Don’t bow down to the beliefs of others. We all have a say, not just the ones with the big mouths.

You go girl!

I never knew it !!!

BTW…In which age do you live in ?Paleogene,Cretacious or Jurassic ?

But you are a joke

A rude joke at that

Its entry on Bauls is the best I’ve seen on the matter given the space constraints. If I were you, I’d read it and bow to its superior knowledge on the matter.

If that article is the best on Bauls then I salute your judgement.

I always bow to superior knowledge

hehe

Acually, its been obvious since your first post that you are the Hindu version of Bikhair. But there’s room for everyone on this blog, I’m sure.

As to whether I trust the Wikipedia or not – you must be unaware that it has become the de facto reference. Its entry on Bauls is the best I’ve seen on the matter given the space constraints. If I were you, I’d read it and bow to its superior knowledge on the matter.

Yeah, they’re called religious bigots. There’s no end to them. But pointing to the differences of religions and the relative inconsistencies and invalidities is the easiest thing to do as well as the most retarded. Much more difficult is to recognise the metaphysical parallels between them.

Revealed and codified !!!!! You are a masterpiece.

Where in the Upanishads does it say anything about the Unity of faiths? The fact is no religious text does

Since you are a sophisticated version of Bikhair i wont quote anything. Go and read it.

As for your statements regarding the Bauls – the link to the wikipedia site itself will clear you of your illusions

Huh. You trust encyclopedias. Wikipedia at that .

You’re right, Sikkhism is the exception to the rule. And I agree with your statement ealier:

In that sense, Sikhism isn’t an rganised, “separate” religion in the orthodox meaning of the term — one isn’t supposed to differentiate between people based on their religious affiliation (if any).

Which is why it has the unique position to be able to refer to this Unity.

=>”Looks like you’re busting a gut at trying though.”

No, I was just trying to answer Sonia’s question objectively based on whatever knowledge I have on the subject. There are plenty of people around who no doubt know far more than I do about this issue, of course, and they should really be the ones to respond to her query.

=>”in the Upanishads does it say anything about the Unity of faiths? The fact is no religious text does.”

This is incorrect — Sikhism is explicit in the concept of the “Unity of faiths”. Read the 3rd paragraph on my post no. 237 again.

=>”all the major world religions have been “revealed”.

Again, this is incorrect. Sikhism is not a “revealed” religion in the traditional Abrahamic sense of the term.

And these religions are practiced by how many today? Where in the Upanishads does it say anything about the Unity of faiths? The fact is no religious text does. It has been the function of intelligent people in this day and age (people who you have proudly said you have not read) to see the parallels because all the major world religions have been “revealed”. This was not the case when the Upanishads were codified.

As for your statements regarding the Bauls – the link to the wikipedia site itself will clear you of your illusions.

Looks like you’re busting a gut at trying though. I could take on your points but these theological debates of the validity of one particular faith is bound to turn ugly and this is not the forum for it, as you yourself said earlier.

Nope. I am never bound by any “ism” or “va” or any political types.

But to glance over some of your retorts, the Upanishads does not delve into Unity of religion because it was written before many of the religions came into being!

As I have said earlier I appreciate your intelligence. But you are unfamiliar with Upanishadsand ancient history.Religion of Babylonians, Greeks, Persians and many other Indian Sects coincide Upanishad. It is never enimical to any religion or faith. The idea of Transdental Religion was non-existent before Upanishad

And finally, from what you say about Bauls, looks like your preconceptions got the better of you

Go and pick up any book on folk culture of Bengal. Your misconceptions will get erased permanently.

=>”what i would actually be interested in finding out more about is where the mullahs come up with half of their rules..it wouldn’t surprise me if they made half of them up!”

That’s the whole damn point. We’re obviously not here on PP to “debunk” any particular religions (quick disclaimer before Sunny ambushes us), but — as far as I know — the clerics are predominantly basing their rules on the Hadiths, which are allegedly “sayings” of Mohammad along with examples of his behaviour in various scenarios. The Hadiths were not written by Mohammad himself. So what we’re talking about is a) second-hand accounts, b) writings which were not regarded as being “direct” divine revelations, c) highly subjective viewpoints & interpretations, and d) this issue is complicated further by the orthodox view that everything Mohammad said and did was divinely controlled — so they view the contents of the Hadiths as sacred even though only the Quran was claimed to be of divine origin by Mohammad.

Shariah is of course also based on the Quran (along with the Hadiths), but the problem here is that Mohammad did not write the Quran himself — he dictated it to other people — and the fact that the various chapters are actually in a different order from the sequence in which he supposedly received his revelations.

Anyway, like I said earlier, I’m not here to debunk anything or deliberately insult people; but hopefully this answers your question about the possible lack of authenticity.

I don’t believe all (or even most) of the “old Indian proverbs” either, but I think the analogy in this particular case refers to balancing between 2 boats in parallel, with oneself hovering over the water in-between — which can obviously be a precarious position, even more so if the boats start moving in opposite directions.

I think it’s a good example with regards to the religious scenario we’ve all been discussing here.

I think people often get confused by the word communist because they mistakenly confuse it with the former Soviet bloc. People should bear in mind that Stalinism was not comunism, and in fact was no ideloogy at all, simply a reactionary bureaucracy controlling and repressing people through a police state.

This is not what the WCI stand for; they desperately want to overthrow the Iranian government and create social democracy in its place. this is an admirable aim, and it is understandable that people in a potentially pre-revolutionary situation would want to use Marxist ideas.

No problem…I couldn’t understand a comment like that from someone who normally writes things that I agree with

Explains a lot. Linking an article to that pseudo-scholar bigot Yusuf Smith !!

Post no. 221

But be aware that I don’t follow any faith nowadays.

Post no. 231

If I defend Islam its because as a Muslim I am qualified to..

Does anybody notice the contradiction ?