React to insults--Why turn other Cheek

bhaktajan said:
I am a karma-yogi who has graduated to jnana-yoga (pron., 'gya-na') and thus, I naturally gravitated to a student of Bhakti-yoga.
Bhaktajan, I'm sorry I haven't responded but I've been very busy. I still have yet to look up basic information about Bhakti-yoga or what a yogi is. I have seen people practicing yoga positions, but I'm sure there's more involved than stretching exercises. This may surprise you, but I came from an environment where yoga was looked upon as a satanic product, just like rock'n roll or disco or even yoda in the Star Wars movie.

Aupmanyav, I will try to get back to you within a reasonable number of days. Sorry about the delay.
 
sport is to help others, 'turn the other cheek'

As Elaine said to George Costanza: "What did your parents do to you?"

The Sportsman must stay in the Zone, and save my self from loss.

If the Sportsman DOES NOT turn the other Cheek, that Sportsman is bound to be a loser.

The Person must stay on task and win.

If the Person DOES NOT turn the other Cheek, that Person is bound to be a loser.

It cannot get any more elementary.

You know what makes a better Mouse Trap?
A Hammer and due vigilance.

Good Luck with the learning deficit.
 
what a yogi is.

This may surprise you, . . . yoga = a satanic product, just like rock'n roll or disco or even yoda in the Star Wars movie.

I believe your sentiment exists as a common belief.

Ironically, The US Military is not recruiting Sanskrit Translators.

Ironically, I agree with the "rock'n roll" as satanic stance.
Ironically, "Male Enhancement Adverts" are more common at family TV Viewing time than yet another airing of "Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven".

Does your sentiment include "Free Bird" by Lynyrd Skynyrd too?--- Wouldn't that be sacrilegious?

Just an anthropological Question of my own:
Can you confide with me weather or not your local Preachers feel the same about, "Squidbilles" the cartoon?

PS:
Is Pat Boone still alive?
Has all those royalties been paid to the grandkids of those pioneer African-American Rock n Roll Bluesmen?
 
Originally Posted by luecy7
sport is to help others, 'turn the other cheek'

GREAT DEVILS ADVOCATING!

Whatever it is you're articulating here ... you are denigrating the GOOD GUYS.

YOUR ADVISE is for the Bad Guys.

[ie: The bad guy was Duryodhana and his clan of Brothers]

You must address Duryodhana as the Selfish aggressor.

You must defend the defenders that sought to DESTROY Duryodhana ---otherwise you are cheering for the downfall of the Empire, and, the installation of the Bad Guys as Rulers.

Krishna was on the Side of the Good Guys in this Historical Epic record known as the Mahabharata.

BTW, Your motivation along with your posts are both un-known ---but that might be due to "Self-Representation" rather than getting good council.
 
PAT BOONE // 50TH ANNIVERSARY

Does your sentiment include "Free Bird" by Lynyrd Skynyrd too?--- Wouldn't that be sacrilegious?
I really like some Lynyrd Skynyard. I particularly like "Simple Man" and I have visited the town where the singer grew up. Its hot and the affects of segregation are still very strong, but the place is pretty and people are upbeat. I think that place is going to be ok.

I don't think Rock'n Roll is a product of anything except people. Some of it is creativity, some is a rebellion, some is a kind of pain killer or medicine, and some of it is just for the money. I think that most people who used to think Rock'n Roll was Satanic have changed their minds and now view it as a neutral medium; but a very small number of people feel very strongly that it is rooted in Voodoo and so carries a spiritual 'Taint' of that voodoo. Also its encroaching upon hymns in the form of 'Worship music', and it tends to edge them out of churches. A lot of people react to that, because hymns are important.

Just an anthropological Question of my own:
Can you confide with me weather or not your local Preachers feel the same about, "Squidbilles" the cartoon?
Its been a while since I watched TV, but I liked the cartoon "Samarai Jack" very much.
 
The good wins when the evil are good.

The evil wins when the good are evil.

