dogma is not necessary

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Jan 1, 2009 at 04:00

GI wrote:

"you're not 'wrangling' me - but I'm fascinated with how good at self-deception you seem to have become."

"..... thats what they say when they are being wrangled ."
Wrangle: : to dispute angrily or peevishly - maybe you are 'wrangling' then.

>>
GI wrote:
"and I say - neither did the early arabs or any other variety of muslim prior to its discovery (by Infidels ) in the 20th Century CE."

"i agree they did not fully know what ALLAH meant by the suns orbit. but the point here is the infidels may have discovered this fact recently."
Good - we both agree on these two points.

".....but ALLAH already declared it 1400 years ago. "
we do not agree on this point.

".......the focus here is al quran, not arabs."
though it goes without saying that arab Muslims believe what is in the Koran

>>

GI wrote:
"Does the fact that I am calm make you angry - because you have a fixed belief that only Muslims can be calm? I guess it would stick in your craw wouldn't it? I can take the point that if non-Muslims can actually experience inner peace then that would be a threat to your claim of Islamic religious hegemony.

"you're calm ? ok."
It's good to see you find it OK that others can experience peace without following your belief system and that there is no need for Muslims to insist they have a monopoly on peace.

>>

GI wrote:
>>yes - you are free to - and no places are out of bounds - unlike Mecca etc in Saudi for us Infidels"

"unlike all places, mecca isnt a tourist spot . its a pilgrimage site."
Right - barred to the lowly 'kaffir'. The point being you are free to go anywhere you like including pilgrimage sites in Europe if you liked.

"....i countered all your baseless claims about islam. if you are not still convinced of your misunderstanding, our previous comments do exist on daniel pipes. feel free to scroll thru.

Thank you for the invitation. You have not countered many points I have made. Others you have delivered facile arguments against. For example you've said nothing about my accusing Saudis (and by extension Muslims of hypocrisy and intolerance by not allowing the following of other faiths in their 'holy land'.
Yet Muslims are crying 'discrimination' in the West if people don't want a mosque built in their street. At least we do allow mosques in the first place. And do allow Muslims in to live. Though I must say, to be frank, many, many people are now questioning the wisdom of this policy.

>> GI wrote:
Saying anything wrong is NOT restricted to the Koran or anything else. I was not talking about the Koran. I am not spewing politics. I have just requoted what the head of the ISLAMIC Republic of Iran said about another state - and its people - when he said he would wipe them off the map.
I consider that genocide - and if you consider genocide 'wrong' then it is wrong. Agree?

".......unless temporary chronic amnesia is the case, one would not quote or requote something different from said topic. it is unclear what point you were trying to make here .if we were talking about the quran based on which you made a ludicrous llegation, then logic behooves you stick to that topic.
or perhaps you simply have an axe to grind".

No axe to grind. We were not specifically limiting ourselves to discussion of the Koran. You asked the question 'what have Muslims ever done or said that was wrong" - I gave you an obvious answer. No amnesia involved. And you still haven't answered - was it wrong for the Musli leader of the ISLAMIC republic of Iran to suggest a genocidal action as the soultion for the problem he perceives?

>>GI wrote:
I know - it would win him votes in the next election in the ISLAMIC Republic of Iran - and kudos around the Muslim world."

"hey at least he was talking bout attacking israel."
You think that's a good idea? The Hamas are currently having their own realistaions about that matter.

a land forcibly taken from its original inhabitats. maybe they have it coming. so i guess the guy wasnt all wrong. was he ?"

One question I've oftened asked is why don't the Egyptians, give Sinai to their fellow Muslim Palestinians. They're not doing anything with it. The Palestinians would get better soils, waterside blocks on the Red Sea, mountain view estates, a huge amount of land much bigger than all of israel. etc. The Israelis graciously gave back the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt after their 1967 skirmish. Nothing is being done with it. Why not that area rather than the forsaken strip of desert they presently feel attached to.

