That, dear Ash, was unabashed glee. I'm going to have to steal her quote, methinks.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Now I am still a little new here, was that glee or condescension? Depending > on who I am that question may be revealing, or not at all what one > expects... 'do you think that is air you are breathing?' :p > > > On 6/1/2010 12:09 PM, Chris Jenkins wrote: > >> 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 - >> >> >> >
