The ultimate comparative study?

[flowperson]

Ciel:

VROOM...VROOM...let's all go forward. Wait a minute...does that mean I have to trade my Saturn for a Toyota to "move" forward ? I like my car !

flow....

[samabudhi]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this sutta. Certainly not mainstream, but most interesting.

I do not pretend to know every tenet of each and every belief. I simply make an urgent plea that a systematic effort be made in that direction by a symposium of scholars. I am not intricately familiar, for instance, with all the in-depth thinking within Jainism, within Sufism, and within at least two or three others. That does not disqualify me -- or anyone -- from making the same plea that I made at the top of this thread.

It sounds like you want the icing but you're not willing to eat the puffy, bready part of the cake.

Speaking for myself, I feel I've found a rewarding and fruitful path to follow. So I'm not about to go off and try synchronize the salient aspects of man's entire history of religious endeavour. Outlandish.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Thank you for drawing my attention to this sutta. Certainly not mainstream, but most interesting.


It sounds like you want the icing but you're not willing to eat the puffy, bready part of the cake.

I might say the same for your "interest" in the suttas of the Digha-Nikaya

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Speaking for myself, I feel I've found a rewarding and fruitful path to follow. So I'm not about to go off and try synchronize the salient aspects of man's entire history of religious endeavour. Outlandish.

Fair enough. You are happy where you are. Fine.

But that does not warrant your dismissing such a yearning for synchronizing on the part of others as merely "outlandish".

Talk about thought control.

Synthesis

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Operacast

Fair enough. You are happy where you are. Fine.

But that does not warrant your dismissing such a yearning for synchronizing on the part of others as merely "outlandish".

Talk about thought control.

Synthesis

Um, Operacast, have you considered the thought that what you are calling Synthesis might be considered as abduction and rape by those being synthesized?

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Um, Operacast, have you considered the thought that what you are calling Synthesis might be considered as abduction and rape by those being synthesized?

Yes. I have. And I have spoken to thoughtful people who have suggested as much. My reply has always been that no one is obliged to adopt such a synthesis were such a thing really attempted -- and I still feel that no one has really done such a synthesis yet with properly scholarly rigor anyway.

I really feel that anyone discouraging such an effort by crying "abduction" or whatever is being more intrusive and hurtful of others than any scholarly attempt at synthesis in the first place. After all, the original texts are always there. No followers in any specific tradition are being discouraged in restricting themselves to one tradition. And anyone is still free to join such followers.

However, the yearned-for religious practice of synthesis on the part of others is being actively discouraged if cries of protest are raised against any new kind of understanding that hurts no one who is already happy in their faith and that may, in addition, afford others greater peace if what they yearn for is finally provided them in this scholarly way.

Ultimately, the idea that any kind of religious practice or understanding, modern or ancient, somehow impacts on other practices that are already well established and comfortable anyway is indeed thought control if it actually leads to active discouragement in a frankly mediaeval way.

Since I happen to have personally witnessed such discouragement first hand, I stand by my statement that any discouragement of a project that may be of value to some who are still searching does indeed constitute a regrettable form of thought control.

Sincerely,

Operacast

[jiii]

Outside of scholars and theologists, such an effort to compile religious characteristics will only be "used" by people that are already confused as to spirituality, and that may thus lead themselves only into further confusion. There is, for instance, no reason why a person must adhere to any particular religion, at all. If someone is quite contented with their personal spiritual sensation then it is certainly not necessary to dress it up in sectarian garb. HOWEVER, if someone is starved for a religion but, as a result of preconception, preference, or principle, refuses to adhere to any doctrine, then rounding up the similarities of all these denied doctrines will certainly not yield anything that is much more inspiring. The Zen Buddhists have a saying about this kind of sentiment: "You can't polish a tile into a mirror". If one is unable to come to terms with an individual doctrine on one hand or with unaffiliated spiritual experience on the other, then creating a "pseudo-doctrine" that compiles the whole lot of the rejects will leave the investigator just as dry of spiritual direction and sensation as he was before. You can't pour a bunch of rotten apples into a bushel and expect them to turn ripe and red in juxtaposition to each other.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Operacast

