Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (15913)	9/6/2003 6:09:53 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

all which isn't singing is mere talking and all talking's talking to oneself (whether that oneself be sought or seeking master or disciple sheep or wolf) gush to it as diety or devil -toss in sobs and reasons threats and smiles name it cruel fair or blessed evil- it is you (ne i)nobody else drive dumb mankind dizzy with haranguing -you are deafened every mother's son- all is merely talk which isn't singing and all talking's to oneself alone but the very song of(as mountains feel and lovers)singing is silence.... -e e cummings * "intensity & concentration is the key" ~ M Subramuniya

To: James Calladine who wrote (15913)	9/6/2003 6:31:24 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I may agree with much of what Scott says, but I think it is unecessary for you to post in a manner that pretends there is absolutely no divergence in our opinions. As to "hearsay"...that is what your opinons are to me as regards Jones. I thought that last fellow I posted had written a very thoughtful and sincere analysis of Jones. He struck me as honest and credible. I find it unfortunate that you appear to resent my unwillingness to accept your opinion in exclusion to all the many other opinions expressed by those whom have met Jones and cared to publicly share their impressions and thoughts. I have already noted that your personal entanglement over many years with Jones can not help but contaminate your attempts to be objective. Finally, neither your certainty nor your experience nor your devotion translate into a presumption of fact. We both know of enough cult followers to appreciate that devotion and certainty are not sufficient to establish or justify their beliefs. You are also well aware (I am sure) that many cult leaders have been megalomaniacs. Naturally such "certainty" is very convincing as it does not need to be faked. A person who believes he is God or His messenger IS compelling. When such megalomaniacal certainty is combined with an extraordinary intelligence, it can be more than persuasive. Am I saying that Jones is an anxiety-ridden egomaniac? Of course not. But I know you are aware of such compelling people in history, and you should therefore be tolerant of the fact that to an objective outsider, who has not been compelled by the experience of such certainty...there remains at least an honest suspicion that both guru and followers may conform to the rule--especially since there is no general agreement that exceptions to the rule have ever existed. Certainly, amongst followers of Jones with first person familiarity, there are a range of opinions and a clear disagreement as to his nature and his character. It is these differences of opinion which form the rational basis for a discussion of Jones by people such as myself, who have no personal knowledge of him. You seem to be of the belief that my lack of a personal discipleship under his sway ought to disqualify my exploration of his merit. But I find no rational basis for such an opinion. Finally, I am not dismissing your opinion or your experience. I am pointing out that it is not universal and it is contentious even between followers. Your desire that Jones remain above criticism or even examination is touching but rather unreasonable.

To: James Calladine who wrote (15913)	9/7/2003 1:02:37 AM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

It is just the nature of the EGO. Criticizing or defending a position is a great opportunity to look at ourselves and try to find out at what level are we are getting irritated. It is the ego that is being hurt. It is the ego that needs to defend itself. It is that "I" that seems to the big barrier to spirituality. How can one offend the humble? Criticizing a spiritual teacher is normal. It always happens. If it did not happen and everything seems perfect, that is what would probably lead me to doubt.<g> People will usually see them as some sort of crooks, frauds etc.. That is again the ego at work. We feel as if we are at the center of the universe and our opinions/beliefs/experiences are correct. Finding fault with people that are claiming to be enlightened is also very normal. How can we allow ourselves to be inferior to them? OK..maybe say that there are a couple of real teachers and call most of them frauds. OR say that there were real enlightened people in history but most living ones are frauds or crooks. That is EGO...and understanding it could be the key. I have read often enough that when the Ego dies, Enlightenmenet happens. Having faith in a spiritual teacher allows us to feel humble and get closer to Enlightenment or God. Working on oneselve without a teacher could be a more difficult path, imho. Getting to what I said about destiny a while ago; that existence may just be a Grand Play..this also allows one to feel at ease and realize that we are not the doers....and that also leads to humility..and maybe without the need for a spiritual teacher.