--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > And to mention Robin - I don't see him writing at the > > > > > > > > moment - I think he should read Aurobindo, Life Divine > > > > > > > > for example, because a lot of what he says relates to > > > > > > > > that, what his main objection to Advaita was, the > > > > > > > > Impersonal. Aurobindo addresses exactly these points, > > > > > > > > but from a typical Indian perspective, not a Christian > > > > > > > > one. So he might be interested in his solution of the > > > > > > > > problem Personal vs Impersonal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that's meant as a joke. Because if it's serious, it > > > > > > > demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of Robin's > > > > > > > POV regarding the Impersonal. (That ignorance would be > > > > > > > pretty amusing on its own terms, albeit unintentionally.) > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not surprised you don't understand. > > > > > > > > > > You're having reading comprehension problems again. It's > > > > > you who doesn't understand. > > > > > > > > So, did you read Aurobindo's Life Divine? Or do you have > > > > anything constructive to say apart from childish retorts? > > > > > > You mean, childish retorts like "I'm not surprised you don't > > > understand"? > > > > That was the one you asked for. > > Or a childish retort like "That was the one you asked for"? > > > > No, I haven't read Life Divine. > > > > I thought so. > > > > > I'm going by your description > > > of it, which, for anyone who understands Robin's POV, rules > > > out any possible interest on Robin's part. > > > > Translation: I have nothing constructive to contribute, > > Translation: Letting navashok know he's wrong about something > is not anything he considers constructive.
So how exactly would you know he is wrong, not having read the book? Navashok thinks that this book, or one of the other books by Aurobindo, could be useful/interesting to Robin. Why not let Robin decide, if he follows this suggestion or not? Since you don't even know about what the book is. Almost none of your posts is constructive. Because you are always so guarded to not actually say something concrete, so you always have a back-door and can twist it later, to 'win' your arguments. > > > but since it's all about Robin I am the expert anyway. > > I sure know more about Robin than navashok. > > > And since I have now detected who Navashok is > > Knew from your second post this time around. > > > I can go about my usual game with him. > > Navashok's usual game with Judy has never been very > successful. >