Unfortunately, people -- and especially scholars -- may be too lazy and cowardly to embark on one particularly obvious but daunting project, which would entail layers upon layers of thrice-vetted research work and philological and linguistic analysis in which the most divergent points of view would have to be represented on the final board. That project would entail:

A) coming to a consensus on which is the earliest and most direct source text(s) on the original inspirer(s) of each of the ten or so main religions whose followers today have effectively bridged national boundaries, from the earliest text(s) on Lord Krishna for Hinduism to Bahá’u’lláh for the Bahai faith;

B) consensus as to the earliest and most authentic versions/manuscripts of the agreed-upon earliest source texts on these inspirers;

C) consensus on final carefully prepared editions of the earliest source texts;

D) shared analysis of what each of these carefully edited versions imply about each inspirer's take on questions like

1. humanity's ethical obligations,

2. humanity's proper relationship (if any) to deity,

3. deity's proper relationship (if any) to humanity and

4. deity's own nature and what makes her/him deity;

E) pooled comparison of the emerging differences among inspirers on these and other essential questions, as seen in the edited editions of the earliest source texts;

F) pooled comparison of the emerging similarities among inspirers on these and other essential questions, as seen in the edited editions of the earliest source texts; and finally

G) extraction by unanimous consensus of all the emerging similarities, to facilitate a new publication presenting the similarities, laid out in parallel columns.

If this final step proves unfeasible -- due to no emerging agreement among all ten or so inspirers on any one question -- then I might conclude that the notion of there being a deity and a normative mode of behavior via that deity is possibly a chimera. At the same time, if this final step does prove feasible after all, then there may be some way of judging through that the true worth of a deity concept and a normative mode of behavior via such a deity.

This entire project is doable, physically -- the scholarly tools and the early texts are already there -- but the finances for such a project and the necessary attitudes tending toward an open willingness on the part of everyone involved, from atheists to fundamentalists alike, to submit all mainstream faiths to the same rigorous textual scrutiny perhaps aren't -- at least to the degree needed for the longterm commitment to see such an exhaustive project through.

Thoughts?

Sounds like it was done (at least in the western world...twice). But seems to be ignored by other intelligent minds for some reason. There were two counsils. They have no merit?

Sort of like stating that the forefathers were spitting in the wind, when they were actually closer to "God" then than we are today. Sort of like telling "dad" he doesn't know squat, when he was around long before we were born...

v/r

Q

[samabudhi]

I might say the same for your "interest" in the suttas of the Digha-Nikaya

I'm not sure you know what my interest in the Digha-Nikaya is, nor Buddha's intention in the Tevijja sutta.

But that does not warrant your dismissing such a yearning for synchronizing on the part of others as merely "outlandish".

you have not properly researched the ideas you want to synchronize
you have not properly researched whether such a synchronization has already been attempted
you want other people to do the synchronization

Perhaps you should consider why you feel it is necessary to synchronize all the world's religions?

Just think....where do you think Methodists come from? And the Anglicans and Protestants? What about Lutherans and Cathars?
Essentially Jesus, right? But they split...for whatever reason...but that just shows there is such a force in the universe which results in schisms. So why fight with it?
What do you get out of it?

They say the kingdom of God is within. That's perfectly Buddhist, perfectly Hindu. But you look outside for answers and so overlook their original message?

My intention is not to discourage your search, but encourage you to look at what is.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Um, Operacast, have you considered the thought that what you are calling Synthesis might be considered as abduction and rape by those being synthesized?

Just wanted to put in a plug for a fantastic book (this made me think of it). It's Jihad v. McWorld by Benjamin Barber.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by jiii

Outside of scholars and theologists, such an effort to compile religious characteristics will only be "used" by people that are already confused as to spirituality, and that may thus lead themselves only into further confusion.

Shouldn't that be up to any users to decide for themselves? What confounded arrogance! If certain potential users are intrigued enough to look up such a survey in the first place, then they're possibly already at a point where no traditions -- and no spiritual practices -- have satisfied them anyway. So your point becomes moot.

Originally Posted by jiii

There is, for instance, no reason why a person must adhere to any particular religion, at all.