He was talking about not just a war crime but a crime against the UN Charter. Yes, he was completely wrong. As expected - in your contrived hatred against a people who have never done you or any other BanglaDeshis harm - ` you cannot see that. You almost have to hate Jews don't you? I mean what sort of Muslim would you be if you didn't? Who could you blame all the Muslim world's troubles on otherwise? I do not hate jews, I do not hate anybody. I don't need to. Hatred is an emotional burden and like jealousy - eats its own heart.

>> GI wrote:
Let's see - the Jews have been there for several thousand years and have always had it as their homeland - and lived under Romans - then alongside Christians until the mid 700's when marauding Muslim militias from the newly started Islamic religion arrived from what is now Sauddi Arabia. They claimed the Jewish Temple Mount and the surrounding area and built a mosque on it - stating that this was the 'furthest mosque' mentioned that Mohammed had flown to in one night from Arabia on the back of a winged donkey with the face of a woman. They then went on to slaughter hundreds of thosands of people in North Africa or force therm to convert from Coptic Christianity to Islam.

So, whose place was it again?

"the jews have been there under the will of GOD. it was a covenant. their land and nationality was conditional upon them following god's law. they failed because they transgressed. book of lamentations and the deuteronomy states this. the talmud talks about this in detail. so if they lived in this land based on god's covenant, it must also mean they can be kicked out by god if they failed to uphold the covenant"
and how many times did they break the covenant? 3 times? 4 tiimes ? 10 times ?"
Again, God is not a legal clerk.
All Jews? Which promises? Or are you singling out individuals?
Does God forgive Jews too, if they broke a promise?

"their right on this land was based on god's contract with them. there was breach of contract. so there is no more claim over this land. other than this, there is no reason for the jewish claim over israel."

Not in the Koran - but there certainly is in other scriptures.

"..... this land may belong to whoever that lives there, but certainly not the jews."
We disagree.

>>
GI wrote:
So let's turn it around. If I told you someone had flown to your place 1400 years ago on the back of a large flying mammal and claimed it was a holy shrine of that person - what would you think? Would you just agree and let me take over your place?

"....but the problem is, youre the one telling me this."
You put the question to me - 'what if someone walked into my house and took it over ?' What would I do?

"ALLAH did not confirm it in the quran. since HE did not, i suggest you try profesions other than land law."
What are you - a robot? A lot of things were left out of the Koran - do you need instructions on everything?
. In any case I am not a land law professional.

>>
GI wrote:
I think you should have said that ' you do not reason without considerable argument'.
And your arguments are based on faulty premises."

"......and it is the nature of the kafir to deem what is appropriate and what is faulty without considering hs own fallacy."
Does it say that in the Koran too? What is the Kaffir's fallacy?

"and what makes my premise faulty? that i believe in ALLAH and HIS revelation? "
One of the several is you take things that are metaphorical as literal. By definition that makes you a 'fundamentalist' - as bad as Christian or Hindu fundamentalists.

"that i believe in the unseen? "
I believe in unseen things too - what does that make me?

".......obviousy being a kafir you lack humility for which you fail to see that for the INFINITE, everything is possible."
That would include the possibility that the kaffir is much more aware of and in touch with reality than the Muslim, who generally likes to criticise others with no justification and blame others for his plight while at the same time thinking he had some insight into what we would call 'God.'

>> GI wrote:
I did not mention the many and various beliefs of people neither was I talking about evolution. A logical argument is often described as "rational" if it is logically valid. The basis of the argument needs to be an initial fact - not an initial belief or wish that something was something it is not.

".........if i told a man that did not see rainbows in his life, that huge bows existed that stretch from one end to the other and had several colors, would he consider it logical to not believe or would he consider that it logical to believe me ?"

The man could consider it a possibility. If however I told that same man there is a gigantic pink rabbit sitting in a depression on one of the moons of Saturn and it is controlling everyone's thoughts on Earth - so well that they could never detect that this is what is happening - would that man believe me? Should that man believe me?

