Bhagavad Gita 18 :32

adharmam dharmam iti ya manyate tamasavrta
sarvarthan viparitams ca buddhih sa partha tamasi

SYNONYMS
adharmam--irreligion; dharmam--religion; iti--thus; ya--which; manyate- -thinks; tamasa--by illusion; avrta--covered; sarva-arthan--all things; viparitan--the wrong direction; ca--also; buddhih--intelligence; sa-- that; partha--O son of Prtha; tamasi--the mode of ignorance.

TRANSLATION
That understanding which considers irreligion to be religion and religion to be irreligion, under the spell of illusion and darkness, and strives always in the wrong direction, O Partha, is in the mode of ignorance.

PURPORT
Intelligence in the mode of ignorance is always working the opposite of the way it should. It accepts religions which are not actually religions and rejects actual religion. Men in ignorance understand a great soul to be a common man and accept a common man as a great soul.
They think truth to be untruth and accept untruth as truth. In all activities they simply take the wrong path; therefore their intelligence is in the mode of ignorance.

Originally posted by Dasa
adharmam dharmam iti ya manyate tamasavrta
sarvarthan viparitams ca buddhih sa partha tamasi

SYNONYMS
adharmam--irreligion; dharmam--religion; iti--thus; ya--which; manyate- -thinks; tamasa--by illusion; avrta--covered; sarva-arthan--all things; viparitan--the wrong direction; ca--also; buddhih--intelligence; sa-- that; partha--O son of Prtha; tamasi--the ...[text shortened]... ities they simply take the wrong path; therefore their intelligence is in the mode of ignorance.

So it's the Bhagavad Gita where you get your circle arguments from. Do you know what circular arguments are, Dasa? I've asked you before but you apparently refuse to address the analysis. Do you know what circular arguments are and do you know why people look upon your posts and assertions as being fatally hamstrung by this particular logical fallacy?

Originally posted by FMF
So it's the Bhagavad Gita where you get your circle arguments from. Do you know what circular arguments are, Dasa? I've asked you before but you apparently refuse to address the analysis. Do you know what circular arguments are and do you know why people look upon your posts and assertions as being fatally hamstrung by this particular logical fallacy?

I really cant get into the Baghavad Gita. I've read bits n pieces-same as the christian bible for me.
I really love other hindu works of metaphysics.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I really cant get into the Baghavad Gita. I've read bits n pieces-same as the christian bible for me.
I really love other hindu works of metaphysics.

I really have to say I enjoyed it. As a Western reader, it does seem strange to have this metaphysical conversation right before an impending battle. I don't buy into the whole dogmatic side of it but what I did find enlightening was the idea of 'detachment' as something different from ascetism, that we don't have to withdraw from the world into a cloister and practice stringent self-abnegation in order to become detached. Even a soldier in battle can have it. Anyway. I haven't read any other Hindu works so I cann't compare. I'll just say I do find it interesting and wish to read more.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I really cant get into the Baghavad Gita. I've read bits n pieces-same as the christian bible for me.
I really love other hindu works of metaphysics.

To make a statement that the Bible is the same as the Bhagavad Gita - means you have a reading and comprehension problem.

Originally posted by Dasa
To make a statement that the Bible is the same as the Bhagavad Gita - means you have a reading and comprehension problem.

To make a statement that the Veda are the source of all truth and knowledge means you have a sanity problem.

Originally posted by nook7
To make a statement that the Veda are the source of all truth and knowledge means you have a sanity problem.

What part of........."life comes from muddy puddles" .... do you find truthful and sane?

Originally posted by Dasa
What part of........."life comes from muddy puddles" .... do you find truthful and sane?

Neither.

It is a sentence you created and have tried on a few occasions now to attribute to me. Considering l have never used those words l find that rather odd - though given you coined them perhaps not so odd.

Originally posted by nook7
Neither.

It is a sentence you created and have tried on a few occasions now to attribute to me. Considering l have never used those words l find that rather odd - though given you coined them perhaps not so odd.

Are you not a believer in evolution?

Are you not a believer of big bang?

Originally posted by Dasa
Are you not a believer in evolution?

Are you not a believer of big bang?

Your comment about muddy puddles has nothing to do with my beliefs about the origins of life.

Stop attributing your insane spoutings to me - if you said the sky was blue l would look for all other alternatives humanely possible rather than agree with you after the monolithic pile of crap you have heaped on us in these forums

Originally posted by nook7
Your comment about muddy puddles has nothing to do with my beliefs about the origins of life.