Did I say there was? Straw man! This survey is primarily for a better historical understanding of what has made various concepts of the metaphysical tick. That's no crime.

Originally Posted by jiii

If someone is quite contented with their personal spiritual sensation then it is certainly not necessary to dress it up in sectarian garb.

I already said in a previous posting that if someone is already happy where s/he is, then that's fine -- and this survey isn't being forced down anyone's throat anyway. Another straw man!

Originally Posted by jiii

HOWEVER, if someone is starved for a religion but, as a result of preconception, preference, or principle, refuses to adhere to any doctrine, then rounding up the similarities of all these denied doctrines will certainly not yield anything that is much more inspiring.

That's for the person using it to decide, not anyone else, including you. Again, more arrogance! You're second-guessing someone else's reading! More arrogance and flagrant thought control!

Now, maybe someone might be inspired by the survey or maybe someone who's a skeptic will remain a skeptic and just find it useful without having to be "inspired" at all. Anything wrong with that? Ever thought of that? What's wrong with something useful? Got a problem with that?

In any case, odds are that the chief elements that will be extracted will cancel out the especially sectarian or distasteful aspects that cling to the byways of specific creeds. In fact, certain Buddhists have told me that it's even considered acceptable by some for a practicing Buddhist to follow some other tradition along with Buddhism! So if, for example, the kind of strictures that threaten all sorts of horrible things if one departs from a specific creed are not in all creeds (and they aren't apparently in Buddhism), then that distasteful element, at least, will not be found in the survey, since, with Buddhism not asserting that, all creeds therefore do not agree on that.

Originally Posted by jiii

The Zen Buddhists have a saying about this kind of sentiment: "You can't polish a tile into a mirror".

Oh, come on! This isn't some either-or thing. You're making it into that just to score some cheap debating points. Instead, it's information that would otherwise take one person a lifetime to assemble. Plenty would be grateful for having this at one's finger-tips. Who are you to pre-empt such a service? Are YOU God Almighty?!

Originally Posted by jiii

If one is unable to come to terms with an individual doctrine on one hand or with unaffiliated spiritual experience on the other, then creating a "pseudo-doctrine" that compiles the whole lot of the rejects will leave the investigator just as dry of spiritual direction and sensation as he was before.

This would not be primarily intended as some alternate creed -- and even if some individual chooses to use it that way, so what? You evidently have a bone to pick with the chief reason advanced when the drafters of the U.S. Constitution made a choice for religious freedom: "[If my neighbor chooses one set of beliefs or another,] it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg!". And again, whether or not the user finds it a dry-bones proposition or a source of comfort, that's no one else's business.

In addition, the original texts are still there. The followers of every single creed are not going away. This would be a guide that would be an addition to a certain degree of understanding. It doesn't replace anything.

And it's you who are saying that the only purpose of this "should" [in effect] be inspiration only. That's absurd. This is knowledge, pure and simple. To some that's inpirational, to some it isn't<shrug>. Ultimately, such knowledge is necessary, above all else, for any reason that is urgent in the mind of the user. That's no one else's business -- or shouldn't be

I also find ridiculous your use of the word "rejects", since the survey would be confined precisely to those aspects which all creeds accept.

Originally Posted by jiii

You can't pour a bunch of rotten apples into a bushel and expect them to turn ripe and red in juxtaposition to each other.

Again, that's for others to judge. Who are you to arbitrarily decide that these are rotten apples? It seems to me that your whole post constitutes a frantic effort to prevent the increase of knowledge in case people start viewing each other with too much understanding for your blood.

Operacast

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Sounds like it was done (at least in the western world...twice). But seems to be ignored by other intelligent minds for some reason. There were two counsils. They have no merit?

They were confined to studying only one creed. They have no pertinence to a survey such as the one proposed here whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Sort of like stating that the forefathers were spitting in the wind, when they were actually closer to "God" then than we are today.

