Reason why Jesus told that blindness is because of grace of God...

[Maia]

It's the assertion that those who suffer do so because they have sinned that I find most repellent. Dangerous, too.

I also objected the the unthinking assumption that blind people suffer.

Why?

Also, I'll clarify for you, and take your time with the why, because I'll be gone awhile.

The word "unthinking," is your assumption.

What you actually object to is the assertion that blind folks suffer because of their blindness. Why do you suffer? You've already declared it's not from blindness, so why do you suffer? Do you suffer?

I don't suffer.

[Harbal]

Also, I'll clarify for you, and take your time with the why, because I'll be gone awhile.

I don't suppose you could be persuaded not to come back.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Never-the-less, it stands.

Have you been looking at pictures of dattaswami again?

That's a good one. No, it stands that you should not make me the topic of your interest when you have a swami, a Smarmy, a blind self-proclaimed Hindu expert with lots of blind friends and a chip on her shoulder, and your own lack of commitment to pick at. Why? Because, you offer nothing but bimbo. Don't need any of that. So it stands ... fuck off.

Interesting how religiosity seems to be connected to an increased chance of sociopathy. All the relgious nuts on this forum are arseholes. Hmm. It would make a good study. Has being a cretin caused you much suffering? Or did you learn to compensate at a young age by talking in silly riddles that you think make you appear more intelligent?

[Walker]

Have you been looking at pictures of dattaswami again?

That's a good one. No, it stands that you should not make me the topic of your interest when you have a swami, a Smarmy, a blind self-proclaimed Hindu expert with lots of blind friends and a chip on her shoulder, and your own lack of commitment to pick at. Why? Because, you offer nothing but bimbo. Don't need any of that. So it stands ... fuck off.

Interesting how religiosity seems to be connected to an increased chance of sociopathy. All the relgious nuts on this forum are arseholes. Hmm. It would make a good study. Has being a cretin caused you much suffering? Or did you learn to compensate at a young age by talking in silly riddles that you think make you appear more intelligent?

You're a moron. Plain enough?

Unlike dattaswami, I am not limited by the need to answer unfairness with fairness.

- You call religious folks, religious nuts and arseholes, so I call you an ignorant slut.
- You call me a cretin, so I call you a backwoods kunt.
- You say I talk in silly riddles, so I say you talk like a thug pig.
- You project onto me some false need to appear intelligent, so I say you have shit for brains.
- You say fuck you in your way, I say fuck you in my way.

Interesting how you don't get that. You are remarkably deficient in self-awareness.

[Walker]

I don't suffer.

Are you aware that annoyance is a form of suffering. Are you annoyed with the postings of dattaswami. Note, I did not say all postings, just those that annoy you.

[Harbal]

I don't suffer.

Are you aware that annoyance is a form of suffering.

You've been annoyed all morning, or whatever time of day it is over there in the land of fakery. You poor thing, how you must suffer.

Are you annoyed with the postings of dattaswami. Note, I did not say all postings, just those that annoy you.

So you are asking if she is annoyed by the posts that annoy her?

[Walker]

Looks like I really got to you, Harbal. Get over it. Put on your big boy thinking cap.

Here's the topic.

*

According to dattaswami's initial assumption, because you do not suffer, then you committed no sinful deeds, in this life or a previous life.

If you have committed sinful deeds, and you are not suffering, then this is the basis for discussion in this thread.

I see that Maia is on board with this. She says does not suffer.
Perhaps she doesn't sin, either.

Discuss.

[Iwannaplato]

Looks like I really got to you, Harbal. Get over it.

I remember teenagers trying this. Though they tended not to try it after they'd told someone to fuck off. They had a kind of brute sense of what entails hypocrisy.

1:

According to dattaswami's initial assumption, because you do not suffer, then you committed no sinful deeds, in this life or a previous life.

2

If you have committed sinful deeds, and you are not suffering, then this is the basis for discussion in this thread.

Statement 1, is true but only a part of what the OP and DS's first response to Maia's first response made clear he believed. That blindness was a punishment, in his mind, but not for revenge. Statement 2 is an oversimplification.

