Seeking to qualify universal truth as an ego-centrist self-expression, the author spins yet another nonspecific and rhetorical self-help book on spiritual appeasement. This book serves as a good way to while away a few hours on traditional spiritualisms.
A typical Sankara profoundness finds expression and epitome in her qualification of truth and untruth:
" Just as falsehoods do not always represent untruth and facts do not always represent truth, ethical conduct cannot be codified for all time, recorded in a book, and then dictated to humanity ." Hey, where were we when they disbursed such etymological sensitivity to the masses? Does this mean: the monotheism tenets must evolve with changing times?
Egghead and intellectual hippy, the author epitomizes his liberal philosophy by stating the obvious for his background. He suggests truth seekers, on the path of spiritual inquiry, may find themselves behind the battle cry 'My God is greater than your God' – uttered by religious authorities in dominant societies as well as among terrorist enclaves – wherein lie divisive interpretations of God able to terrorize the human psyche with a sense of self so narrow as to be unable to identify with many others. Seekers might also observe how likely it is for a dominant society to glorify war and vilify terrorists as it is for disenfranchised minorities to glorify terrorism and vilify perceived oppressors.
In critique we observe: it might make sense to an egocentric sense maker – if any can stomach the apologetic posited for poor old disenfranchised terrorists and the belittlement of big bully America for intervention into dictatorial kingdoms and force-feeding democracy to a world as self -righteously antagonistic to America's freedoms as Saranam. Surely he dislikes an advanced culture so aggravatingly chafing to his scrubby neck. Me-thinks he should stick to his sticky and indistinctive metaphysic-replete with mind over matter and mysticism over mind. You be the judge!
We further suggest: time can be better served in ethics and ethos study rather than disoriented ranting filled with depreciating and unappreciated anti-culture tirades against the most charitable country in the world. Truly, there cannot be a god without religion – else, who serves who in the desideratum of god and devotee. Someone (religionist) must recognize a god for such to be viable, for only in declaration can a god exist.
Even so, in declarations of recognition exist a requisite to rules and principles concerned with god sovereignty. There must be rules or ordinances governing consequence and benefit. Therein lies the problem with modern dedications to Torah, Bible, or Qur'an dictates. The original, the Bible, was written in prophetic kabala (cabbala) and therefore restricted in understanding. Daniel 12: 9 elucidates an oft ignored and finite principle: " Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end ." You can understand Daniel? Has the end come yet? And during Jesus' ministry, he said to his disciples, concerning speaking to the multitude in parables: " It is given unto you to know the mysteries of heaven, but to them it is not given ." And you profess to understand parables? Those people were there and they did not understand. How can exegetes understand? This book reviewer reads many books and articles professing to expound advice to others; usually such is the rambling of unlearned evangelicals, honest in their endeavor, but totally without insight into esoteric language.
So, how do we as innocents determine the feasibility of articles and book length writings?
It is simple really; if one speaks of a futurist expectation, or any fulfillment not limited by the boundaries of fulfillment in Daniel's Ten Ages, he can be safely labeled as one not in touch with any sense of Bible direction or intent. Mileposts and limits are available to those with a need to know. Judge the efforts of this author and others in the syllogistic approach to finding the correct Bible intent, principals, and time frame. You will be surprised.