That is a matter of opinion. IMO, the only figures that may be genuinely close to deity -- if there is really any such thing as closeness to deity -- are founders/inspirers at the outset of established creeds. All the most thoughtful, the most prayerful exegesis coming after may or may not be close, but that closeness can sometimes be second-hand, sometimes not. Only a Buddha or a Christ present manifestly original insights that come unequivocally from inside them -- or directly from the metaphysical. All the rest may be.........footnotes?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Sort of like telling "dad" he doesn't know squat, when he was around long before we were born...

v/r

Q

Again, apples and oranges, since you're referring to exegesis within one tradition only. I would share your sentiments entirely if you were referring to original founders/inspirers like Buddha or Christ.

Sincerely,

Operacast

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

I'm not sure you know what my interest in the Digha-Nikaya is, nor Buddha's intention in the Tevijja sutta.

Then why don't you tell me what you think is going on in the Tevijja sutta -- unless you're against the disemination of knowledge, of course...........

Originally Posted by samabudhi

you have not properly researched the ideas you want to synchronize

I never said I had.

Originally Posted by samabudhi

you have not properly researched whether such a synchronization has already been attempted

Look, if you know of one -- and of one that specifically confines itself to the presumed earliest texts dealing strictly with the remarks and actions of original inspirers only -- tell us! There are plenty of comparative surveys that I've read. But none so far take the approach I outlined. -- So, tell me if I'm wrong, and tell me the name of the survey. I've already read Campbell, Jaspers, Bullfinch, etc. Tell me one I haven't read that comes closer to what I've described.

Originally Posted by samabudhi

you want other people to do the synchronization

I never said I did, and I never said I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth. A project like this needs a team from as many different viewpoints as possible. One person would need at least a lifetime to complete such a project. That's the other reason it needs a team. It also needs lots of funding. People would have to be paid for their time -- and even a whole team could conceivably spend many years on this.

Now, I'm a layman; this is not my area of professional expertise -- and I never pretended otherwise. But I would be delighted to be a member of a working team like this, if invited. I do not consider myself qualified enough to do all this myself without a ton of specialists around me. I'm going to guess that that is already perfectly apparent to many readers here, including yourself, and that, like some others here, you too are just playing a cheap game to score some petty debating points. You evidently feel that -- hey -- Who cares whether or not such a survey may be beneficial to certain people? After all, they're only people, right?

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Perhaps you should consider why you feel it is necessary to synchronize all the world's religions?

Just think....where do you think Methodists come from? And the Anglicans and Protestants? What about Lutherans and Cathars?
Essentially Jesus, right? But they split...for whatever reason...but that just shows there is such a force in the universe which results in schisms. So why fight with it?

Because people get KILLED, that's why. Maybe you enjoy that<shrug>. Anyway, maybe not all schisms result in bloodshed, maybe not all schisms have to cause unpleasantness at all (although I'm hard-pressed to think of one that doesn't), but at the least, a survey like this hardly threatens the death of any schism. Are you somehow concerned that it might? Aw, what a shame!

Originally Posted by samabudhi

What do you get out of it?

Hope?

Originally Posted by samabudhi

They say the kingdom of God is within. That's perfectly Buddhist, perfectly Hindu. But you look outside for answers and so overlook their original message?

What kind of filthy lie and distortion is that? I WANT to see their original message. Nothing they say is being canceled through this survey. I'm simply designing a way by which we can view these messages in parallel with others. The notion that that somehow cancels an original message is of a piece with the notion that one should never read more than one book!

Originally Posted by samabudhi

My intention is not to discourage your search,

You could have fooled me............

Originally Posted by samabudhi

but encourage you to look at what is.

This is my way of looking at what is. If that doesn't please your high and mighty majesty, that's not my problem.

Operacast

[samabudhi]

Then why don't you tell me what you think is going on in the Tevijja sutta -- unless you're against the disemination of knowledge, of course...........

After Buddha attained enlightenment, he was left with only one intention, to help others achieve the same. Through his compassionate activity, he passes the Dharma to us whenever we are open to it. To do this, it is necessary to speak in the language of those listening. And not only language, but in terms that include every aspect of the culture, age, predispositions etc of each individual. This is crucial if his message is to be heard.