"......what more so if he were a color blind man?"
and what if the man had never seen even a normal rabbit?

"if i went to a man that never saw deep sea life and told him that a fish exists which glows like a styreetlight and uses bait to eat other fish, would he find me logical?"

100 years ago people would think i was illogical if i mentioned soundwaves and light wavesto them. so what is logic?
Logic is used to deduce information based on facts to arrive at a new hypothesis. Hypotheses can be tested to see if the assumptions are correct.
Implementing hypotheses leads to new discoveries. Discoveries lead to more facts in which yet newer hypotheses can be deduced and so on. A cycle of continuous refinement and improvement. This leads to improvements in the quality of life in every field. You use it (or should use it) every day.

"it definitely isnt a fixed thing as many skeptics believe. "
I don't know many sceptics who believe that. Information changes incessantly.

"logic is determined by the familiarity of different laws or dynamics."
logic allows us to infer from previosuly known facts.

".....with every new thing we discover or learn, we add another law to our logic".

Yes - exactly so,we agree. Although I would use the term 'premise' rather than 'law'.

"....what is logic to you? "
see above

".......and what makes you think that other things must abide by your logic or else it simply isnt logical?"
Logic doesn't belong to me. It is not 'mine'. We can use logic - we don't own it. If you are trying to say if new facts come along that conflict with what I had previosly assumed to be 'fact' - do I change my opinion? Of course .

>>
GI wrote:
but why can't you extend that concept to 'he does' ? Why the dogma that yours is the ultimate revelation? You cannot see the absurdity of that can you?

"....we would. only if HE said it was possible. according to ALLAH , muhammad peace be upon him is the seal of the prophets. the last and final messenger. so with islam, the chain of revelation has ended. we have all we need. this is HIS choice that the great prophet is the last prophet. we simply obey."

OK, we disagree on this crucial point. I say that 'God', or Supreme Intelligence or whatever label you give to it is continuously interacting with what we call 'reality'. There have been many 'prophets' and there always will be. In a sense, we are all 'prophets'.

>>
GI wrote
No - no smokescreen at all - although it did inadvertently bring out the raging division amongst Muslims.
Rephrase what I wrote - say a Sunni Imam in Banglasdesh says a fatwa to kill me because I do not believe at all that Mohammed was a prophet and another Sunni - in Egypt say - says no fatwa - I don't have to be killed.Who is right? (I'll go with the Egyptian) .Both cannot be.
But both think they know what 'Allah' wants. So it is a totally arbitrary system. The blind leading the blind.

"youll receive a fatwa to be killed only if you do something tht deserves a killing accordin to law of ALLAH. "
as interpreted by Muslim human beings .

"...otherwise imams do not have the authority to make up laws arbitrarily based on local norms or personal likings. if some imams do make up fatwas without support of quran and sunnah, that imam is not islamic at all. so before they make up a fatwa, there has to be permission for it in the sources (quran and sunnah).

So are you indicating the various sects of Islam do not have contradictory fatwas? But there is the possibility that that can occur. So therefore the system has nothing to do with 'Allah', is not what is wanted - and is a totally artifical system.

"if fatwas are not in compliance with quran and sunnah, the imam is to be blamed. not islam."
OK, Imams can therefore be misleading their followers.

>>
GI wrote:
"so you are neither a Sunni nor a Shia. I have heard of the 73 sects of Islam - whch are you if you care to tell?

".......in essence, you can call me sunni. sunnis follow the tradition of the prophet. we do this since ALLAH says in the quran that one should obey ALLAH and HIS prophet. the shias dont adhere to the sunnah or traditions of the prophet and so can be called deviants."

But if a Shia was asked - they'd say the same thing about Sunnis - so... where does that leave things? and all the other dozens of sects - they all think they are right of course. If you had been born in Iran - I wonder whether you would be a Sunni..

