Vmarco

Not once have I ever used a quote to tell me how the world is,...I use quotes to show you how muddy your experience is. Of your posts, more than a hundred in over a year, you have not once indicated anything even close to clarity. I suggest let's have a meaningful dialogue,...start a serious thread on the Heart Attack Sutra,...use it as what you're against, instead of other posters. Let's see how clear you really are. Let's use a guide to enlightenment, through which enlightenment can actually be uncovered. I agree, that your responses to my post are prompted by your fear and competitiveness. I loathe competitiveness. Competition is not only a distraction to spirituality, but has an inherently hostile, us verses them mentality that is contrary to the true nature of basic human beingness. Competition is about as natural and needed as the Abrahamic religions. Just as there is no such thing as healthy delusion or a healthy religion, there is no healthy competition. Competition does not build character, it reinforces low self-esteem. Competiion encourages animosity, envy, hostility, hate, war, and illiberalism. The synonyms of competition include contention, rivalry, conflict, strife, struggle and combativeness. For competition, there is only a winner if their is a loser When viewed integrally, competition undermines all healthy human enterprises. Competition reinforces a psychological dependence on external, object-ive activities. In a competitive society only the winner is good enough. Success is seen through defeating others, not cooperation. Harvard Business School professor Dr. Teresa Amabile, author of Creativity in Context and Growing Up Creative, has given much attention to team creativity, organizational innovation, assessing creativity and motivation.. In one experiment she had two groups make artistic collages. One group competed for prizes through a contest, while the other was unaware of any competition. The art was then independently judged by seven professionals. Those competing for prizes were considered much less creative and complex than the non-competitive crafted collages. Social psychologist Alfie Kohn pointed out in his impressive 'No Contest - The Case Against Competition' a multitude of negative effects of competition, many of them subtle. Kohn articulates that competition arises from four myths. First, the "survival of the fittest", which really manifests a purpetual struggle in society. Second, that competition builds character. Yet it has been shown that only those with low self-esttem require competitive activities. People with high self-esteem has no need to externally prove anything or beat others. Thirdly, that competition is fun. Competition reduces spontaneous play to superiority/humiliation dynamic. Fourthly is the fallacy that competition increases productivity. However, study after study shows that cooperation, not competition, leads to higher levels of achievement. "That most of us consistently fail to consider the alternatives to competition is a testament to the effectiveness of our socialization." Alfie Kohn How could a truely loving parent put their children in competitive surroundings? For me, I never hesitated to play games with my kids. For example, we'd occasionally play the word game known as Scrabble. It wasn't played competitively, but cooperatively. We didn't take part to beat each other, but to continually see how many overall maximum points could be extracted from our play. We would help and encourage each other to find fantastic words. We would use a dictionary to learn new words and their suggested meanings. Competitive contests encourage division, thus reinforcing the illusion of separation. As long as the belief that we are separate is clung to, we keep our sapiential mind obscured, and our thymus glands atrophied. Competition stimulates physical aging. Cooperation on the other hand, not only perpetuates an enhancing of human potential, but promotes a healthy relationship with humanity and our environment.

I can assure you, there is no enlightenment to found in the Bible,...in the 80's I was considered one of the top 20 experts on Early Christianity by the Westar institute. I'm quite certain, because he says so, that the Dalai Lama is not enlightened, nor has any real understanding of compassion.. The Hua Hu Ching, by Lao-zu is an excellent example of an enlightened work. My favorite however is the Heart Sutra, which is a dharma gate for anyone desireous to wake up. I use quote for several reasons,...none of which is to promote the quotes source. The foremost two reasons is that irritates arrogant Sheeple, and it lends an impersonsalness to my posts.

Far too many dishonesties to respond to,...however, you did imply you are enlightened by describing some New Age ideas about what an enlightened person needs and does. My response to your ignorance was quite justified. "Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace." Dalai Lama

The most important symptom of ascension is a noticeable change in one's attachment to the descension. That is to say,...there is an awareness that what one thought was meaningful is actually meaningless. It is a preparation to transcend the delusion of caterpillarness, and be a butterfly.