In this sutta he was talking to Brahmins, whose aim was to attain the state of Brahma. This is not the final destination for a Buddhist as is demonstrated by the Jataka tale Makhadeva-jataka (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1012.htm).

It is more like this. To climb Kilimanjaro, you need to fly to Nairobi. Then you take a bus to the base of the mountain. You then get a guide, traipse through the forest and finally you climb the mountain and reach the peak.
Now unless you're one of those people who like to be different, it wouldn't help you so much just knowing the GPS coordinates for the peak. You'd be better off with a list of instructions on how to get to Nairobi, take a bus etc.
In the same way, Buddha clearly felt it necessary to assuage the Brahmins' mundane obsession with Brahma as a stepping stone to complete enlightenment.

Hope?

You know' the worst thing about hope is? You always end up being disappointed.

I WANT to see their original message.

The Internet is a wonderful resource.

[jiii]

Quote:

Originally posted by OperaCast

Again, that's for others to judge. Who are you to arbitrarily decide that these are rotten apples? It seems to me that your whole post constitutes a frantic effort to prevent the increase of knowledge in case people start viewing each other with too much understanding for your blood.

Whoa...whoa... let's not get too angry here. You have really gone out of your way, OperaCast, to condemn me. Arrogance...and thoughtlessness of all varieties...how did I so easily accumulate all of these qualities? Wow! I didn't think I could inspire so much rash attack with a simple personal insight.

By the way, if your discussion was not merely the result of temporary inflammation, I would respectfully ask that you refer to my earlier post on this thread for the totality of what I had to say. What I posted later, and that which you responded to, was an excerpt from a previous post of mine on this discussion that I thought had a renewed significance in the particular direction the discussion was going. You'll find that many of the items you mentioned were discussed in concise detail. In fact, I stated twice in my original post that I, personally, would be VERY interested in such a project.

I must say that I amazed by your insisting that I am apparently devoid of all right to judgement of ideas, when you follow up by saying that "that's for others to judge", over and over again. I didn't know that I was the only one not entitled to judgement...perhaps, I should've let everyone else judge first, and then made my judgement. LOL, you take brief contributions to this discussion far too seriously.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by jiii

Whoa...whoa... let's not get too angry here. You have really gone out of your way, OperaCast, to condemn me.

And you've gone out of your way to set up as many straw men as possible -- and to give us what reads like a wilful disregard of 101 different points I made that clearly fly in the face of the relevance of your loose use of terms like "rejects", like "inspire", like "adhere", and on and on and on.

All I got from your post was a mortal terror that a tiny, tiny minority of fundamentalists in whatever faith might just possibly go down a road of further inquiry -- not for the purpose of heading away from their faith, but just to learn. Are you scared that just a few devout believers in their own faiths might suddenly tend to regard other believers as people too? That understanding of others and their faith might just possibly dissuade a tiny, tiny handful of such devout believers from demonizing anyone who doesn't think as they do? Tell me why that's such an appalling prospect.

Originally Posted by jiii

Arrogance...and thoughtlessness of all varieties...how did I so easily accumulate all of these qualities? Wow! I didn't think I could inspire so much rash attack with a simple personal insight.

What insight? All you did was deliberately misread my post.

Originally Posted by jiii

By the way, if your discussion was not merely the result of temporary inflammation, I would respectfully ask that you refer to my earlier post on this thread for the totality of what I had to say. What I posted later, and that which you responded to, was an excerpt from a previous post of mine on this discussion that I thought had a renewed significance in the particular direction the discussion was going.

Whatever you said in your previous post does not detract one whit from the plain fact that you set up as many straw men as you possibly could in this one.

Originally Posted by jiii

You'll find that many of the items you mentioned were discussed in concise detail. In fact, I stated twice in my original post that I, personally, would be VERY interested in such a project.

I reread your first post. I must say that, though there are points there in common with your last one, the tone in your first one certainly seems much more constructive than in your last one, where you show a remarkably tin ear.

Originally Posted by jiii

As one that has spent a good deal of time learning about various world religions, I must say that such a plan for a thorough and well-organized review, summary, and comparison of religions sounds pretty exciting. If such a report were released, I would probably buy it and enjoy perusing every bit.
Though, there are some serious problems with this whole idea. It works under many shaky assumptions. For instance...