Stop attributing your insane spoutings to me - if you said the sky was blue l would look for all other alternatives humanely possible rather than agree with you after the monolithic pile of crap you have heaped on us in these forums

Dear Nook: You have come out of left field some time ago - slandering me using colourful language without even presenting your case, and you have been doing it ever since. (its ok because I am not offended) and I am just saying.

I have only ever presented truth and exposed falsity in this forum and I have never attacked you as you have me.......but I am always ready to engage anyone who enquires with politeness including you.

I may stand corrected - if I have said something (colourful) to you in the past (I cannot remember exactly)

So if I have said something not agreeable to you - then you are welcomed to enquire about it in a discussion style format if you wish.

Note: do not take my colourful analogies of cats and dogs as personal attacks on people - but take them as they are intended to draw attention to the likes of animals to the bewildered conditioned souls that they are......which if you contemplate those analogies deeply enough you will see that they are absolutely true and there is no malicious intent.

Where there seems that I have been malicious - it is just the poor use of my grammar.

If I have said to someone that they are thoroughly dishonest.......then they have been.

Telling a thoroughly dishonest person they are thoroughly dishonest is not an insult.

Its like telling a thief he is a thief.

Your example that you will not agree with me if I said the sky is blue is accepted -because it is the very thing that I have been putting up with by everybody else in this forum - and this is a good example of the thoroughly dishonest comments by people that I always talk about.

When persons say life comes from non-life - this is thoroughly dishonest (you think?)

Originally posted by Dasa
Dear Nook: You have come out of left field some time ago - slandering me using colourful language without even presenting your case, and you have been doing it ever since. (its ok because I am not offended) and I am just saying.

I have only ever presented truth and exposed falsity in this forum and I have never attacked you as you have me.......but I am a ...[text shortened]... about.

When persons say life comes from non-life - this is thoroughly dishonest (you think?)

Your last post was full of direct insults right after you said that you dont insult people, but maybe you do by accident. Which is it sparky?

l have not come out of left field. In your previous alter ego you did exactly what you are doing now - provide baseless comments and insult all who do not agree with your particular brand of belief. You promised the forum (after promising you were gone for good) that you were changed and would treat people better. You have failed and continue to fail with almost every post of yours.

You have twice (as l have mentioned in this post) lied directly to this forum (l am sure we could find other examples)

These are clear lies.

For one who accuses others of dishonesty you need to take a good look in the mirror as you show more of this than most while you stand on your high horse pontificating.

i dont need to slander you. You do a perfect job yourself - read some of your posts if you need to see what l mean.

l do not think it is possible for you to engage with politeness as your attempts thus far have been deplorable.

l feel sad for those who share your beliefs- as it is highly unlikely they will be given a chance to share them to a recepyive audience after the damage you have done to the message of the Veda. You should choose another line of work as this one doesnt agree with you - and it sure as hell doesnt agree with me.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I really have to say I enjoyed it. As a Western reader, it does seem strange to have this metaphysical conversation right before an impending battle. I don't buy into the whole dogmatic side of it but what I did find enlightening was the idea of 'detachment' as something different from ascetism, that we don't have to withdraw from the world into a cloister works so I cann't compare. I'll just say I do find it interesting and wish to read more.

The idea of detachment IS well portrayed through the story of...(whats his name dasa?)

edit: the main guy of the book , (other than Krsna)

Originally posted by Dasa
To make a statement that the Bible is the same as the Bhagavad Gita - means you have a reading and comprehension problem.

To me it is similar to the bible-I give it about the same importance. What you must remember is that this is just the ways these books affect my life in general,(ie.very little), and not a blanket statement on the bible vs the B Gita.
For some who are very well versed in the Gita may read the bible to gain more knowledge on the world and vice versa. It's not the books so much as the interpretations that people take away with them after having read these books.

I doubt anyone has read the bible (or the Bhagavad Gita ,or similar literature), without having done some "pre-judging" before reading it. Nearly everyone reads the bible to back up their beliefs or to cross reference it (usually for putting it down and pointing out flaws- important because it is a BIBLE and not just another book, or so we are fed-I mean told 🙂 )

Originally posted by Dasa
PURPORT
Intelligence in the mode of ignorance is always working the opposite of the way it should. It accepts religions which are not actually religions and rejects actual religion.

From my personal perspective I see a lot of truth in this. Take the secular progressives in Western Culture. Generally speaking they are very friendly to the pagan people (new agers, wiccans, et al) while at the same time they are aggressive and hostile toward Jews, Christians, and biblical theology.