This thread is still active???? The blind comforting the blind with more blindness. Is anyone at TTB ready to wake up? http://thetaobums.com/topic/25837-i-am-attached-to-my-sufferings-and-dramas-and-dont-want-to-let-them-go/page__st__34

First,...Electromagnetic is a Seventeenth century term that is both obsolete, and implies a distorted view of the two-way electric fields in nature. People who use the word electromagnetic remind me of my mother who calls a refrigerator an icebox. Second,...Undivided Light contains no energy (realize what occurs at the so-called speed of light, the conditions of time, mass, energy, etc cease to exist. The impermanent nature of divided light, the electrodynamic spectrum, is all about energy, and the motion to return to the Stillness of Source, the Tao.

"How different nature must have appeared to the Greeks if, as we have to admit, their eyes were blind to blue and green." Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak See post #695 http://thetaobums.com/topic/25582-religion-is-the-poison-of-spirituality/page__st__695

The Bible says that about six thousand years ago, the Hebrew Elohim destroyed the Middle East (Joshua 24:2–3) by way of a great flood because that area of creation "repented" them. After this onslaught of destruction, the gods said to Noah, "We have set our rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between us and every living creature with you on earth. When we bring a cloud over the earth, a rainbow shall appear" (Genesis 9:13–14). Everyone reading this must have seen a rainbow at least once. For a moment, visualize that rainbow from Genesis, as it was seen then. Can you imagine the colors as Noah saw them? Frankly, what I ask is quite improbable, but history does leave us some hints of the characteristics of the rainbows in those days. In Daybreak, Friedrich Nietzsche comments, "How different nature must have appeared to the Greeks if, as we have to admit, their eyes were blind to blue and green." Yes, quite different indeed, or were you thinking that the rainbow of Genesis and others mentioned during the Abrahamic Times had seven colors? You should not assume things or believe what you think. Assumptions and beliefs are the delusions of the sciential mind. Homer, in the Iliad, describes the rainbow as having just one color. However, Xenophanes, the teacher of Parmenides, saw three colors in the phenomenon of a rainbow: purple, red, and a yellow-green. Later, in the meteorological treatise Meteorologica, written circa 340 BCE, Aristotle concurred that "the rainbow has three colors." Thus, through that seemingly bichromatic vision, this was how the rainbow and narrow visible spectrum of our ancestors was represented in science, literature, and art until the Renaissance. Isaac Newton and Johann Goethe both developed color theories that included the seven prismatic hues that most of us currently see. Towards a Theory of Colour (Farbenlehre) was, according to Goethe, his most important work in which he sought to understand the many physiological aspects of color in visible light. Visible light, that which is visible to the naked human eye, is a narrow band within the electrodynamic spectrum. The electrodynamic spectrum includes all known waves, from high-frequency gamma rays to low-frequency radio waves. Somewhat with Goethe, what if we could raise our cognizance of the seamless mosaic that is full-spectrum consciousness. Such would lead us not to a seven-color optical spectrum, but nine distinct wavelengths or hues of a rainbow. These nine colors, when we are awake to our perception, bring a fuller awareness of our authentic selves and a more integral meaning of life from the point of view of undivided light. Yes, object-ivists will sneer at such an idea, just as pre-renaissance object-ivists would have mocked any discussion of seven colors. I suggest that the ability to view the nine rays of the visible spectrum isn’t a matter of evolving into a tetrachromatic vision, which many mammals, birds, and fish have, but a simple shift in our trichromatic vision, in which red, green, and violet are the primary colors of light, instead of the red, green, and blue with which we are familiar. (Note, that we are discussing light, not pigment.) In other words, this shift in primary colors, the detecting of a different quality and quantity in the quanta of divided light, will not arise through transmutation, but through transcendence. The physiology is already there.