If the evil person lost, the good person lost.

If the good person wins, the evil person wins.

Such good yet cacophonous grammar.

How is that possible to scramble such plain English?

<FYI: Your writings remind me of an old poster known as Bishadi who did this type of misanthropisms.>


You believe I am an advocate for evil?

I will read up on Yudhishthira and Duryodhana.

NO! I DON'T BELIEVE you are an advocate for evil.

But that is what you have done ---I already explained that you were doing this--- but you kept barreling ahead nonetheless.

Yes, so far you have been advocating for the "Crucifix Manufacturers Guild's right to below par pay rates" ---so far it has been me "turning the other Cheek" to your writings.

Have you been trying to trick me into insulting you? It may explain your diatribes.
 
GREAT DEVILS ADVOCATING!

Whatever it is you're articulating here ... you are denigrating the GOOD GUYS.

YOUR ADVISE is for the Bad Guys.

[ie: The bad guy was Duryodhana and his clan of Brothers]

You must address Duryodhana as the Selfish aggressor.

You must defend the defenders that sought to DESTROY Duryodhana ---otherwise you are cheering for the downfall of the Empire, and, the installation of the Bad Guys as Rulers.

Krishna was on the Side of the Good Guys in this Historical Epic record known as the Mahabharata.
So I read just a little history of Yudhisthira, Duryodhana, and Bhisma. From my viewpoint both the good and the evil were in each: they each surely did some good things, and each reportedly did evil. As I read of the arrow bed for Bhisma, and the words of Krishna with him regarding the Cheer-Haran of Draupadi, it makes perfect sense because it was already present in the words that you shared. You may call it 'turning the other cheek', but Krishna called his inaction a great sin.

I know someone that had their home broken into, and their possessions stolen. One person takes the proverbial poison pill over it: gets angry, depressed, does not forgive, wants to see the thief punished in jail. The other person wishes to forget and move on, to take no action whatsoever except to fortify their own walls. Which does good, helping the criminal? Which is an example of turn the other cheek? Neither, really. Both that action, and the inaction, are selfish.

BTW, Your motivation along with your posts are both un-known ---but that might be due to "Self-Representation" rather than getting good council.
I just call it as I see it, from my perspective. Do you not like my input here?
 
If Bhisma responded and said something like, "Anyone that does unto others as they would NOT have others do unto them, provokes and makes an enemy, has need to repent and should do so expediently, no matter whether the other is considered weak or powerful", then I would agree with him.
Yudhishthira's question was so posed, not Bhishma's fault. Had the question been phrased differently, I think, Bhishma would have answered like that. Now, what do you do about a scripture that is about 2,000 year old? One can't change it.

But, please remember, there are many other such discussions in thousands of hindu scriptures, probably one in each, with which wise advice is given to hindus. That is the purpose of scriptures, Gods and Goddesses are peripheral. BhagwadGita too, is one such long discussion. The advice is important, not Krishna (Bhaktajan may differ). Another popular one is the Chhandogya Upanishad.
 
I will read up on Yudhishthira and Duryodhana.
No character in hindu mythology is totally good or totally bad. As they say, we are a mixture of three attributes; Satva, Rajas, and Tamas (Good, Status quo, and bad). We do not have a Satan in hindu mythology. Read about the good characterstics of Duryodhana at Duryodhana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
In a similar conversation with Nahusha, Yudhishthira defines who is a brahmin in these words:

"O Lord of Perpents, The one who is truthful, is generous, is patient, is virtuous, has empathy, is tranquil, and has compassion - such a person is a brahmin."

In a conversation with Yama, the Lord of Delth, Yudhishthira says:

"Brahmin is neither by birth nor learning. It is behavior which makes one a brahmin."

The first verse of Ashtavakra Gita says:

"Janma Jaata Shudra Sarve Karmena Brahmanan Bhavati"

A person is at a 'nobody' by birth and its only the deeds of each person which finally make him a Brahmin.

