I love you, Rigsy. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:56 AM, 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 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 > > > > > > > > > necessary for that ! In fact, any scripture that does not > deny itself > > > > > > > > > in deference to the One beyond all texts and religious > tenets, that > > > > > > > > > seeks to perpetuate itself instead is a false one. That is > the truth. > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't Surah 112 (Al Ikhlas) state that fairly clearly? > > > > > > > > > > Surah 112: Al-Ikhlas (The Oneness Of God) > > > > > > > > > > In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful > > > > > > > > > > 1. Say: He is God, the One > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - >
