Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not a "bias." I have the Gita right here. I can point you to the relevant passages.

Yes, you could refer to the chapter that describes Vishnu in the Universal form. And yes, you’d be correct that this form has a terrible, cosmic and rather cold and consuming aspect. Check. You would be right.

I formally and with some ceremony declare, openly to one & all, that you are right in this aspect. (And the religion of Krishna-Caitanya, today, is something very very different, but I am not interested here in defending it!) What I wrote focuses on different things.

You bias still operates, but I assume that a) you cannot see it and b) do not wish to see it.

But your adamancy in this is intelligible to me. It has a function. And it is that function that I am interested in exploring.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no doubt that any religious or metaphysical description that I could be offered, if it comes from Jainism, Buddhism or Vedanta (etc.) can only be described as ‘gnostic’!

Yes. A gnostic contempt for physical reality permeates most Eastern religions.

I cannot quite go along with you when you declare as *anti-Christian* any view, any description, that arises out of different systems-of-view and understanding.

"Anti-Christian" isn't a word I used, but it's apt. "Anti-truthful," "delusory," "errant," "deceptive," "false," "world-hating," "ungrateful," "toxic," "stupifying," "deadening," "fatalistic," "hopeless" and so on, also are good adjectives there.

An ideology does not become "good" just because some good group of people happens to believe in it. There were no doubt good people who have been caught up in the madness of Communism and Fascism. Likewise, to point out the faults of Hinduism is not to insult Indians or others who have believed it. It's only to point out that they are better off escaping that toxic ideology. It's to wish better for them than they have now.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not a "bias." I have the Gita right here. I can point you to the relevant passages.

Yes, you could refer to the chapter that describes Vishnu in the Universal form. And yes, you’d be correct that this form has a terrible, cosmic and rather cold and consuming aspect. Check. You would be right.

You bias still operates, but I assume that a) you cannot see it and b) do not wish to see it.

"Yes, you're completely right, and telling the truth..but you're biased." That's what you just said.

I am very amused.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Yes, you're completely right, and telling the truth..but you're biased." That's what you just said.

I am very amused.

Here you seem to me to be deliberately misconstruing what I say and what I mean. Why? (I can only guess). You could of course read what I wrote again and you would, I think, understand better -- more fairly -- what I actually did say.

[Immanuel Can]

"Yes, you're completely right, and telling the truth..but you're biased." That's what you just said.

I am very amused.

Here you seem to me to be deliberately misconstruing what I say and what I mean. Why? (I can only guess). You could of course read what I wrote again and you would, I think, understand better -- more fairly -- what I actually did say.

I read it. I think the paraphrase is pretty much dead-on. But okay, whatever you think.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A minor point . . .

"Anti-Christian" isn't a word I used, but it's apt.

Yeah, that's just Gnostic. It's totally anti-Christian. Both Christians and Jews have rejected that "picture" totally...and justly so. Torah does not paint the picture that way, and denies that core portrayal of creation.

[Immanuel Can]

A minor point . . .

"Anti-Christian" isn't a word I used, but it's apt.

Yeah, that's just Gnostic. It's totally anti-Christian. Both Christians and Jews have rejected that "picture" totally...and justly so. Torah does not paint the picture that way, and denies that core portrayal of creation.

Oh, I see...I didn't make that clear.

I was speaking of "Christian Gnostiicism" in specific. I was not, at that moment, speaking of the Gita or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other strictly Eastern tradition.

Hinduism or Buddhism are not so much "anti-Christian" (i.e. targeted at undermining Christianity, as "Christian Gnosticism" is), as "non-Christian" (meaning, "Contradictory to Christianity, but not deliberately targeted at damaging Christianity, the way "Christian Gnosticism" is).

Or, to put it another way, "Christian Gnosticism" is simply a heresy; Hinduism is a rival religion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think the paraphrase is pretty much dead-on. But okay, whatever you think.

What you are saying that I am saying, or what you imagine me to be saying, is not what I intend to say.

I do say though that I think your misconstrue the ethical admonition that operates now in Vaishnavism. But I notice that the statement I make here is one that in itself and independent of me is to you *intolerable*.

