Knowing that some of his material on the Logos may be coming from scripture, I opted to give him the choice, but thought the statement still relevant here. Logos is the meaning that passes between you and I. We share it in a variety of forms of communion. BTW, "black shadow" grows with fear, not courtesy or compassion. Fear not, compadre, none of what happens here worries me.
On May 28, 1:32 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > If this is such a safe place for exchange, why do you ask Pat for a > private conversation just a click away? Na Molly, your black shadow is > growing faster than you think. > > On 28 Mai, 17:21, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "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. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