Srimad Bhagavat Purana says:

"Viprad dwisadgunayutad aravinda nabha, pararvinda vimukkhat svapancam varistham."

Brahmin is not a birth right, being a Brahmin is a qualification and one has to qualify for that.

BhagawadGita mentions the qualities of a brahmin in this way:

"Shamo damas tapaḥ shaucham, kshāntir ārjavam eva cha;
jnānam vijnānam āstiskyassm, brahma-karma svabhāva-jam."


Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, and honesty too,
knowledge, wisdom and religiousness - these are the natural qualities by which the brāhmiṇs work.

It is extremely difficult to be a 'true brahmin'. The others are brahmins only in name. This has been repeatedly stressed in hindu scriptures.
 
Krishna called the inaction of Bhisma a great sin (mahapapam). How is that possible?

Aupmanyav and bhaktajan, question for you:

Who does a 'true brahmin' worship, and give all kinds of respect to?
 
Krishna called the inaction of Bhisma a great sin (mahapapam). How is that possible?

This is a most appropriate question.
So well choosen because it shines light on the topics of
“Dharma” [occupational & constitutional obliged duties] +
“Karma” [the nature of ‘Work’ and its re-actions]

a] Protocol requires sanskrit scholars to provide citation of “Chapter & Verse” ---But here, I can work with what you gave me. “In-Action” and, “Great-Sin” (aka, ‘maha papa’).

B] This citation has been ‘truncated’ irregardless of specific context. For implicite in a discussion of “In-action” is the Topic of DHARMA.

IE: The firemen’s DHARMA is to extinguish public fires ---during an alarm call to action--- it is an impeachable (sinfull) “Act of In-action” to ignore the call-to-action when the alarm is ringing.

The person whose DHARMA is to preform a specific duty ---is entrusted to ensure “In-Action” Never ever occurs.

DHARMA = performance of one’s individual occupational/obliged duty.

The conclusion of “Seinfeld” the TV Sitcom Show
had the main char-acters be arrested for “in-Action”
---they Video-taped a street mugging (car hi-jack)
without aiding and comforting the victim---
they find out that a recent local law “required”
volunteerring Good-Samaratans to respond to helpless people.
This was a TV Comnedy Fiction.
Is there enforcable “Good-Samaratan Laws” in all communities?
I don’t know. Probably not.
But I do suspect “repo-men” do work tightly with local police and of course Bank-Loan officers.

C] “ACTION” Off the top of my head I will say
[I’ll double-check b4 I post this ~yeah close enough]: There are three ‘actions’
as explained in the Gita: ---action, re-action & in-action

Bhagavad-gita chapter 4 verse 16-18:
“Even the intelligent are bewildered in determining what is action and what is inaction. Now I shall explain to you what action is, knowing which you shall be liberated from all misfortune.”

“The intricacies of action are very hard to understand. Therefore one should know properly what action is, what forbidden action is, and what inaction is.”

“One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities.”

The indian swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta begins his commentary to this verse:

‘If one is serious about liberation from material bondage, one has to understand the distinctions between action, inaction and unauthorized actions. One has to apply oneself to such an analysis of action, reaction and perverted actions because it is a very difficult subject matter. …’



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Who does a 'true brahmin' worship, and give all kinds of respect to?

This is another great question.

Brahmins (actually: brahmanas) whorship “BRAHMAN”

In India the term, “BRAHMAN” is the received universal Vedic nomenclature for GOD
---pareticularly similar to how GOD is referred to in Abrahamic parlance:
“God is the singular composite whole amalgamation of all cosmic phenomena
---which may or may not include, or incorporate, or first orginate from---
a Personal Godhead”

Although brahmanas by quality are supposed to know about Brahman,
the Supreme Absolute Truth, most of them approach only the impersonal Brahman manifestation of Lord Krishna. But a man who transcends the limited knowledge of a brahmana and reaches the knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, becomes a person in “Krishna consciousness”—or, in technically, a Vaisnava.


