On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:40:34 -0500
Day Brown <daybrown@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> cisco2665@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > Given all the Darkness they preach and teach, such as WAR, HATE,
> > BIGOTRY, and THEFT. I "might" be inclined to believe it. Yet I don't
> > believe in such racial profiling to begin with. We all have souls at
> > birth, and every soul starts with the same flicker of light. It's
> > what comes later that can snuff it out.
> Like all languages, Tocharian as words for "men" and "women". But it
> also has a special suffix, "-os", which denotes a sentient being. In
> the Bagavad Gita, Arjuna is told that some of what he sees are
> divinely created and animmated forms which only exist as a challenge
> to the fulflilment of his kharma.
Would you please tell us exactly where it says any such thing in the
Bhagavad Gita? I know that book intimately. I do not find any such
sentiment in it. Possibly I am missing something, or perhaps you're
relying on a particular translation. So would you please identify
where the Bhagavad Gita makes this claim?
Krisna does tell Arjuna that all beings have God within them, but
that's a far cry from what you're claiming.
> Cosmic robots; like the monsters in a video game. The Gita even calls
> them 'Avatars'. The thing about an Avatar, as we see so often here,
> is that while you may learn from one, they are programmed to act as
> they do, and you cant teach one anything.
An avatar is an embodiment of God. It is God, living a human life,
much as is claimed about Jesus. Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu, one
of gods in the Hindu trinity. An avatar was not "programmed"; far
from it. An avatar was uniquely self-actuated, unlike most embodied
beings who were conditioned by the three qualities of Nature, and thus
needed to overcome the conditioning.
> I sometimes respond to them despite the ad hominum and lame humor
> because there may be an interesting idea there anyway. I try to
> follow the principles outlined by Epictetus. First, when attacked,
> consider what lesson you may teach an innocent observer with your
> response. If there be none, then what you may teach your attacker. If
> zie be unteachable, then what you may teach yourself.
>
> As we see from Epictetus and the Vedas, the written word is durable,
> and an innocent observer may see what we write later. So, there may
> yet be rational minds to see what I posted as well as what others
> represent my work as, and draw their own conclusions. And of course,
> if they are not rational, there's no point in caring what they think.
When I see claims like this, I am reminded that dictators, terrorists,
and other criminals often dehumanize their victims before committing
their atrocities.
--
You will be successful in love.
|
