| |
|
No. Can't leave this alone. Too much of the Loki in me this week I think.
Do you just want to jump on me and argue with me Gypsy Lantern?
I actually made a concerted effort to be very nice to you in my last post.
Why the hell are you asking me to debate someone else's opinion?
Because you posted this opinion in a discussion forum - which sort of implies that you wished to debate it.
It was someone else's statement, not mine. If you don't get it, fine. I am not going to beat my head against your wall.
I don't get it because it has been quoted without any context and it's meaning is unclear. I don't know why you have posted such a thing, or why Rinpoche might have said such a thing. I'm sure he had good reason, but you're not really conveying it to me. I've explained what I don't understand about it, at length, in my last post. You don't seem very interested in explaining yourself and I'm increasingly confused as to the point of this bizarre conversation.
You see, the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa both recognize Rinpoche, (part of what that title implies, btw) and have a close, personal connection with him.
Look, I couldn't give a monkeys whether your mate gets shafted up the arse by a gold coated Buddha every Christmas. I'm not attacking him, or you, or anyone else. I am criticising two dubious and unsubstantiated statements that have been made on this board. There is a big difference between me saying "Rinpoche is an idiot" and me saying "whoever said that sounds like a bit of an idiot". The difference being that I have never fucking met Rinpoche and know nothing about him and he never even fucking said it in the first place. Can you see how mad this is?
The statement: "The Norse gods held a very low form of magic" sounds like the words of an ignorant, arrogant fuckwit and deserves a critical response. The statement: "The Norse tradition is not transcendental" is unclear and needs further elaboration if you want me to respond to it. But you seemingly don't now... Which confuses me further.
Maybe you can explain to me where the comprehensive teaching is in Norse tradition, that takes the Asatru beyond the Nine Worlds of Yggdrasil, thus transcending cyclic existence?
As I said: You are "defining "transcendence" entirely in terms of Eastern spirituality and constructing a straw man argument around the lack of Eastern spiritual values and Eastern methods of attainment in Northern magico-religious tradition." Did you actually read any of my last post before you launched this attack on me?
the rest of the Norse pantheon seems to be caught up in ego trips and warring with each other rather than transcending their constant grasping to fulfill their own immediate desires. How is that in anyway transcendental by any definition of the word?
You're really not following this in any sense are you.
Your ego is way out of order here. I think you are starting to get off on the ego-stoking intellectualism of a cyberspace message board. Take a step back from yourself (and the board) I think you may comprehend what I mean.
Glass houses.
I'm just a bloke posting his thoughts about magic and trying to get an interesting conversation. I fucking despise ego stroking, and would be far happier if my opinions were viciously, mercilessly and critically picked apart on a regular basis. I want challenging, intelligent and informed debate. It doesn't happen often enough on here these days, to be honest, and I'm finding that really tedious. The last thing I want is to be surrounded by a bunch of idiots who agree with me all the time.
I do have a confrontational posting style, but it is not "bullying". It is an attempt to bring some level of criticism and intellectual rigour to a subject area that is rife with unsubstantiated claims, unquantifiable statements and second hand assumptions. They are my enemy. I will fight them.
If you, or anyone else, disagrees with something I write on here, then why can't you actually argue your point and engage with what I'm saying? Why does the bullying card or the ego trip card always have to be played? Why can't you intelligently defend... or even explain... your position when it is faced with criticism? What part of "discussion forum" do you people not understand?
Take a step back, have another look at the points I'm trying to make. I'd like to think you may comprehend what I mean, but I'm not going to hold my breath. |
|
|
