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

[iambiguous]

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.

In my very own personal opinion, you are absolutely and utterly beyond reasoning with. You're just one of any number of "religious nuts" that show up in philosophy forums, babbling on and on about one or another One True Path that others have either brainwashed them into regurgitating or [in all probability] they have brainwashed themselves into regurgitating. If only just once they could be inside my head reacting to them as I do.

Or, to paraphrase Bob Dylan...

"I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is to read you"

If you have any intellectual honesty and integrity left at all you will contemplate this...

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

"Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger." United Nations

...and admit to yourself that if a God, the God, your God does in fact exist He must either not be omnipotent or if He is, He must be a sadistic monster.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.




Note to Age:

He's all yours. Birds of a feather and all...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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.

In my very own personal opinion, you are absolutely and utterly beyond reasoning with. You're just one of any number of "religious nuts" that show up in philosophy forums, babbling on and on about one or another One True Path that others have either brainwashed them into regurgitating or [in all probability] they have brainwashed themselves into regurgitating. If only just once they could be inside my head reacting to them as I do.

Or, to paraphrase Bob Dylan...

"I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is to read you"

If you have any intellectual honesty and integrity left at all you will contemplate this...

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

"Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger." United Nations

...and admit to yourself that if a God, the God, your God does in fact exist He must either not be omnipotent or if He is, He must be a sadistic monster.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.




Note to Age:

He's all yours. Birds of a feather and all...

Data smarmy is clearly a sociopathic megalomaniac. A truly repellent creature. He's infiltrated this site in the hope that he will find even one person stupid and gullible enough to believe he offers some kind of divine insight and wisdom. Cue Walker

[iambiguous]

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.

In my very own personal opinion, you are absolutely and utterly beyond reasoning with. You're just one of any number of "religious nuts" that show up in philosophy forums, babbling on and on about one or another One True Path that others have either brainwashed them into regurgitating or [in all probability] they have brainwashed themselves into regurgitating. If only just once they could be inside my head reacting to them as I do.

Or, to paraphrase Bob Dylan...

"I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is to read you"

If you have any intellectual honesty and integrity left at all you will contemplate this...

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

"Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger." United Nations

...and admit to yourself that if a God, the God, your God does in fact exist He must either not be omnipotent or if He is, He must be a sadistic monster.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.




Note to Age:

He's all yours. Birds of a feather and all...

Data smarmy is clearly a sociopathic megalomaniac. A truly repellent creature. He's infiltrated this site in the hope that he will find even one person stupid and gullible enough to believe he offers some kind of divine insight and wisdom. Cue Walker

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Though, in particularly foul moods, sure, I can go along with that.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Doesn't matter what I say on here, or who I agree with, I pretty much always get a stupid, meaningless response back. Curious...

[dattaswami]

Data smarmy is clearly a sociopathic megalomaniac. A truly repellent creature. He's infiltrated this site in the hope that he will find even one person stupid and gullible enough to believe he offers some kind of divine insight and wisdom. Cue Walker

When you are trying to punish others for their faults here, you are also punished by God for your faults here itself. If you excuse others’ faults, God will also excuse your faults. God’s punishments are appearing as difficulties and problems in life. If you try to reform others through love without harsh words, God will also help you in reforming you through love without any harsh action on you. Every human being is a mixture of good and bad qualities. Sometimes good comes out and sometimes bad comes out. Every human being sees one’s own good only and not bad. Similarly, every human being sees bad only in others and not good. This is the reason why the human being thinks that he/she is good and all others as bad. This is the reason for God’s anger on you. To teach a lesson to you, He gives punishments for your faults also here itself. This is the reason why all the human beings are getting difficulties or problems in their lives. You shall change your faults with mental peace and without emotion. Similarly, you shall advise others to rectify their faults through loving and soft words. Then God will love you and excuse your faults without punishing you.

Bhartruhari says “Paraguṇaparamāṇūn parvatīkṛtya santaḥ”. This shloka means

1. Everybody sees one’s own large bad as small bad.

2. Everybody sees one’s own small good as large good.

3. Everybody sees small bad in others as large bad.

4. Everybody sees large good in others as small good.

This is the reason for quarrels everywhere in the world. If everybody wants a peaceful and happy life in this world,

1. Everybody shall see one’s own small bad as large bad.

2. Everybody shall see one’s own large good as small good.

3. Everybody shall see small good in others as large good.

4. Everybody shall see large bad in others as small bad.

All this message is for every human being in this world. I am not specifying anybody because this message applies to every human being in the entire world.

[Maia]

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?

I don't have any committed belief in reincarnation, still less can I demonstrate it. If it were possible to do so, it would have been done thousands of years ago.

[Maia]

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.

When people speak of human suffering, they are probably not thinking about mild irritation.

[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.

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.

Even without vengeance or anger, you're still saying that suffering is a result of sin. It's this that I find dangerous and repellent.

[Walker]

When people speak of human suffering, they are probably not thinking about mild irritation.

