It saddens me to see this. I have tremendous respect for the both of you and think you both to be very intelligent and kind. Please refrain from continuing this any further if you can help yourselves. I think in light of the topic we might 'rethink' how to continue our discourse that we ALL may proser.
On May 28, 7:17 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