Interesting question if you reduce it. Who is this "I'....that wants to "be true" to the I that you think you are? Is that a way to uncover the Tao? Did not Lao-zu say, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth." Lao-zu said, "to eliminate the vexation of the mind, it doesn't help to do something; this only reinforces the minds mechanics (monkey mind). Dissolving the mind is instead a matter of not-doing: simply avoid becoming attached to what you see and think (the 6 senses). Knowing nothing, you will be aware of everything."

As mentioned above,....Chögyam Trungpa said, "Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces."

I'd very much enjoy dialoguing with those who are impeccable with thier words,...that would be real to me. Those who express their personal feelings,..their 6 sense nonsense,...are not real. #687 summerizes my view on consideration quite well,....but for you, it may require a little more specificity. Gurdjieff said, "...consider externally always, internally never." This is obviously concerning Relative Considering; although when fully understood, is likely to uncover Absolute Considering. “Truth lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.” Goethe To consider externally means to consider from the point of view of that which is perceived to be external. Whereas internal considering is mostly about ego. Gurdjieff had a term he called the Chief Feature; a persons largest barrier obscuring their spiritualized/actualized self. He said the Chief Feature is usually what one likes best about oneself. He also purportedly said that the Chief Feature for most people is Internal Considering. External Considering would seek to understand things before judging it. Gurdjieff said, "External considering requires a knowledge of men, an understanding of their tastes, habits, and prejudices. At the same time external considering requires a great power over oneself, a great control over oneself. " Few people fully Consider Externally or empathize with others in a unconditional, non-humanist way,...that is, not filtered through the 6 senses. Absolute Considering necessitates an understanding of what Buddhism calls Dependent Origination,...that everything is dependent on everything else. Consider what Peace on Earth would look like. Would it be a society of bearing, believing, hoping and enduring,...as in the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; for example, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7? Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is quite acceptable to the faith-based groupthink, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs. Would a World at Peace have signs that read "Beware of Dogs," the ownership of vicious breeds for protection, or people obsessed with assault guns? In the US alone, nearly 5 million people report being attacked by dogs every year, and 1,000 people go to emergency rooms every day as a result of a dog attack. In North America, thousands are shot every year with assault weapons, precipitaing more police, fear, subconscious aggression towards others, and a non-peaceful culture. Would an Externally Considerate person own a vicious breed? The State of Maryland recently declared pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds as "inherently dangerous." Interestingly, some data suggests that the State of Hawaii has the largest pit bull and vicious breed population per capita. Paradise takes "Kill Haole Day" quite seriously, as those familiar with Hawaiian News know that there is actually very little true aloha in the islands. In the 8th Century, Shantideva said, "All the joy the world contains, Has come through wishing happiness for others. All the misery the world contains, Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself." Obviously, Shantideva was aware of External Considering. What would Lao-tzu say about "External Considering always, Internal Considering never?" Lao-tzu said, "A superior person cares for the well-being of all things...looking at herself or another, she sees the samething....Caring for them, she knows that she cares for herself. Giving to them, she knows she gives to herself. At peace with them, she is always at peace with herself." Did Lao-tzu teach external Considering? Lao-tzu purportedly said, "To embrace all things means also to that one rids oneself of any concept of separation....division is contrary to the nature of the Tao....keep your mind free of divisions and distinctions." Is that the same as "rid oneself of Internal Considering"? Lao-tzu said, "Who can enjoy enlightenment and remain indifferent to suffering in the world? This is not keeping with the Way?" Would an authentic Taoist own a vicious breed canine,...a room of assault weapons,...adding to the suffering, fear, aggression, terrorism in the World?