I see that Maia is on board with this.

Nice ambiguous referent.

I am sure Dattaswami can tell Harbal what he wants the thread to be about.

[Harbal]

I see that Maia is on board with this. She says does not suffer.
Perhaps she doesn't sin, either.

Discuss.

I can't discuss sin; I don't know what it is.

[Maia]

I don't suffer.

Are you aware that annoyance is a form of suffering. Are you annoyed with the postings of dattaswami. Note, I did not say all postings, just those that annoy you.

There are people who really do suffer, with poverty, for example.

Annoyance doesn't really count.

[iambiguous]

I do think that reincarnation is quite likely, but I don't believe in karma.

What we think and feel about these things is one thing, what we can demonstrate is in fact true about them, another thing altogether.

Even to ourselves.

We all die. And most of us here and now don't want to believe that death = oblivion. So, either indoctrinated as children or existentially given the life we live as adults, we are confronted with any number of possible alternatives. For most it's a God, the God. If you behave righteously on this side of the grave, you will be rewarded with both immortality and salvation. So, for many, they believe in this because they want to believe in it. It comforts and consoles them to believe that death is not just nothing at all except a mindless, lifeless trek back to star stuff.

Reincarnation here can be tricky because it is often anchored to a "spiritual" One True Path...but not anchored in turn to a God, the God. But it stills soothes one to believe that death isn't oblivion. We come back again and again and again. Still, karma here makes sense [to me] because it provides us with a reason to explain why we come back as another human being [a Brahmin this time] and not a dung beetle.

But, again, believing in it and providing actual hard evidence that it is the real deal...?

In fact the whole ridiculous superstructure of karma is a very good example of the human tendency to take something that is grasped intuitively, that is, reincarnation, and invent a whole load of rules to pin it down. It's how all religions get started.

Yes, that's often true enough. That way the ecclesiastics get to sustain their own power. The caste system for example:

"Brahmins (priests, teachers), Kshatriyas (rulers, warriors), Vaishyas (landowners, merchants) and Sudras (servants), and the 5th group is the group of the untouchables, called Dalits"

Karma becomes part of it all because it allows the ecclesiastics to justify their fate and our fate given a spiritual Reality that transcends anything thought up by mere mortals regarding justice on this side of the grave.

But in particular, I object to the notion that blindness is something that people should take pity on and explain in terms of punishment. I certainly don't see it that way.

Yes, I agree. That certainly seems to be a reasonable way to look at it. But, as you once noted to me, you see being born blind as an actual blessing. But I suspected this revolves in turn around the fact that you were born blind. In other words, it's the only world you have never known. You are comfortable and fulfilled living the life you do. It's not like you were once sighted and then lost your sight...and were devastated by this. Like the woman in the film Blind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_(20 ... 20Sundance.

Here is my one review of the film from ILP:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/posting ... &p=2631307

Me, sure, if I can't believe in immortality and salvation through a more tradition religious faith, I'll take my chances with reincarnation? But how realistic is it to believe that it is the real deal?

[Walker]

I don't suffer.

Are you aware that annoyance is a form of suffering. Are you annoyed with the postings of dattaswami. Note, I did not say all postings, just those that annoy you.

There are people who really do suffer, with poverty, for example.

Annoyance doesn't really count.

That's right. There are degrees of suffering. Your attempt at invalidation is weak. Annoyance does, "count."

You have only your opinion, perhaps some anecdotal evidence of people who thrive on the suffering of annoyance, the vampire types. Perhaps you know others who have the same opinion as you.

I have also have opinion, experience, teachings, contemplation, reasoning, knowledge of the world, and this:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... ukkha.html

A contemporary definition:
Dukkha is:

Disturbance, irritation, dejection, worry, despair, fear, dread, anguish, anxiety; vulnerability, injury, inability, inferiority; sickness, aging, decay of body and faculties, senility; pain/pleasure; excitement/boredom; deprivation/excess; desire/frustration, suppression; longing/aimlessness; hope/hopelessness; effort, activity, striving/repression; loss, want, insufficiency/satiety; love/lovelessness, friendlessness; dislike, aversion/attraction; parenthood/childlessness; submission/rebellion; decision/indecisiveness, vacillation, uncertainty.

