I love you, Rigsy.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:56 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
God is an invention of mankind. Nature invented itself.
On May 27, 6:36 am, Pat <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On 26 May, 17:30, Molly <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 May, 21:35, ornamentalmind
<[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 24 May, 20:46, vamadevananda
<[email protected] <mailto:[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 -