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Resources - definition of a Brahmin:

IMO verse gives a definition of a Brahmin’s requisite spiritual goals:

Bg 14.22-25:
“He who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion
when they are present or long for them when they disappear;
who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental,
knowing that the modes alone are active;
who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress;
who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye;
who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable;
who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor;
who treats alike both friend and enemy;
and who has renounced all material activities
—such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature. [the 3 gunas]”

Bg 7.16:
Four kinds of pious men do devotional service unto God
—the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive,
and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.
Bg 7.17:
Of these, the one who is in full knowledge
[of the nature/workings of karma, dharma, action and the soul]
and who is always engaged in pure devotional service is the best.
For God am very dear to him, and he is dear to God.
Bg 7.18:
All these devotees are undoubtedly magnanimous souls,
but he who is in knowledge of Me
I consider to be just like My own self.
Being engaged in My transcendental service,
he is sure to attain Me, the highest and most perfect goal.
Bg 7.21:
I am in everyone’s heart as the Supersoul.
As soon as one desires to worship some demigod,
I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity.
Bg 7.22:
Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.
Bg 7.23:
Men of small intelligence worship the demigods,
and their fruits are limited and temporary.
Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods,
but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

[I will interject this point:
In material real world society, we find ourselves ‘beholding’ to demagogues
---these fellow humans often impose taxation and thus vexations through out ones lifetimes ---such is the vicissitudes of the manifest world of Time & Space; and thus, the Ying & Yang world of duality; of Spirit-Souls in a Material World of Karma & Samsarah]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

A verse from the Padma Purana:

sat-karma-nipuno vipro
mantra-tantra-visaradah
avaisnavo gurur na syad
vaisnavah sva-paco guruh
“A scholarly brahmana, expert in all subjects of Vedic knowledge, is unfit to become a spiritual master without being a Vaisnava, or expert in the science of Krishna consciousness. But a person born in a family of a lower caste can become a spiritual master if he is a Vaisnava, or Krishna conscious.”

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

A true yogi observes Me in all beings and also sees every being in Me. Indeed, the self-realized person sees Me, the same Supreme Lord, everywhere.

Bg 6.8:
A person is said to be established in self-realization and is called a yogi [or mystic] when he is fully satisfied by virtue of acquired knowledge and realization. Such a person is situated in transcendence and is self-controlled. He sees everything—whether it be pebbles, stones or gold—as the same.

Bg 6.23:
He is a perfect yogi who, by comparison to his own self, sees the true equality of all beings, in both their happiness and their distress, O Arjuna!

Bg 6.28:
Thus the self-controlled yogi, constantly engaged in yoga practice, becomes free from all material contamination and achieves the highest stage of perfect happiness in transcendental loving service to the Lord.
 
PS:
Luecy7,
Your framing of your query by citing, "Bhishma" has much much more additional nuance ---due to Bhishma's biography--- Bhishma is famous for vows that thus tied his hands, meaning, he was forced into IN-ACTION etc etc etc.

Bit shocking and poetically non-anachronistic of Luecy7 to have chose the personage of Grandfather Bhishma combined with questions about Duty.
["Pita-mah"! as Duryodhan would often call him]

Bhishma is bigger a personality in the Epic Mahabharata than Arjuna is in the 700 verse Gita as song by Bhagavan Krishna ---that is inre the total "story-arc" of the epic's through-line.

Bhishma and the topic of Dharma and thus, Karma, and the duty of the "Nobless Oblige" ---dovetailed with the face-time audience of Brahman Personifide--- it quite auspicious.

