > On May 27, 6:36 am, 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