[Immanuel Can]

I think the paraphrase is pretty much dead-on. But okay, whatever you think.

What you are saying that I am saying, or what you imagine me to be saying, is not what I intend to say.

Well, that's a little different from suggesting I was deliberately misrepresenting you. I wasn't. I was simply understanding what you said, but taking it at face value, and missing a nuance you actually intended to make but didn't.

In other words, you weren't quite as clear as you hoped to be.

Say again, then, in better words. I do want to understand what you really mean.

[Lacewing]

It's not a "bias." I have the Gita right here. I can point you to the relevant passages.

Yes, you could refer to the chapter that describes Vishnu in the Universal form. And yes, you’d be correct that this form has a terrible, cosmic and rather cold and consuming aspect. Check. You would be right.

You bias still operates, but I assume that a) you cannot see it and b) do not wish to see it.

"Yes, you're completely right, and telling the truth..but you're biased." That's what you just said.

I am very amused.

So if a man is right about describing one part of an elephant, but ignores the rest of the elephant, is he right and biased? Alexis has done a masterful job of describing a broader picture... which offers the opportunity for broader understanding and awareness.

What is amusing is watching your immediate and adamant rejection of anything beyond what you think/believe. Is it correct to say: There is no broader truth worth knowing, as compared to the truth you 'know'?

I admit that it has been somewhat affirming watching your rejection (and distortions necessary for rejection) unfold, even with someone as sympathetic as Alexis to your beliefs and causes. I thought you might be able to rein it in and sustain a pretense with him -- unlike how you respond to those who immediately challenge you. But, it appears that eventually the distortions begin to ramp up in direct proportion to the perceived challenge.

The thing is, a truthful position doesn't require distortions. A truthful position can recognize and discuss broader understanding and awareness without devolving into archaic damnations and immediate dismissals. Your self-serving position and tactics are on display. It is a wonder why you are so obvious and persistent -- and in a generally unsympathetic environment?

[Immanuel Can]

So if a man is right ...

Did you actually have anything to say, or just more venom and gas to expel?

[Lacewing]

So the larger conversation that interests me is to see and to understand what happened in the surrounding culture, but also what has happened with us and in us. Because if this is not seen and understood, it seems to me, there can take place no remediation.

Very reasonable and intelligent to do! Unfortunately, a lot of us cannot get out of our own way in order to see further. My impression is that we can become so identified with our preferred belief(s), that to look beyond that might feel like we cease to exist... or worse, that we've been 'wrong' all along.

I think we've got to get past this immobilizing identification and defensiveness. It can feel very difficult. But if we can use logic and reason and compassion for ourselves, we can see MORE than we would otherwise allow ourselves to see. We have to do it for ourselves, of course, as no one else will be believed.

The discussions here on this forum -- in all of their diverse forms -- offer a striking range of potentials that cannot be unseen. There are interesting implications to consider in regard to that. Perhaps many people who are here WANT (on some level) to be exposed to that potential, even if they fight against it; to act out on this stage, their most outrageous and limiting thoughts and behavior, perhaps to be exorcised of them or to simply be newly inspired enough to expand beyond them.

I like to think that this environment helps us all to evolve, whether we admit it outwardly or not. Openly admitting it requires putting the needy/fearful ego in the back seat -- and then we can really do some driving!

[Lacewing]

So if a man is right ...

Did you actually have anything to say, or just more venom and gas to expel?

Ah, projecting your qualities and behavior onto me. Your distortions ramp up!

[Immanuel Can]

So if a man is right ...

Did you actually have anything to say, or just more venom and gas to expel?

Ah, projecting your qualities and behavior onto me. Your distortions ramp up!

It was just a question. And you gave the answer I have come to expect. No hard feelings.

[Lacewing]

Did you actually have anything to say, or just more venom and gas to expel?

Ah, projecting your qualities and behavior onto me. Your distortions ramp up!

It was just a question.

And you gave the answer I have come to expect.

As you make the distortions I have come to expect.

No hard feelings.

Aw, isn't that sweet. I don't wish you any ill, Mr. Can.