Om tat sat
 
Who does a 'true brahmin' worship, and give all kinds of respect to?
You seem to forget that most hindus are polytheists. In a hindu 'pooja', the first worship is to Goddess Saraswati (Speech and learning), without which there can be no worship. The second worship is to Lord Ganesha (who is supposed to ensure no obstacles). The third worship is to Mother Earth (who sustains us). Then all the Gods and Goddesses are invoked one by one and offered worship. An atheist brahmin like me who believes in non-duality does not need to worship any. No God for me. 'Tat twam asi' (You yourself are what exists)
 
Krishna called the inaction of Bhisma a great sin (mahapapam). How is that possible?
"Bhishma asked Krishna why he was suffering so much. Krishna told him it was a result of his reticence and silence towards Draupadi's cheer-haran which was a maha-papam (great Sin). Bhishma failed to act to protect Draupadi at a time of dire need."
Bhishma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For that you would need to study the story of Draupadi in Wikipedia. Duryodhana had ordered the undressing of Draupadi in a full audience (this was in retaliation of Draupadi's laugh when he fell down in water in the Pandava palace because he could not differentiate between solid ground and water, the palace was that cleverly made). Bhishma was there, but kept mum. It was his kings order. But that was not right action, he should have intervened and saved Draupadi's honor. As a punishment for this action, his death was very painful, lingering for ten days between life and death.

Bhishma's death too was the result of another action (karma). It is a very interesting story. I invite you to read it at Shikhandi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Don't accuse me of pointing to false and strange stories because all mythology is like that. Bhishma was killed by Arjun from behind Draupadi's brother, a sex-changed warrior (from a girl to a boy), whom Bhishma would not kill, because he was the reborn woman whose life Bhishma had spoiled. :D
 
This is a most appropriate question.
So well choosen because it shines light on the topics of
“Dharma” [occupational & constitutional obliged duties] +
“Karma” [the nature of ‘Work’ and its re-actions]
That is where I was headed next: Dharma and Karma.

Is the Dharma of a person (man, woman) ever to:
1. To do unto others as others do unto others?
2. To not do unto others as others do not do?
3. To do unto others as they would not have others do unto them?
4. To not do unto others as they would have others do unto them?
5. To be the deliverer, the bringer, the provider, the do-er, of another's Karma?

From my viewpoint, to turn the other cheek is to do none of those. In my read of the OP, Bhisma heavily teaches one or two of those, instead of 'turn the other cheek', and according to the report of history, did the same and was even punished for it. Bhisma avoids being slapped.

It is interesting to me that you say I denigrate the good here, while advocating or assisting the evil. Is it good, in your viewpoint, to seek and do one of those items?

I find at the root of this is: what does it mean to believe in, and to worship God? In the relationship between a person (human), and God, what is the Dharma and Karma of a man, and the Dharma and Karma of God? Said a different way: What is the evil, where does it come from, and who is it that worships, bows to, and does, the evil?

This is a verbatim excerpt from the Ancient Epic, "The Maha-Bharata":
About this... I have been looking and I have not found it. What is the Parva and Sub-Parva? I don't doubt that he said something similar, and I found some of that, but I have not found the 'verbatim' source. Where did you copy and paste it from?
 
That is where I was headed next.

Is the Dharma of a person (man, woman) ever to:
1. To do unto others as others do unto others?
2. To not do unto others as others do not do?
3. To do unto others as they would not have others do unto them?
4. To not do unto others as they would have others do unto them?
5. To be the deliverer of Karma?

From my viewpoint, turn the other cheek is none of those. In my read of the OP, Bhisma heavily teaches one or two of those, and according to the report of history, did the same and was even punished for it.

At the root of this is: what does it mean to believe in, and to worship God. In the relationship between a person (human), and God, what is the Dharma and Karma of a man, and the Dharma and Karma of God? Said another way: What is the evil, where does it come from, and who is it that worships, bows to, and does, the evil?

About this... I have been looking and I have not found it. What is the Parva and Sub-Parva? I don't doubt that he said something similar, and I found some of that, but I have not found the 'verbatim' source. Where did you copy and paste it from?

Dharma means the nature of a thing.

The Bible tells us God is love, so the dharma of God is love. The dharma of the human is exactly the same - love is the energy which moves all existence. What often happens is our love becomes directed, when we limit love hate arises for whatsoever we feel threatens it.

True religiousness is a life lived as love.
 
Back
Top