" i use sunni to identify myself to you and others to clear the confusion."
OK

>> GI wrote: that's fine for a mono-cultural, mono-religious society. But what if there was a Buddhist equivalent of the sharia - would you live under that? Government needs to be secular because otherwise the various religious self-interest groups would be vying for supremacy.

"ah the slippery notion of secularism. government feels it has to be secular since it holds all religion in equal status. but the study into the religions themselvs show their places. not all books claim that it is the last and final book meant for all humanity. they in fact clealrly suggest to wait for further instructions from god. if i fnally have the ultimate book, the previous ones become obsolete. so there and then ends the debate of which religion to follow. "

Here we go - a false premise. YOU say that - but what if others disagree with you? You might be 100% convinced you are right - but still, you might be wrong.
Others might think they have the newer , more improved 'revelation' again. And yet others might think the earlier one was the original and yours is a distortion. And yet others again may have no concept of any revelation and wonder what on earth you are going on about. I have an Afghani Sunni friend - a doctor who also agrees that separation of religion and state is a good thing. He has lived under several regimes - Afghanistan, Iran, Russia. That is his conclusion. Another bit of anecdotal evidence for you to consider.

Again -would you live nder the Buddhist equivalent of Sharia - if there was one?

"only in the quran does ALLAH say that the deen has been completed and is now meant for all people, instead of specific tribes or groups. no other book claims that."
The washing powder box in my laundry claims it gives the 'best and brightest wash' too. It is not based on fact - it's just a claim - to get me to buy that brand over another. People will say anything to try to influence others that their beliefs are correct. Mostly it's a security thing.

"islamic state takes into account these facts which a secular society turns a blind eye over.
....lets say now that i want to establish gospel laws or talmudic laws to buikld a society (altho thre are no shariah type of laws for them im just saying) ,"

OK

".... then if i fully and painstakingly follow every law from those books i will automaticcally become muslim."
No you won't! There would be no requirement to face mecca 5 times a day, or wash yourself a certain way, expect women to dress in a certain way, or incorporate Jinns and Genies and Buraqs or Faristas in what you held to be reality. None at all.

But if you just mean you would become one who has reconnected with their true nature - as a Buddhist would say, or that you are 'entering the Kingdom of Heaven' as a Christian might - that might not happen either if you're just following a bunch of rules. There is no guarantee.

"why? because ALLAH talks about muhammad and quran in those books too. and orders us to acceptthm when they come. see my point ?"
I see your pont but it's a fictitious claim that Mohammed is mentioned in the Bible as you seem to be saying. You would like to think that - but it is not true. Neither is Mohammed mentioned in the Upanishads or Gita or any Buddhist scripture.

"and on a diferent note, buddhism is not a religion. its more of a philosophy. it does not center around GOD. rathr on personal experiences. and as the rule is, true peace nirvana or bliss can never be acieved if to ALLAH one does not submit."

But Buddhists DO surrender to their original inner nature - which is pure and undefiled. That is the whole point! Leaving ignorance and arrogance behind,disentangling the mind from its impurities acheived by entanglement in 'samsara' . They also believe in unseen realties , in the Blessed realms of the Clear Light of the Buddhas etc. They hold their truths as much as you do yours.And like Muslims - they hold it with varying degrees of conviction.

"so it never was a case of many religions. religion always has been one."
and that certainly is not Islam. If I invent a new religion and call it 'Peace' does that mean it is necessarily peaceful - because it uses that word to self-describe? 'Islam' is a world religion - with all its dogmas and superstitions. The real 'religion is reconnection with the real Source - which is within us. All the great teachers have always said this. And they showed their followers how to re-connect. And it has nothing to do with external rules and regulations.

>> GI wrote That is not hypocritical . It ALLOWS its members to hold various religions and does not seek the dominance of any.

"this is a very slippery yet interesting topic. dont you see that a religion is not given its due if it is not allowed to dominate? what is religion? set of guidelines from ALLAH. yes?"