1) Terms specific to certain religions may simply not have cognates in others. ex. God may simply never be even narrowly accepted as being a cognate to Tao in any way.

God needn't necessarily be the Creator. There are many different concepts of God. It can also be "nous" (the unchanging "ur-mind" in certain Greek concepts). And applying this concept, the Tao too embraces something like that in Chapter 25 of Lao-tze's Tao-te-king:

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Being great, it flows
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns.

Therefore, "Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them.

Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.

Now, of course, Lao-tze here is making a distinction between something called Heaven and something called the Tao. But there is a distinct set of concepts here that can be related one way or another to the metaphysical. No, they aren't the same. But in their difference lies the grist for a comparison.

Originally Posted by jiii

3) "Now, are there, in addition, identical patterns in every brain that are either wired for A) ultimate truth or B) pure delusion?"

I don't exactly know what this means, but to be totally honest, it doesn't sound true.

You think you know a lot, don't you? I was merely bringing to mind some recent research that suggests that there is a part of the brain peculiarly susceptible to God "experiences". Now, while that recently discovered pattern reinforces the notion of universal reactions built around a sense of the metaphysical, all I'm saying is that we may not know enough yet to know if that recurring pattern is a sign of something real that each of us can sense if the right part of a brain is stimulated, or if it is an illusion to which many of us may be subject. That's all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by jiii

With all due respect, this is why people investigate and devote themselves to specific religions. One need not reinvent all religions in a sorted amalgam to explore this.

I'm not reinventing anything. Another straw man. I'm suggesting that what has already been done (but only to an extent) in individual religions can also be brought together with similar research into all religions, bringing all such research under the same "roof". My notion of parallel columns should tell you that I'm not talking of reinvention or substitution at all, but an assemblage of individual lines of research so the reader can view at a glance what would otherwise take a lifetime or more to bring together -- nothing to do with reinvention or substitution. Can't you read?

Originally Posted by jiii

Ultimately, what you are talking about here is making a scientific inquiry of religious behavior and philosophy. Perhaps even with the hope that it would provide mankind with a one-size-fits-all coat of religious conduct that he can put on in the morning when he leaves his house.

I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I want to invent something new. Above all, I want to present what different traditions have in common, and present each example in the precise wording in which each separate text presents it.

Originally Posted by jiii

A comparative tabulation of religions would have little or no value to religious people that would reasonably proclaim that they could get much more out of their individual doctrine or practice alone.

Says you.

Originally Posted by jiii

Such folks always seem decidedly opposed to adherence to a specific doctrine, yet they think that rounding up the liner notes to each will produce something better.

Liner notes hardly describes the exact and complete textual passages in which each and every tradition frames the full warp and woof of each and every idea that may have points in common with other traditions. Another straw man.

Originally Posted by jiii

Much of this is the result of a huge misunderstanding amongst some people that to accept a particular doctrine is to lie yourself into believing that your sense of spirituality IS NOTHING ELSE but what the doctrine says it is. This is plainly wrong.

How so? Isn't it an invitation to sectarian violence?

Originally Posted by jiii

I simply think that such an effort to compile religious characteristics will only be "used" by people that are already confused as to spirituality, and that may thus lead themselves only into further confusion.

The notion that greater cross-creed knowledge and learning will only lead to "confusion" is of a piece with the notions at one time that the Bible should never be translated into the vernacular. Mr. Tyndale, meet jiii.

Originally Posted by jiii

There is, for instance, no reason why a person must adhere to any particular religion, at all. If someone is quite contented with their personal spiritual sensation then it is certainly not necessary to dress it up in sectarian garb.

Again, this is nothing to do with reinvention or substitution. There you go again. We beat down that straw man already.

Originally Posted by jiii

I must say that I amazed by your insisting that I am apparently devoid of all right to judgement of ideas,

I said no such thing. What I said was that you have no right to pre-judge what others should read and study.

Originally Posted by jiii

LOL, you take brief contributions to this discussion far too seriously.

What I take seriously are gross simplifications compounded by deliberate distortions.

OperaCast