— Francis Story in Suffering, in Vol. II of The Three Basic Facts of Existence (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983)

Objectively speaking, I also have truth.

Ask dattaswami. He will likely verify, although detecting will require paying close attention to his content.

[dattaswami]

It's the assertion that those who suffer do so because they have sinned that I find most repellent. Dangerous, too.

I also objected the the unthinking assumption that blind people suffer.

Suffering is for reformation of the soul only, there is no vengeance or anger towards the soul. Even hell is created for reformation of the soul so that with love and care God punishes for a complete transformation of the soul so that the sinful deeds are alteast controlled. If one realise, repent and do not repeat any sins from today onwards all their past sins will be forgiven by God.

[dattaswami]

We all die. And most of us here and now don't want to believe that death = oblivion. So, either indoctrinated as children or existentially given the life we live as adults, we are confronted with any number of possible alternatives.

Death is spiritual and scientific requirement of the individual soul and its external body. Just like the dress on the external body, the body is also an external dress on the individual soul. Everyday, anybody leaves the dress for wash and the body is also subjected to bath.

Similarly, death is the washing process of the body and after death the washing process of the individual soul takes place in the hell. The body is composed of five elements with higher entropy (randomness), which come from the free state in the nature. It is just like the employee going to office from the home.

In the evening, the employee should return to his home for a change from discipline to freedom. Similarly, the elements existing in the nature with high randomness are forced to form the body with less randomness. After some time, these elements need a change in the state like the employees going to home in the evening for more randomness or more freedom.

Hence, the death of the body is its decomposition to release the disciplined elements into free state. These elements after some time combine again to form a new body in the next birth for the same soul or some other soul. This reversible equilibrium is a scientific necessity of the nature.
The individual soul also takes up a very delicate thin energetic body and goes to the hell for getting a wash of bad qualities. It is just like a person after leaving the big dress goes for a bath into bathroom with a small towel wrapped on his waist. The dirty impurities on the body are washed away to large extent.

Now, the individual soul returns back to this world to wear a new body like the person after bath comes out to wear the washed dress. In the bath, large quantities of the dirty impurities are washed away, but, still some impurities in traces exist in negligible quantities.

Similarly, the new child born contains most of the previous qualities in traces and a long time is needed for the growth of the qualities. This long time gap of the individual soul gives some peace to the world. By the evening due to games in the play ground, the body becomes dirty again and this cyclic process continues with simultaneous bath and game.

Similarly, the birth followed by life and the death followed by wash are simultaneous in the cyclic process. Though you become dirty by the evening, your morning bath makes you feel fresh for some time at least in the day. Similarly, the individual soul born as a child becomes dirty again by qualities, feels pure for some time at least in the life.

Hence, death and wash after death in the hell are essential for the cyclic human life. If you take death in the negative sense, it is totally wrong since death takes place in few seconds only. The life after death is to be thought of.

If you take the punishments in the hell also in the negative sense as in the case of majority of humanity, the life after death is to be worried and not the process of death, which takes very little time. While carrying on the cross, Jesus told the weeping people not to weep for Him but to weep for themselves and for their children, who have to go to the hell for a long time in the future.

Death of Jesus also consumed very short time only and later on He went to sit on the right lap of the Divine Father for a long time. Even for the weeping people, the death is inevitable. Death being common, the benefit of Jesus and the loss of weeping people are to be compared. By such comparison, the weeping people have to weep for themselves and their children only and not for Jesus.

In the bit called 'Sanat Sujaatiyam' present in the Maha Bharata, the sage says that the real death is forgetting the God (Pramadaakhyo Mrityuh). The individual soul leaving the gross body is not at all to be worried and should not be called as death. A person forgetting God becomes the highest sinner because of his or her ungratefulness towards God. The human birth itself given to you is due to the grace of God only.