NO - that is wrong. Real 'religion - is the growing realisation that you've always been connected to this Source - and reconnecting to it - consciously.It has nothing to do with personal annihilation - but with merging your own consciousness with that Source. Awakening your true 'spiritual' nature (for want of a better term, couched as the word 'spiritual' is in so many negative connotations.) Call it self-actualisation - but nothing to do with the ego.

You can NEVER reconnect to it by merely following rules etc written in a book - no matter how good (or bad) that book is. The realisation involves a transformation of consciousness. This by necessity is an inner process - has nothing to do with words or even actions although some actions (wrong actions) will take you away from your inner goal.

" ok. look at the key word here :ALLAH. if what HE says does not dominate, harry truman certainly does not. see my reasoning ?"
Besides Truman not being alive - if 'Allah' is my original true nature - then 'he' doesn't need to 'say' anything. I would live from that understanding.

".....now the question is if indeed religion is to dominate, "
external religions do not need to nor should they 'dominate'

"then from seemingly all the thousans of them we have, which one ??"
the real one - which is not really religion at all - but which all religions are based on. And it is not Islam

>> GI wrote: It has arisen because of practicality. Imagine if the West was ruled by Christian fundamentalists - there'd be zero mosques in our cities.

"absolutely right you are. but fact is, the christians have no laws like the sharias"
Thank God. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was Mosaic law.

".like that of the muslims from quran. the message of christ was never final "
You would like to think that.

"and thus it never had a fully functional administrative machinery included in it."

He said "My kingdom is not of this world." . He was right - it is the kingdom of Soul.
Christ would never suggest stoning a woman to death for adultery. You might have heard Christ said - when confronted with a group of people who were about to do just that - 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Nor would Christ have suggested whipping people or cutting off their lims for insignificant property crimes.

"......allow me to add, that according to sharia, different religious groups in it are allowed to build their places of worship."
But not in Saudi , right. And with only grudging accomodation to that precept in Iran etc.

>>GI wrote:
and with all due respect - we DO have an innate ability to recognise truth.

"yes we do. i did mention something about a universal awareness actually, in my last post. but it is not always apparent. we are confused with lesser forms of awareness that cloud our judgenment."
OK, good - we agree again......

"serial killers may know it is bad to kill people, but they do still. "
Unfortunately some are so truly sick that they don't.
pedophiles molest children. in doing so, most find gratification. so even if they are aware of this perverse state of being, they program themselves or are programmed to interpret thoe feelings as somehow good."
.... and again

>> GI wrote :Awareness IS NOT information.
Most people are not aware that they are aware. If I asked you for a second to stop whatever it is you are doing, drop everything - and be aware of your awareness, you might have a momentary insight into the fact that you are aware. But as soon as you drop it - you're back into your mind's thoughts and everything going on in your life and you mistake that for awareness. We do not need BUNJIL to tell it to us in a book. That source is within us. We need to recognise that there are far deeper parts to ourselves that are totally in harmony and that expanded harmonious awareness ('the Kingdom of Heaven' which Mohammed doesn't speak about) is within us.

"i dint say awareness was information."
I know - I made that statement.
" i said awareness is accentuated and made clearer with information. It can be - it also can become clouded by it.a sailor might develop a sixth sense for feeling land. but if he never came across an iceberg hed be mistakenly drawn to it and thus meet his end. or lets say other like hazards at sea. or lets say, i meet a woman that looks like florence nightingale and she gives me all the vibes of a caring person. little do i really know that she has developed this venus fly trap attitude to ensnare idiots like myself to do ALLAH knows what with me."

Yes certainly possible - without clarity of mind and emotions - we attribute qualities to people which they do not have -or fail to see qualities (good and bad) that they do have.

"...what i am basically trying to say here is that all is always not what it seems."
I agree and ultimately , absolutely nothing is.

".....so despite having all these distractions , where we feel it may be one thing but it becomes another, we cannot say we dont need guidance from ALLAH. yes universl awareness shows us the truth but it is a weak beacon."
The inner truth becomes the brightest beacon, brighter than any book. That's why some people glow.

