That there is no use of them, beyond them. As you yourself have exemplified with your example of dogs with chemistry names. Yet elsewhere, you keep claiming that such use exists!
so chemistry somehow becomes less since it doesn't comfortably accommodate the same laws when you name dogs after compounds?
No one said it does. You are the only one implying such a thing. Chemistry is useful for chemistry. Religion is useful for religion. Etc. Beyond its field of application, a body of knowledge and skills is, generally, useless. There may be some such use in the form of transferrence (eg. a diligent mathematician also being a diligent piano player), but this is neither predictable nor reliable.
Did you, as a result of something I said, turn your life upside down? I don't think so, and you never indicated such; in fact, just the opposite. You have always carried yourself with the same air of certainty. But I did turn my life upside down, as a result of the things you said. This is not to say that you are responsible or at fault, just that were it not for you, I would have not done those things. I changed my diet, my sleep patterns, I took up some kind of spiritual practice and persisted in it for some two years, spend a lot of money on new books and photographs, crafted new items (such as malas and special bags), went to religious meetings and associated with people I would otherwise not even remotely approach. I took to learning a new philosophy, a new vocabulary. This April, when our cat was dying, I chanted to him all along. What change did I bring into your life? What impact did I have on your life? In what important situations in your life did you refer to things you heard from me? You are not the one to cry foul here.
I'm not sure how all this makes you exempt from invalidating my posts or takes the sting out of your numerous generalizations about theists as a class
I think you make many unwarranted generalizations about my comments. You sometimes see generalizations where there aren't any. I make an effort to qualify my comments with "If, ... then," but you often seem to not see those clauses.
take a look at what you write about the sampradaya and compare that to how many one on one conversations you have had with an actual representative of it
I'm afraid that in this matter, your emotions are clouding your reason. Simply because I question a particular idea does not mean that I am caricaturing it or disrespecting it or anyone connected to it. Granted, in some circles, any questioning is considered an act of disrespect ... And to be clear: What specifically did I write about the sampradaya that offends you so much?
I'll repeat: How many one on one conversations have you actually had with a representative of guru disciplic succession?
1. Please copy-paste the passages from my posts that you find offending, so that I can know what exactly you mean. 2. None. The very attempts to come to the point of having a conversation with a guru have shown that in order to qualify to have a conversation with such a person at all, considerable qualifications are required. None of which I have. Qualifications such as faith that the guru is of the right tradition; getting along with devotees and being favorably viewed by them; believing that the tradition is authoritative (even to the point of considering it divine and infallible); being expert in scriptures. Gurus do not hold office hours for the general population. To come to the point of being able to talk to a guru at all, requires that one in effect be a member of the organization he is of. This is what I have been talking about at the forums - that I do not think this is fair.
practically anything you said using the word "initiation" Certainly there are some things one can do to make it more likely but all this talk of being qualified to talk to a guru is simply on par with your statements about initiation and what not. Perhaps one can talk of being suitably experienced to launch into a relevant critique of religious institutions and their societies, which would be a type of qualification I guess... but then that's just common sense .... since part of presenting a relevant critique is to have a reliable knowledge base and/or experience and this is what I have been saying all along. You form these arguments in your head that your try to prop up as logical but, taken at there very best, they are merely anecdotal
I think I have analyzed my situation adequately. For me (or someone in a similar situation as myself) to get initiated would require the kinds of things (such as blind faith) I have been talking about. I never suggested that everyone who gets initiated would have to do such things as I (or someone in a similar situation as myself) would have to. Such generalizations are your own doing. I have made an effort to do what theists have told me to do. It didn't work out, I didn't come to the convictions and experiences I was supposed to come to. If I would be found dead, having strangled myself with the japa mala, would you then believe that I was miserable when chanting? Or would you just say that I simply didn't try hard enough, and this is all there is to it?