First,..you are not enlightened, and thus have no idea what an enlightened man does. Second, as discussed before, you have no clue what compassion is,...so why do you continue to insst you do? Nearly everyone appears to have a notion of what the term compassion implies from a relative view. However, for a Short Path practioner it points to something that very few different. Kenchen Thrangu Rinpoche: said, "...everbody thinks that compassion is important, and everyone has compassion. True enough, but the Buddha gave uncommon quintessential instructions when he taught the methods for cultivating compassion, and the differences are extraordinarily important." HH Dalai Lama said, "If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara" The Bodhicharyavatara says, "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible." Was the Dalai Lama really expressing such a thing,...that without the realization of emptiness, the true practice of compassion is impossible? In his commentary on the Dalai Lama's The Four Noble Truth's, Robert Thurman said, "Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible." Well, such a definition of compassion surely does not match the Western view, nor that of the Abrahamic religions. Chögyam Trungpa said, "Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces." Whoa! That seems to suggest compassion can be seen as intolerant for those who cling to sentient beingness for their identity. Shouldn't compassion be a warrior for all faith-based agendas, both hesitating and inhibiting light from shining on everything? The Heart Sutra implies only through the understanding that Form is Empty, and Empty is Form; can one act as a Bodhisattva. For her, compassion is a natural consequence of direct realization, not something formulated through human conditions. Bodhisattva's, and those who aspire to be a Bodhisattva, take a vow to dedicate themselves to the liberation of all sentient beings. Thus, would a Bodhisattva be tolerant of what steps between sentient beings and their direct experience? Sharon Salzberg said, "Sometimes we think that to develop an open heart, to be truly loving and compassionate, means that we need to be passive, to allow others to abuse us, to smile and let anyone do what they want with us. Yet this is not what is meant by compassion. Quite the contrary. Compassion is not at all weak. It is the strength that arises out of seeing the true nature of suffering in the world. Compassion allows us to bear witness to that suffering, whether it is in ourselves or others, without fear; it allows us to name injustice without hesitation, and to act strongly, with all the skill at our disposal. To develop this mind state of compassion...is to learn to live, as the Buddha put it, with sympathy for all living beings, without exception." Sympathy arising from what? Is the Buddha's compassion desirous for sentient beings to make their suffering more palatable by not allowing light to shine upon the causes of suffering? 　 Sogyal Rinpoche tells us that the practice of Tonglen depends upon our ability to awaken within ourselves the reality of compassion. Just as we cannot perform the Unity Breath until we can feel Love, we cannot practice Tonglen until we truly can feel compassion. (Tonglen can be described as breathing-in someones suffering, and breathing-out a non-suffering vibration. However, only real compassion can gnow what out-breath is a non-suffering vibration). Only from a relative point of view would compassion be synonymous with pity. Compassion, Sogyal Rinpoche warns, is much more difficult to achieve than we might think. However, to realize Full Spectrum Consciousness in a single lifetime, we must do all we can to uncover absolute compassion. Fortunately, various instructions have been left to uncover the nature of compassion beyond the 6 senses. The Heart Sutra for example, concludes with the unsurpassed mantra, which all Buddhas of the three times have realized: Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha! This definition of Tathagata is best translated as "to go, to come, beyond going and coming, into complete going and coming, where enlightenment is welcomed" Or as Lao Tzu said, "the Tao doesn't come and go." A suggestion,...carefully read the 2012 commentary "the Heart Attack Sutra" by Karl Brunnholzl,....before responding to my posts again.

Hui Neng reportedly scolded his monks for spending too much time sitting in meditation....He said that meditation is unnecessary, and warned that such practice can easily become a narcotic. Some Buddhists say take refuge in sahaja, which is not preoccuppied with meditation or yoga techniques, is a permanent and effortless state of realization. Kagyu, the fourth stream of mastery, says, "In a state of non-meditation, you attain Mahamudra." "The state of non-meditation is born in the heart...." Jigme Lingpa To uncover the Heart,...through away all techniques. A Buddhist story tells of a student who wished to make an offering to Siddhartha Gautama and so brought a flowering branch to a gathering. As the pupil approached, Siddhartha said to him, "Throw it away." Quickly, thinking he was supposed to discard the branch, the pupil threw it away. Yet Siddhartha again said, "Throw it away." The student could not comprehend what he was supposed to do. Siddhartha then said, "Throw yourself away." And the novice stood there confounded, pondering how he could throw himself away. If the student had his "I am" before his "i think," there would not have been a reason to "throw it away." For those not from the culture of the Indian subcontinent, it can be rather difficult to grasp the pupil’s situation. Buddhists traditionally have a more cardio-centric, heart-centered society, in contrast to the Western cerebro-centric, brain-centered social conditioning. Even so, few on any continent seem willing to let go of who they think they are to realize who they actually are. People fear their light. The Buddha Siddhartha reportedly said, "Your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own thoughts."