That depends on the context of the discussion. The context here is about ethical principles relating to philosophies. In this context to be without frustration, or mild irritation, is nothing to sneeze at. It's a launching pad that could lead to the Unified Field Theory, if one but had the capacity to navigate that path. It's also a lesson in how to simultaneously care and not care. Oh yes, there's a lot more to it than your weak dismissal.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Even without vengeance or anger, you're still saying that suffering is a result of sin. It's this that I find dangerous and repellent.

Yes, it's a terrible concept and as far as I have experienced quite untrue.
A few thoughts:
If religious leaders, say a guru at an ashram, had taken note of people who in past lives were not sinners and not in this life either and openly said 'Suffering is not dependent on sin.' all sorts of problems would have arisen not just for that guru but for the ashram. It's revolutionary.
DS's belief supports the power structure. If the rich suffer less and have more, they deserve it. The poor deserve their poverty. The lower castes deserve their suffering. The powerful and the fortunate get to feel that it is only right they have what they have and those weaker or without power have themselves to blame. If this is not necessarily the case, then where the rich got their money and what they do with it is much more open to questioning. Those with power can be considered not deserving of power. A spiritual concept may seem non-political, but it is political or anti-political we could say.

The other thought, is that it is not my experience that it is sinners who get punished. Sin is not really a word I use. But empathyless souls seem to manage to hurt others in lifetime after lifetime for example. There are other patterns that do not fit his views.

People experience their ideas and not anomolies and individuals and creatures and things as they are.

He may very well be a great meditator. But meditation cannot clear out many different kinds of cultural bias and personality problems.

And as an aside...as far as the title of this thread...Jesus did not say what DS is saying. In fact he specifically says that that blindness has nothing to with sin, whether you suffer it or not. He did say something strange...that God had made a specific man blind so that Jesus could heal him and show God's power. Which is also a pretty odd idea, but not like the one that DS is peddling.

[Maia]

When people speak of human suffering, they are probably not thinking about mild irritation.

That depends on the context of the discussion. The context here is about ethical principles relating to philosophies. In this context to be without frustration, or mild irritation, is nothing to sneeze at. It's a launching pad that could lead to the Unified Field Theory, if one but had the capacity to navigate that path. It's also a lesson in how to simultaneously care and not care. Oh yes, there's a lot more to it than your weak dismissal.

I think the idea of being so unfeeling as to be unable to feel anger, or even mild irritation, is quite appalling. Such a person would also be unable to feel love, happiness, and so on.

[Maia]

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.

Even without vengeance or anger, you're still saying that suffering is a result of sin. It's this that I find dangerous and repellent.

Yes, it's a terrible concept and as far as I have experienced quite untrue.
A few thoughts:
If religious leaders, say a guru at an ashram, had taken note of people who in past lives were not sinners and not in this life either and openly said 'Suffering is not dependent on sin.' all sorts of problems would have arisen not just for that guru but for the ashram. It's revolutionary.
DS's belief supports the power structure. If the rich suffer less and have more, they deserve it. The poor deserve their poverty. The lower castes deserve their suffering. The powerful and the fortunate get to feel that it is only right they have what they have and those weaker or without power have themselves to blame. If this is not necessarily the case, then where the rich got their money and what they do with it is much more open to questioning. Those with power can be considered not deserving of power. A spiritual concept may seem non-political, but it is political or anti-political we could say.

The other thought, is that it is not my experience that it is sinners who get punished. Sin is not really a word I use. But empathyless souls seem to manage to hurt others in lifetime after lifetime for example. There are other patterns that do not fit his views.

People experience their ideas and not anomolies and individuals and creatures and things as they are.

He may very well be a great meditator. But meditation cannot clear out many different kinds of cultural bias and personality problems.

And as an aside...as far as the title of this thread...Jesus did not say what DS is saying. In fact he specifically says that that blindness has nothing to with sin, whether you suffer it or not. He did say something strange...that God had made a specific man blind so that Jesus could heal him and show God's power. Which is also a pretty odd idea, but not like the one that DS is peddling.

All organised religions seem tailor made to support the power structure, which is an odd coincidence.

Didn't Jesus also say something like, from memory, There will always be poor people around, to be charitable to and feel good about yourself for doing so. Letting slip the actual way that rich people, even "good" ones, have always approached it.

[Iwannaplato]

All organised religions seem tailor made to support the power structure, which is an odd coincidence.

Or they get appropriated by the secular power structure. Or they have a spiritual hierarchy and this then meshes with the secular hierarchy.

Didn't Jesus also say something like, from memory, There will always be poor people around, to be charitable to and feel good about yourself for doing so. Letting slip the actual way that rich people, even "good" ones, have always approached it.

He did say the poor will always be around, but he meant this as in comparison to him. At least, that's the reference I remember. More or less, like hey, don't think just about the poor. I'm here, I'll be dead soon. Pay attention to me. To be charitable, we could imagine he meant that it was more important that they learned from him before he was killed. Though it could have been a diva statement.

