--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > To YOU it "rings true," John. > > > > > > To ME -- and to millions of other people who > > > can tell the difference between fairy tales > > > and reality, the sound of bells we hear is > > > associated with "ding-a-lings," not Truth. :-) > > > > > > Go back up and reread your post, John. In it, > > > you have essentially presented anyone who does > > > not believe the fairy tales you believe as > > > not only ignorant of the "facts," but rakshasas. > > > > > > That's some compassion and humility and lack of > > > ego you've got going for you, John. :-) > > > > Clearly less compassionate and humble than calling > > believers ding-a-lings... > > > > <snicker> > > > Might I present two of John's own "definitions?" > They are things in parentheses below, presented > as equivalent to the words that precede them: > > > The devas (believers) and the rakshasas (nonbelievers) > > were involved in the churning to obtain the amrita, the > > nectar of immortality. In the end, the amrita that was > > produced was awarded to the devas and not the rakshasas. > > Followed up by the following, referring to one > of my quotes as an example of the rakshasa/ > nonbeliever group: > > > This is a good example of the never ending conflict by > > the powers discussed above. > > Rakshasa: A goblin, demon, evil spirit; a demonic > personality. > > Ding-a-ling: An eccentric or crazy person. > > I would say that I let John off easy by calling > him a ding-a-ling. I'd go so far as to suggest > that my choice of term was compassion incarnate > compared to his. :-)
Yeah, but the point is that you're no more willing to accept that both beliefs are equally valid than he is. And in any case, he didn't define rakshasa as a "goblin, demon," etc. He defined a rakshasa simply as an unbeliever. >From the story he told, it appears that the unbelievers became demonic only after they got so angry at the believers--for having snagged the amrita they had worked together to obtain for everybody--that they attacked them. Seems to me both sides have something of a beef, and neither gets to posture that their side is more virtuous, intellectually or any other way.
