What a lovely post from the too rarely seen Bramble.
However, I hope that Bramble will not take it amiss if I try to summarise Bramble's summary of Sriram's long-winded post and state what I think are the main points a little more concisely, which to my mind are:
- that Sriram posts what he likes (which is entirely fair enough - don't we all); however:
- Sriram, you claim not to be bothered that anybody agrees with you;
- you claim not to care about explaining yourself;
- you claim not to care about providing reasons for anything you post;
- you claim not to care about being understood even if not agreed with;
all of which beget the question, why bother? In light of the preceding - and especially no. 3 on your list - why are you here and what do you think you are doing?
No. 4 is especially irksome:
In spite of the fact that most people on this board are atheists with no background at all of Hindu spirituality, I continue to post on such matters only to introduce them to such ways of thinking because they are different from the Western and Christian spirituality that they have been exposed to. If people have a problem with it, I can't help it. I know these subjects may make people uncomfortable. People may find it difficult to brush them off as easily as they enjoy brushing off Christian mythology. I however think that it is important that I continue to introduce people to such thoughts in spite of their reluctance to understand them.
as an example of displacement activity as well as arrogant assumption. (How do you know that somebody has "no background at all" of what you call 'Hindu spirituality'?).
Not believing you is not "having a problem with".
Not believing you is not being "uncomfortable with".
Not believing you is not "being reluctant to understand".
You are falling into the trap of many a religionist who thinks that disagreement or disbelief in their ideas is the fault of the one who disagrees, rather than the fault of the ideas themselves. If I had a pound for every time I've seen a religionist - usually a theist - confuse my dislike of their worldview for what they like to assume is my ignorance of their worldview, I wouldn't be a rich man, but I would be considerably more comfortably off than I am at present.
Take-home message: it really isn't always about "You don't understand what I'm saying"; it's often "Yes, I do understand what you're saying; I just don't believe a blind bloody word of it. You haven't furnished me with a single reason to think that anything you've said is in any way true."
And that, to many a religionist, is the truly intolerable thing.