He was also quoting from the OT

“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.” —Deuteronomy 15:11

So, he could have been reminding them to be always be generous, but right now it was best to focus on him.

Who knows.

[dattaswami]

If religious leaders, say a guru at an ashram, had taken note of people who in past lives were not sinners and not in this life either and openly said 'Suffering is not dependent on sin.' all sorts of problems would have arisen not just for that guru but for the ashram. It's revolutionary.
DS's belief supports the power structure. If the rich suffer less and have more, they deserve it. The poor deserve their poverty. The lower castes deserve their suffering. The powerful and the fortunate get to feel that it is only right they have what they have and those weaker or without power have themselves to blame. If this is not necessarily the case, then where the rich got their money and what they do with it is much more open to questioning. Those with power can be considered not deserving of power. A spiritual concept may seem non-political, but it is political or anti-political we could say.

The other thought, is that it is not my experience that it is sinners who get punished. Sin is not really a word I use. But empathyless souls seem to manage to hurt others in lifetime after lifetime for example. There are other patterns that do not fit his views.

People experience their ideas and not anomolies and individuals and creatures and things as they are.

He may very well be a great meditator. But meditation cannot clear out many different kinds of cultural bias and personality problems.

And as an aside...as far as the title of this thread...Jesus did not say what DS is saying. In fact he specifically says that that blindness has nothing to with sin, whether you suffer it or not. He did say something strange...that God had made a specific man blind so that Jesus could heal him and show God's power. Which is also a pretty odd idea, but not like the one that DS is peddling.

Some people say that even good people are unnecessarily harmed. They criticize God. You cannot decide any person as a good person. Did you observe him every minute from his birth? You also think yourself as a good person. Are you aware of your sins done in your childhood? You might have harmed an innocent insect in your childhood. Do you remember that? Even mental feelings are sins, which may not be expressed in words and actions. The feelings of the mind are the source of words and actions.

Therefore the feeling may not hurt others today. But tomorrow it will hurt others which will come out in words and actions. In fact, intention is given more importance in the crime according to law. The judge gives more importance to the intention in giving the punishment. You are walking on the road and the ant is killed by your foot, without any intention. There is no punishment for such sins. But when you kill the same ant with intention, you are punished by God. Therefore mind is the source of action.

If somebody harmed really a good person, then also leave it to God. You should not revenge. Why? The reason is that you cannot judge the exact nature and line of the case. You do not remember your own sins. Some times you do the sin thinking that it is good. You cannot be the standard in judging your own sins. Only the Lord can decide. Therefore, if somebody harmed really a good person, in the view of the Lord also, then the Lord himself will punish him.

You cannot take the law and order in to your hand. You have to refer the case to the court. Let the Judge decide, and punish the criminal. Therefore the Lord said, “Revenge is Mine”. If the revenge is justified, the Lord will certainly punish. The Lord will not revenge if you pray Him to do so. The Lord, will not excuse even if you recommend the unjust case.


Neither you have the power to punish nor to excuse anybody. The reason for this is that you are not omniscient. If a sinner realizes the sin and repents, the punishment is reduced. After repentance if you do not repeat the sins, the punishment is cancelled. If the sinner does not repent, he will repeat the sin again and again. Such sinner can be controlled only by punishment. If this is not true the police department has no use. There are some sinners who can be controlled only by third degree treatment. If such punishment and revenge are not required, and if everybody can be transformed by preaching, then what is the necessity of the existence of’ Hell and Liquid Fire’.

If such possibility of transformation by love and knowledge is there, then why the Lord mentioned the word ‘revenge’ at all? Therefore this means that there are some sinners who cannot be transformed by love and knowledge. Some clever people criticize Lord Rama and Lord Krishna, who have resorted to punish the sinners. Such clever people should answer about the word ‘revenge’ uttered by the Lord and also should explain the mention of the liquid fire in the scriptures. If all the human beings can be transformed through love and knowledge such words should not have been mentioned in their scriptures.

[Maia]

All organised religions seem tailor made to support the power structure, which is an odd coincidence.

Or they get appropriated by the secular power structure. Or they have a spiritual hierarchy and this then meshes with the secular hierarchy.

Didn't Jesus also say something like, from memory, There will always be poor people around, to be charitable to and feel good about yourself for doing so. Letting slip the actual way that rich people, even "good" ones, have always approached it.

He did say the poor will always be around, but he meant this as in comparison to him. At least, that's the reference I remember. More or less, like hey, don't think just about the poor. I'm here, I'll be dead soon. Pay attention to me. To be charitable, we could imagine he meant that it was more important that they learned from him before he was killed. Though it could have been a diva statement.

He was also quoting from the OT

“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.” —Deuteronomy 15:11

So, he could have been reminding them to be always be generous, but right now it was best to focus on him.

Who knows.

It was connected with him being anointed, I believe. Mary Magdalene had gone out and bought some really expensive oil and was criticised for wasting the money rather than giving it to the poor, but Jesus leapt to her defence by saying that the poor will always be around, to give money to another day. Or something like that.