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

[Walker]

I'm not suffering. I have no problem with being blind.

Your initial assumptions are faulty.

Here is dattaswami's initial assumption concerning you, which he offered as a clarification in response to your "disgust."

I am not telling that you have committed a sin in previous life. I have told that for any suffering there is a previous sinful deed, either today or yesterday or in the previous birth. I think you are good soul and not committed any sin.

Commentary:

Pay attention this time.

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 Hindu discussion, not your personal feelings about Hinduism.

[Harbal]

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

I wonder what sin you commited in a past life to make you such a nob head in this one.

[Walker]

What does that have to do with me?

You're blind, he's blind.
You like your life, he likes his life.
Blindness is not an obstacle to you.
Blindness is not an obstacle to him.
The thread title indicates that blindness is a topic here.

This all is quite quite obvious, thus why ask the question?

So because he's blind, that makes him similar to me, does it?

You're like him in the sense that you are both blind, you both do not see that as an obstacle, and you both like your life. Just like I said.

Why do you have a problem with that?

[Walker]

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

I wonder what sin you commited in a past life to make you such a nob head in this one.

So what. You want to suck my energy or something?

[Harbal]

So what. You want to suck my energy or something?

Not really, I'm not keen on the taste of coconut.

[Walker]

So what. You want to suck my energy or something?

Not really, I'm not keen on the taste of coconut.

Then fuck off. I'm not the topic.

[Harbal]

Then fuck off. I'm not the topic.

Charming!

[Walker]

Damn. I was aiming for unfair.

Never-the-less, it stands.

[Harbal]

Never-the-less, it stands.

Have you been looking at pictures of dattaswami again?

[Maia]

I'm not suffering. I have no problem with being blind.

Your initial assumptions are faulty.

Here is dattaswami's initial assumption concerning you, which he offered as a clarification in response to your "disgust."

I am not telling that you have committed a sin in previous life. I have told that for any suffering there is a previous sinful deed, either today or yesterday or in the previous birth. I think you are good soul and not committed any sin.

Commentary:

Pay attention this time.

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 Hindu discussion, not your personal feelings about Hinduism.

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.

[Maia]

You're blind, he's blind.
You like your life, he likes his life.
Blindness is not an obstacle to you.
Blindness is not an obstacle to him.
The thread title indicates that blindness is a topic here.

This all is quite quite obvious, thus why ask the question?

So because he's blind, that makes him similar to me, does it?

You're like him in the sense that you are both blind, you both do not see that as an obstacle, and you both like your life. Just like I said.

Why do you have a problem with that?

As I pointed out, being born blind is completely different from losing one's sight.

[Walker]

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.

[Harbal]

fuck off.

I sometimes wonder why I bother with you when you speak to me like that.

[Walker]

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?

[Iwannaplato]

I thought he was explaining Hinduism's view on blindness, rather than speaking for blind people.

He was explaining his view of blind people. He asserted what he believes is true. He was not being like a university professor or a wikipedia entry, telling people about the beliefs of Hinduism.

So what.

Why are his Hindu interpretations incorrect?

Oh, they fit within some parts of Hinduism, sure. My point was he is not informing her about Hinduism (only), he is telling her what he believes. He is asserting what is the case (in HIS belief system).

To frame it as him telling her about Hinduism is missing a core feature that he was telling us what he thinks is the case. He has opinions about the causes of her blindness. And it's odd to frame it that way, when it is so clear he is telling us what he believes and is utterly certain of.