Such trances, like most meditations, are distractions and diversions to keep one from waking up. As Lao-zu said, "Do you think you can clear your mind by sitting constantly in silent meditation? This makes your mind narrow, not clear." The reality is that perceived life is a trance, and all trance states obscure truth. Any quest or journeying should be to break through trance, especially the trance of object-ive reality. "maybe I could tell you to cut of one ounce of your body everyday until you can answer the question 'What is True.' Any ounce, as long as it's an ounce. That should bring you quickly into focus. Light a fire under you. If you had to do this, cut off an ounce of your body every day, how much time do you think you would waste on meditation, on attending Satsung, (on shamanic journeying) or reading the latest spititual best seller? Not bloody much. You would soon become an enlightenment machine,...sleep and food would be reduced to barest minimums. Relationships and activities once deemed eccential, would be forgotten. You would enter into a burning mania of single-pointedness. Soon, anything other than the question, 'What is True,' would seem comically irrelevant." Jed McKenna Wei Wu Wei said, "The practice of meditation is represented by the three monkeys, who cover their eyes, ears and mouths so as to avoid the phenomenal world. The practice of non-meditation is ceasing to be the see-er, hearer or speaker while eyes, ears and mouths are fulfilling their function in daily life."

"... but at the end of the day you're either a caterpillar or a butterfly, and the only way anyone will ever have even the slightest sense of what it means to be a butterfly is to become one. There are no butterfly experts among the caterpillars, despite innumerable claims to the contrary,....You will find though that if you meet a butterfly, they will not fit any of the preconceptions that many people have about them." Jed McKenna Caterpillars fear truth.

To become a butterfly,...all that is a caterpillar,...all beliefs, hopes, dreams,...must die.

It is amazing how caterpillars attempt to define what a butterfly is,...as if one can become the other,...or even imagine such. But yet, we live in a world where butterflies are defined by caterpillars. The truth of butterflies is this,...they are awake,...and do not untransform back to caterpillars. Butterflies are caterpillars arch enemy,...for the butterfly exists beyond the dream of beliefs.

Absolutely,...I do not use quotes in the context of the quoter, but in the context of my post. Silly people who go off about the messenger verifies their ignorance. I recall quoting Osho,..."The preachers have convinced the whole world that "you are all sinners." This is good for them because unless you are convinced, their profession cannot continue. You must be sinners; only then can churches, temples and mosques continue to prosper. Your being in sin is their success. [Churches] are built on your guilt, on your sin, on your inferiority complex. Thus, they have created an inferior humanity. " Instead of addressing the quote, a few TTB Sheeple start raving about how Osho had dozens of Bentleys,...so what,...what does do these cars, forced upon him by his followers, have to do with the quote. If I've repeated something 3 times or several, it is because several still didn't get it. Makes no sense discussing multiplication/division if others have yet to figure out that 1 +1 = 2. Of course with you, someone who admits that 15% true is true enough, needs much more repetition. I mean, do you ever read your posts? How is 15% true, true enough? Don't you see the neurosis of such a statement? We're not talking about relative or personal truths here,...but the truth. Of course, there are a few honest TTB'ers here,...they're the one's that say they don't know when they don't know. As in the quote: "Start knowing what you really know, and stop believing what you really don’t know. Somebody asks you. "Is there a God?" and you say, "Yes, God is." Remember: Do you really know? If you don’t know, please don’t say that you do. Say, "I don’t know.". . . False knowing is the enemy of true knowledge. All beliefs are false knowledge." "If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of your self." Lao-zu. Most on TTB have no desire to awaken,...they are obviously here to fortify their own beliefs,..to make their beliefs more palatable. And if their beliefs become too threatened, they band with others believers in a mob fashion to suppress truth from being too exposed. As I have an interest in how folks attempt to interpret the Tao through their own predisposed personal experiences, instead of through the point-of-view of the Tao, my interacting here is most appropriate.