The opportunity in this human birth given to you to worship God and reach the higher status of an angel can also happen due to the grace of God only. If you become ungrateful to God, all these opportunities are lost and you will be thrown into the cycle of births of animals and worms. Once you enter this cycle, there is no chance of your returning as human being on this earth. There is no sin equal to ungratefulness.

God has done uncountable favours to you and you must first express the gratefulness to Him at least through words and mind for the past favours before asking for a new favour in the future. Jesus always told that one should submit the prayer with gratefulness (Krutajnataa Stuti). If you are ungrateful to God, you shall be treated as dead forever. This is the real meaning of death.

Leaving the body for a wash to become fresh is the false meaning of death since there is no negative side and in fact, it is a favour done by God due to His boundless kindness. Hell is an example for His unlimited love towards human beings to provide a wash from the dirt. People mistake the hell as the expression of vengeance of God.

In spite of the speech of the sage Sanat Sujata, the blind king, Dhrutarashtra, could not realize this since he was blind in the mind also. The blind king did not hear the advice given by Lord Krishna to give at least 5 villages to Pandavaas and avoid the war. Dhrutarashtra treated Lord Krishna as a clever human being only and never realized the concept of human incarnation due to greediness even though ego and jealousy were not so much in him.

If the concept of human incarnation of God is accepted, he has to give five villages to Pandavaas. Because of his extreme greediness only, the concept of human incarnation did not enter his brain.

Many human beings do not realize the concept of human incarnation because the practical sacrifice becomes real. Most of the villagers in Brindavanam could not accept Krishna as God in human form because if they accept so, they cannot resist His thefts of butter in their homes. Apart from ego and jealousy, greediness also plays an important role in rejecting the concept of human incarnation.

[dattaswami]

. For most it's a God, the God. If you behave righteously on this side of the grave, you will be rewarded with both immortality and salvation. So, for many, they believe in this because they want to believe in it. It comforts and consoles them to believe that death is not just nothing at all except a mindless, lifeless trek back to star stuff.

The highest justice is practicing non-violence towards good living beings. Violence against bad living beings is not a sin; instead, it is meritorious. We must protect good living beings and punish bad living beings. This is divine nature (Paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṃ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām…—Gītā). But violence towards bad living beings should only be adopted as a last resort. This is so that the bad living being—especially the bad human being—gets a chance for reformation by listening to the preaching of spiritual knowledge. Unless this sacred option of preaching to reform has already been exhausted, violence should not be adopted.

God throws sinful souls into the permanent liquid fire of hell forever, only after trying again and again for their reformation. Even the sanctioning of the human rebirth of some souls is done by God only for this noble purpose of reformation. Jesus agreed to this point that human rebirth exists for some souls in order to give them a second chance to reform. Even the disciples of Jesus had mentioned this concept, but it was unfortunately deleted from the scripture later on. However, the deletion of this concept was also done with a good aim. The concept of human rebirth is good to realize the omnipotence and supreme affection of God for souls.

But for the ordinary human being, the concept of human rebirth is not so good. When students are told that they can attempt the examination only once and that their passing or failing the examination will be treated as final, they get serious and study hard. The majority will then pass the examination. But if they are told that there is another chance for failed students to clear the examination, they will exploit that facility and neglect their studies. Hence, we vote for the deletion of the concept of human rebirth from the scripture. If a certain concept is not mentioned in the scripture for some good purpose, it does not mean that the omission is bad. Several lies are told in the spiritual path because they lead to the progress of souls. Several truths were hidden in the past and even negated, because there was the possibility that people might get misled by them and go off on the wrong path.

Coming to the main point, harmless animals and birds must not be killed for the sake of food. Even from the point of medical science, non-vegetarian food is not good for health. In fact, all the necessary nutrients that promote health are found in vegetarian food. Even animals and birds derive these healthful nutrients from vegetarian food, after all. The meat of a dead living being can be consumed as food. But a living being should never be killed for the purpose of food. The followers of a branch of Hinduism called the Kāpālikas, eat flesh from dead bodies, but they do not kill living beings. Hence, this branch is well-respected. God came as Buddha and Ṛṣabhadeva to preach this non-violence towards harmless living beings.