" we need reassurance. with cold facts. id personally feel much better if i have them.that where the quran comes in from ALLAH."
scriptures and books are merely a guide , not the end in themselves - and should be pointing you to an internal truth.and it's not one size fits all. Whereas your inner truth or true potential or whatever name we give to it - is tailor made for you.

>> "animals live moment to moment. "
GI wrote:
not relevant
"but it is very relevant. to live moment to moment would mean to abide by different circumstances adopting entirely different ways every time".
Requiring .a practical yet spontaneous response to every unique situation.
Basically, it means seeing everything with a fresh pair of eyes. I still eat cornflakes with a spoon each morning - but I'm aware it's a brand new day, a brand new moment.

We all live from moment to moment - we are in existence from one moment to the next. This is how it is. Our lives are strings of 'moments' and or interpretation of our experiences within those 'moments'. We can only ever be conscious 'now'.

" as a man, this seems highly degrading since it denies the sophisticated natures of man."
Actually experiencing 'now', being present without any qualifications or beliefs or prejudices - requires and heightens our 'sophistication'. It requires our full participation. It is not degrading at all - in fact just the opposite.

".... man has a plan. he goes by a plan. he does things for purpose. nd so tempers his life accoring to it."
A man should have a plan. And it should be a good one that at the very least causes no harm to individuals around him/her.

"............the purpose that animals have is to survive."
I'm glad you didn't say - '......is for us to eat them'. Some also have a sense of fun and a degree of self awareness.

>>GI wrote:
wouldn't say struggle though initially the mind tries to wrestle control. It is a matter of focus - focus on illusion - that becomes true for you. Focus on truth the illusion (and struggle) dissolves.

"....ok let me make it simple. why would anyone bother ? if they did not know that it is a process of elevation?"
Elevation ? Of consciousness? Why they would bother is - it's fun -and a wonderful voyage of personal discovery. And because it is the only thing that really improves the way you experience life. And because you are operating from closer to your true potential, automatically you help others - in subtle and not so subtle way.

"......and truth would come after illusion dissolves? so illusion has a place as much as the truth as you say?"
That is not what was said - illusion or confusion or 'maya' as the Hindus would call it comes from the mind's involvment in the 'world'.

".....then tht truth is not ultimate truth since it is clouded by yt another constatnt. illusion."

Illusion is not constant. The analogy is clouds passin the face of the Sun in the sky.

"so truth is something that has illsions in it."
If you are experiencing truth - there is no illusion in it. If you are experiencing illusion chances are you are unaware of itm and also unaware of truth . But you may still be aware that truth exists beyond the illusion. i.e. that your current state is unaware.

"and it has them for a purpose. the illusion is as much as the truth as what u think is true for you."
I am not saying that at all.

" im not concerned here is what is true for me or you or any other guy. im referring to the ultimate truth. GOD. the only way to be at peace with him is to know him. day to day.minute by minute . second by second."
right and where is that God - where do you perceive anything from ? Of necessity it is within (but not limited to) your own consciousness. Consciousness is primary. It is not dependent on anything. Books are symbols - written in characters that make a meaning in your mind. You could give me a Bible or Koran or anything written in Urdu to me - it would be a bunch of meaningless scribbles to me. I could give you a Bible or Koran or Zendavesta written in German - which I could read - but would be meaningless to you. Consciousness and meaning are the primary things. Not words, not books, not rules.

"and HU knows the best course of action for us to take. in islam, you just dnt search for truth, TRUTH comes to you too with more eagerness."
You find truth and truth finds you.

" thats what was revealed to Muhammad. there is interaction. by following HU's commands we interact with HIM . thats the way HU, the TRUTH set for us. we dont have a choice."

OK, but I and many others do not limit that interaction to one particular interpretation - devised at one particular time in one particular place - for one particular group. In 10,000 years time, Islam will not exist, nor will probably Christianity or Buddhism in their present forms for that matter. People will understand that all these teachings reflect the basic truth - that of their true inner being, the source of consciousness and their innate potential.

