09 Oct 11
Dogs, dogs, camels and asses are animals.
Animals do not engage in true religion or spirituality.
In fact they do not care for religion.
Also when you speak to them about God they do not want to hear.
They are interested in pleasing their tongues and genitals and sleeping and defending..
In fact that's all they are interested in doing for their entire lives.
Humans who are only concerned in eating, sleeping, mating and defending - and who do not want to understand God - are like the animals.
Would you agree?
Vedanta says they are.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaYou go to great pains to point out just how elitist you are. You have to feel superior in some way to make up for your self perceived faults, such as your non-existent social life.
Dogs, dogs, camels and asses are animals.
Animals do not engage in true religion or spirituality.
In fact they do not care for religion.
Also when you speak to them about God they do not want to hear.
They are interested in pleasing their tongues and genitals and sleeping and defending..
In fact that's all they are interested in doing for their e ...[text shortened]... ot want to understand God - are like the animals.
Would you agree?
Vedanta says they are.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaHow did you come to gain your understanding, Dasa?
Dogs, dogs, camels and asses are animals.
Animals do not engage in true religion or spirituality.
In fact they do not care for religion.
Also when you speak to them about God they do not want to hear.
They are interested in pleasing their tongues and genitals and sleeping and defending..
In fact that's all they are interested in doing for their e ...[text shortened]... ot want to understand God - are like the animals.
Would you agree?
Vedanta says they are.
Before you understood did somebody call you an ass and afterwards you believed and uderstood?
Or did you question until you came to find enlightenment?
Is teaching merely handing out understanding or is it helping the student to ask the same question you did?
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaI think to compare humans to animals involves deliberately ignoring the capacity of the human spirit, consciousness, individuality and identity etc. [i.e. the abstract attributes and potentials that create the basis for our common/diverse spirituality] - and therefore I see it as sheer nonsense. If you are stating the meaning of your cult's "spiritual" literature correctly, then it is no wonder that normal decent spiritual people reject its jaundiced, sterile, sociopathic outlook. Having said that, I support your right to believe what you want to believe about yourself.
Dogs, dogs, camels and asses are animals.
Animals do not engage in true religion or spirituality.
In fact they do not care for religion.
Also when you speak to them about God they do not want to hear.
They are interested in pleasing their tongues and genitals and sleeping and defending..
In fact that's all they are interested in doing for their e ...[text shortened]... ot want to understand God - are like the animals.
Would you agree?
Vedanta says they are.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by tomtom232You make a valid point.
How did you come to gain your understanding, Dasa?
Before you understood did somebody call you an ass and afterwards you believed and uderstood?
Or did you question until you came to find enlightenment?
Is teaching merely handing out understanding or is it helping the student to ask the same question you did?
Those who defend falsity though - are different from those who hear the truth and accept.
Honest people accept truth when they are presented with it.
To keep on defending falsity to the bitter end is dishonest though.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaThis is one of your stock in trade circular arguments, Dasa. Do you know what a circular argument is? You need to address this issue. It lies at the very heart of your communication problem in this community.
You make a valid point.
Those who defend falsity though - are different from those who hear the truth and accept.
Honest people accept truth when they are presented with it.
To keep on defending falsity to the bitter end is dishonest though.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by FMFIts quiet normal for persons who are only concerned with eating, sleeping, mating and defending and who don't care for God - to become upset with my statement - because it has the effect of upsetting the ones which it applies to.
I think to compare humans to animals involves deliberately ignoring the capacity of the human spirit, consciousness, individuality and identity etc. [i.e. the abstract attributes and potentials that create the basis for our common/diverse spirituality] - and therefore I see it as sheer nonsense. If you are stating the meaning of your cult's "spiritual" literatur ...[text shortened]... k. Having said that, I support your right to believe what you want to believe about yourself.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaThis is one of your stock in trade circular arguments, Dasa. Do you know what a circular argument is? You need to address this issue. It lies at the very heart of your communication problem in this community.
You make a valid point.
Those who defend falsity though - are different from those who hear the truth and accept.
Honest people accept truth when they are presented with it.
To keep on defending falsity to the bitter end is dishonest though.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by Dasafee·ble-mind·ed (fbl-mndd)
Its quiet normal for persons who are only concerned with eating, sleeping, mating and defending and who don't care for God - to become upset with my statement - because it has the effect of upsetting the ones which it applies to.
adj.
1. Offensive Deficient in intelligence.
2. Exhibiting a marked lack of intelligent consideration and forethought: feeble-minded excuses; a feeble-minded plan doomed to failure.
3. Obsolete Irresolute and weak-willed.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaI don't know who you think is "upset", Dasa. Citing your own characterization of people in a previous post as evidence that the people disagreeing with it are therefore proven to be whatever you are characterizing them to be, is not going to work. Comparing humans to animals is not going to work. Dehumanizing dissenters may 'work' for you, Dasa, in some psychological way, but it clearly isn't working for you here in this community.
Its quiet normal for persons who are only concerned with eating, sleeping, mating and defending and who don't care for God - to become upset with my statement - because it has the effect of upsetting the ones which it applies to.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaDeclaring yourself to be speaking the "truth" and then suggesting that everyone who does not accept what you say is a liar, is not going to work. Your personal style of communication is surely doing your belief system a disservice.
Honest people accept truth when they are presented with it.
09 Oct 11
3 edits
Originally posted by DasaActually, you could make an arguement that animals behave far better. After all, do animals enslave other animals to do their bidding? Do humans love you unconditionally like a dog? Of course, like you say, they have their dark side like humans.
Dogs, dogs, camels and asses are animals.
Animals do not engage in true religion or spirituality.
In fact they do not care for religion.
Also when you speak to them about God they do not want to hear.
They are interested in pleasing their tongues and genitals and sleeping and defending..
In fact that's all they are interested in doing for their e ...[text shortened]... ot want to understand God - are like the animals.
Would you agree?
Vedanta says they are.
If you ask me plants are far more righteous. My guess is though that you eat them and have no problem with that. ðŸ˜
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by whodeyYou are correct.
Actually, you could make an arguement that animals behave far better. After all, do animals enslave other animals to do their bidding? Do humans love you unconditionally like a dog? Of course, like you say, they have their dark side like humans.
If you ask me plants are far more righteous. My guess is though that you eat them and have no problem with that. ðŸ˜
Animals do behave better than most humans.
Animals do not violate themselves like many humans.
With an animal you can be assured of their behaviour under certain circumstance and conditions - but humans have this thing called - hate, spite, envy, retribution, cheating, sadism, cruelty and callowness -that animals do not have.
In world war two Germans put children into the gas ovens alive.
Humans who waste this life for only eating, sleeping, mating and defending are like animals.
09 Oct 11
3 edits
Originally posted by DasaIs it falsity they are defending or themselves? Do they understand the falsity to be false or do they unerstand it to be true? If they understand the falsity to be true is it a lie for them to defend it as truth? If so would it not also be a lie to defend and present as truth what they understand to be false?
You make a valid point.
Those who defend falsity though - are different from those who hear the truth and accept.
Honest people accept truth when they are presented with it.
To keep on defending falsity to the bitter end is dishonest though.
Is it them or their understanding that is false?