I love using quotes,...it draws out those predisposed towards ignorance, who judge the messenger instead of focusing on the message. It is always guarenteed that those denounce wisdom because of their opinion of the source, are Sheeple of the most dangerous order. For example, T. S. Eliot correctly said, "Human kind cannot bear very much reality" It is a good quote to ponder on,...so who cares that it was spoken by a deluded Christian zealot like Eliot, who corrupted thousands with his theistic literature. Thus, just because Eliot was a Christian preditor seeking to evangelize the world into his faith, should I examine his pathetic life while pondering on the quote above? The quotes I use are never OUT OF CONTEXT to the context in which I'm using them. I do not use them in the context the author has,...to do so would be as ridiculous as those seeing a connection between "One millionth of 1% false is completely false" and McKenna's wife. I'm not a McKenna fan,...but a dialogue with him would certainly be more productive than most on TTB.

I lived in the overpopulated, under-infrastructured, over-stressed area of Austin, Tx., and found it amazing in that this will be one of the first places to eventually figure out how to live together,...all they need IMO, is another 600k people,...quickly. Not decentralized redistribution. Right now, the planet as a whole, needs about 2 billion more people QUICKLY,...not less people redistributed. Watch this Youtube with as open of a mind as you can,...and you may begin to understand why:

If something is not 100% true, it is false,...if a Tao was uncovered, but was only 99.9% true, it is not the Tao. Perhaps a better way to put it,...if something is one-millionth of 1% false, it is totally false. Only the Superior Man is interested in the truth,...Ordinary Man, has little need for truth,...as I've mentioned before, most, like as you mentioned in your post, merely desire dependable descriptions of an objective world that they consider intelligible. The wisdom and reality that arise from certainty would undermine the survival of their object-based beliefs and conceptual imagery.

Regardless,...99.9% true is not fully true,...99.9% true is not enough to be truth realized. I understand that for most, 99.9% is sufficient,...but it is not true,...no matter how you argue it. The Tao is true,...100% true. For me, that is not a guess or belief,...Undivided Light is proof that the Tao exists.

Religion, by its very nature, that is "a set of beliefs" is always false. It is absolutely impossible for anyone attached to beliefs, to be real. Real compassion, is intolerant of all religion. Real compassion is intolerant of any belief that steps between a sentient being and their liberation. All experience born of belief, can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. Look at that deeply enough, and it will become obvious that no believer has ever had an authentic experience.

That's good,...it is quite dangerous to ask any questions regarding belief in Islam critically, for it is demanded that it be deliberating on solely for display and devotion. For example, Muslims unquestioningly accept the Shahada, that is, that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger. To understand the dynamics of that, simply ask a Muslim why he believes in the Qur’an, and he will say, "Because the Qur’an is the infallible words of Allah written by his prophet Muhammad." If you continue the inquiry and request that he divulge how he knows that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet, the Muslim will, without the slightest pondering, respond that he knows that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet because it says so right in the Qur’an. This is a faith-driven circular reasoning common to all three Abrahamic religions and their hundreds of denominations. They believe that their Holy Book is the correct Holy Book, and only their Holy Book correctly describes god. Muhammad (570–632 CE), the Abrahamic teacher who, prompted by persecutions upon Arabs (such as those continued by Pope Gregory (540–604 CE), the Father of the Dark Ages, and the barbaric reign of Justinian, which barred anyone outside specific neo-Christian beliefs from civil service, and whose forced baptisms upon Arabs encouraged the way for Muhammad to establish Islam). invented the Arab version of monotheism. Interestingly, this new religion supplied the pedophile prophet with many attractive wives, the youngest of whom is said to be nine-year-old. However, as I too neither wish to be detained by the Mutawa—the Islamic religious police—or fancy having a fatwa issued regarding me as it was for Salman Rushdie, most are left to unravel for themselves the Qur’an’s self-authenticating meaning.