>>GI wrote:
Therefore the closer you are to 'Allah' the less likely you are to harm others - because for one, you realise there is no 'outside' so what you are doing to the apparent 'outside'

"the TRUTH is infinitely more complex than that. ok the truth has to be infinite."
and yet at the same time , truth is very, very simple.

"....... thats why it is the ULTIMATE. the ULTIMATE, by the way is another attribute of ALLAH. in arabic it is AL AAKHIR. being at peace with god dosent mean necesarily that i live in blissful ignorance or cowish ignorance like a farm animal. "

I should hope not!!! Blissful consciousness of necessity requires supreme wakefulness and awareness - in fact - 'super' consciousness you could term it.

"bliss from truth also has to better you. improve you. make u do things you never did or thought you could do. it gives you reasons and tells you what to do."
OK

"part of enjoying this bliss is gloryfying the truth that brought you bliss in the first place. the gloryfying can take different forms. it can mean raising a family, or planting trees, or building hospitals,
conscious, right action. or destroying harmful things. so if a person takes it upon himself to be bad and do bad, there is purpose in getting rid of him as well."

Part of being aware is about seeing the present without judgement. There is definitely no subscript about judging people despite how bad things might appear to people's egos.

>> GI wrote:
you are actually doing directly to yourself. And secondly - you have no motivation to harm others because you see how we are all connected.

"......so you wont hve any motivation to harm a man that might harm your family? "
that is not what was said. It means the mind has lost the intention or even the capacity to rob, cheat or steal or malign other people. Protection of other people or self is another thing.

"truth has set it as such that in order to restore balance, one must be ready to harm the deserving individuals as well. fact. truth allows you to accept basic law easily."
I have no problem with that and indeed have ability to protect myself or other individuals. Experiencing truth does not require you to not protect yourself. However, personally, you have to be tolerant and not strike out at anything because it gets in your face. You have to allow for other people's ignorance.

>> GI wrote:
Thirdly - you have a conscious recognition of the beauty of life and the uniqueness of everyone you meet.
"....yes. cannibals are unique too, if u learn to accept their reasoning."
That is picking an extreme, a circumstance which is not in usual day to day life. Everything is unique. How cannibals think is just a phenomena. There is no beauty in it as far as I can see and their reasoning would not be accepted by a conscious individual as it is totally against instinctively held universal values for one thing.Then again, if you were one of those Argentinians 20 or so years ago who were forced to eat the dead bodies of their companions who died in a plane crash,
you might see the necessity of cannibalism. The point I was making is that if you are truly living in the moment you are consciously aware that each moment is totally unique, that this little bit of history which you are now creating has not happened before and never will again - and that you should do your best in interacting with it.

"everything is beautiful,"
Looked at from the right perspective - it could be. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But would I see a 20 tonne truck 5 metres away, travelling at 100kph , headed straight for me as beautiful? I hardly think so.

." but not every beauty is good for you. swinging is a beautiful thing too but its not good. if i appreciated all kinds of beauty in life, id be in chaos. man is creature of order."
If you have no truth or beauty in life and just 'order' then you are not really living.then

>> Fourthly - you live consciously , moment to moment, with the insight that no dogma or beliefs that your mind clings to are 'right' for anyone else.

"i follow dogma. it is purposeful. like i said, animals live moment to moment. not joining the dots. not reading between the lines."
You do not have to follow a dogma. The purpose of dogma is to get you beyond dogma - to the direct realisation of truth.

>>

BTW which 'ayahs' did he say that in?"

"the hadith of the prophet : whoever knows himself, knows GOD."

Could you find that particular reference ? And why did he not focus on that. This is what Socrates said - and all teachers . That alone is THE truth.

"and this is what ALLAH says about the self in the quran :It is WE WHO created man, and WE know what dark suggestion his soul makes to him: for WE are nearer to him than his jugular vein."

I've wondered about this - who is this 'WE'

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".