Fifi, you have an unusual way of attempting to place emphasis on your statements with comments such as ""That's okay and I doubt you're the only one who's adopted Deepak as their guru. I'm not sure that he'd agreed with all the beliefs you're putting forward from what I've read but that doesn't matter either." Then why say them Fifi? What's the point of voicing things that "don't matter?

Like many others Fifi, my guru's are any person I find to deliver valuable insight and knowledge, Deepak, Patanjali, Rumi, Elizabeth Gilbert, Neil Donald Walsch... the list goes on and on. You paint Deepak Chopra in a certain light simply because he writes to a specific audience as if that somehow makes his words less. I definitely don't understand that line of thought. In Yoga, we find meaning everywhere, Divine works through every thing, including the negative.

Obviously your summary of our dialogue so far differs a great deal from mine, but I commend you on your willingness to engage rather than summarily dismiss someone because their opinion differs from yours and you may feel obliged to: and I quote, "get ugly".

That being said I'm going to answer your questions in 2 parts -

QUESTION ONE:
Q: WHY YOUR PERSONAL OPINION IN A VARIETY OF BELIEF SYSTEMS MATTERS IN THIS CONVERSATION
Fifi -"Why are my personal beliefs about an afterlife relevant to a discussion of ideas about an afterlife in a variety of belief systems? How does my personal belief change ideas or a belief system not created by me?"

A: In order to have any conversation with you regarding Yogic Theology, I would need you to form some sort of personal thought apart from "Patanjali's" mere words. Patanjali's words are extremely short. It's what you derive from the words that matter here and since you're speaking about things like Enlightenment I absolutely MUST understand what your definition is of that word in order to carry out a Philosophical conversation with you, since there is no concrete definition of it. Also, since you are familiar with Yoga, you understand that Patanjali's Sutras are only one set of many many Sutras. My personal beliefs are interwoven through Traditional Yogic Philosophy & Teachings. I can't have a personal Yoga practice without understanding for myself what different Yogic Philosophies mean to me, what "Enlightenment" means to me and what Death/Life means to me.

Regardless of whether or not you worry about Enlightenment, you still must have an understandable definition of the word in order to speak of it, a frame of reference. I said this earlier, in Yoga Philosophy our physical body is a vehicle that we use to experience the material world. When that vehicle is shed, I believe you're left with a much greater awareness = raw truth. Regardless of your "Karma".

QUESTION TWO:
Q: WHAT WOULD THE WORLD BE LIKE IF EVERY PERSON WAS COMPASSIONATE, CONSIDERATE AND KIND?
Fifi -"What do you believe the world would be like if everyone was responsible, caring and compassionate?"

A: Perhaps it might be prudent to point out that in a "utopian" world where compassion, consideration and kindness reign, people would not withdraw from conversations from fear of things getting "ugly" as understanding is what some might suggest breeds compassion. Here,in a broad sense, is my view on this question.

If everyone were constantly considerate I don't think we'd learn patience, acceptance of situations that upset us, tolerance, personal validation instead of external validation and the worth of being guided inward. We learn tolerance because of people that have little, we learn patience in situations where it's needed. We wouldn't have the opportunity to experience all emotions sparked within b/c of others..negative and positive. All of those external catalysts, both pleasant and unpleasant help to understand Self better. I appreciate that. I think the world is this way b/c we cannot understand what we are until we understand what we're not.

Fifi -"What you keep failing to understand is that not only do I not expect or even desire you to understand or share my personal viewpoint"

I talk to people to understand their viewpoints, agree or not, that's my motivation in speaking with them and you. Why exactly do you speak to me if not to understand my thoughts, do you speak to me ONLY to voice yours? What's the motivation in communicating for you?

Like I said already, understanding the root of another person's thoughts, helps me follow the thread to a place of mutual understanding. Since that's not a place that you want to go (based on above caption), why talk to anyone then? Isn't mutual understanding what breeds things like "compassion"? I hope I can convince you to share in understanding. As is so often the case with people who wish to impart their ideas and beliefs to others, they tend to preach somewhat self righteously and ascend a platform of condescension or derision - even threats - when those ideas or beliefs are not accepted as gospel. I hope that that is not the case here Fifi. Far better that we adhere to some simple understandings and perhaps covenants on what is conducive to open and engaging dialogue, and the unfettered exchange of ideas and opinions. Threats and derision should not be a part of our discussions, such nonsense has no place here. Let's instead agree to respect and consider what the other is expressing and take the time to respond with an open mind.

Katrina