"May we ALL move on in a better direction from this." Many of the folks in here have been dialoguing for years, and it is interesting and encouraging to see that a safe space for this kind of exchange has been created, and members can lovingly (to an extend) challenge each other to self examine and broaden perspective on the nature of the exchange itself. Where else can we safely examine our own deepest nature, or entertain the mystical concepts such as our own mirror, and have it understood and treated respectfully? This is the only place that I have found, and it restores my faith in humanity every time.
On May 28, 11:08 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 May, 14:57, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > Cheers!! Agreed. I've said my peace, now, anyway. It saddened me to > have it all start. There's no GOOD reason to burden the rest of you > with all this, that's for certain. May we ALL move on in a better > direction from this. > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
