Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ruchir]

It's good that Bhagwad Gita is being quoted here, 'cause Bhagwad Gita talk a lot about acting against criminals, and illegal aliens are all criminals because they break the law of US by entering in illegally.


Blwe -

1. No, poor Jose is not pinching my pocket that hard, but when 20 million Joses start pinching, the pinch becomes a pain in the a$$.

2. You don't see this kind of reaction in India because such topics are not discussed there publicly. How many times have you heard public discussion on illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in Assam and West Bengal. Ans - Probably none. Why? Because everyone looks at them as vote banks. Every political party is eager to give them Ration Cards so they can be then given voter cards. For the record, I have talked against them many times here on this DG.

3. If tax payers in India don't talk against supporting illegals then it's their loss. They are wasting their tax rupees down the gutter. These tax rupees could probably be spent on something worthwhile. Ignorance of Indian tax payers can not be used as a excuse to keep supporting illegals in India or any where else.

[flute]

the prime lesson from the Bhagvad Gita seems to be lost on them--tum kya lay the jo tume kho diya! you come with nothing and die with nothing. What's the use of losing words or sleep over the unfortunate ones?

I have no further comment to make on the debate at hand, but I think Dex's  above comment is a travesty of everything that Gita stands for. Gita speaks of action, sticking to one's dharma without attachment. It is really twisting it to say, you not gonna take back anything, so why care. If that is the point of it, why should Arjuna go to war at all? huh?

I like Ruchir's interpretation of Gita better, without care or attachment or emotion ACT. ( of course IMO, he is off the mark in calling them illegals which is a total different issue.

PS: above is not to comment or agree or disagree with anything that Dex or ruchir posted. Above is confined to only regarding Gita and my take on it.

[keep-it-cool]

1. No, poor Jose is not pinching my pocket that hard, but when 20 million Joses start pinching, the pinch becomes a pain in the a$$.

well, in that vein, 20m Joses are not pinching your pocket alone, are they? they are pinching (if at all) more than 20m combined pockets

[dextrous]

the prime lesson from the Bhagvad Gita seems to be lost on them--tum kya lay the jo tume kho diya! you come with nothing and die with nothing. What's the use of losing words or sleep over the unfortunate ones?

I have no further comment to make on the debate at hand, but I think Dex's  above comment is a travesty of everything that Gita stands for. Gita speaks of action, sticking to one's dharma without attachment. It is really twisting it to say, you not gonna take back anything, so why care. If that is the point of it, why should Arjuna go to war at all? huh?

I like Ruchir's interpretation of Gita better, without care or attachment or emotion ACT. ( of course IMO, he is off the mark in calling them illegals which is a total different issue.

PS: above is not to comment or agree or disagree with anything that Dex or ruchir posted. Above is confined to only regarding Gita and my take on it.

Your interpretation of Gita is quite twisted in using materialistic attachment (Indian-American's money) as a reason to justify ill-guided reaction toward those that are far less unfortunate than them in life. If you believe that Gita says that "action" however mis-guided and based upon materialism and maya is the way to go," then I disagree. And I'm not sure if it is sarcasm or straight shooting that makes you compare Arjun's position to that of Ruchir's. Seriously?! The essence of Gita is that do not get caught up in materialism because life is maya.

[flute]

the prime lesson from the Bhagvad Gita seems to be lost on them--tum kya lay the jo tume kho diya! you come with nothing and die with nothing. What's the use of losing words or sleep over the unfortunate ones?

I have no further comment to make on the debate at hand, but I think Dex's  above comment is a travesty of everything that Gita stands for. Gita speaks of action, sticking to one's dharma without attachment. It is really twisting it to say, you not gonna take back anything, so why care. If that is the point of it, why should Arjuna go to war at all? huh?

I like Ruchir's interpretation of Gita better, without care or attachment or emotion ACT. ( of course IMO, he is off the mark in calling them illegals which is a total different issue.

PS: above is not to comment or agree or disagree with anything that Dex or ruchir posted. Above is confined to only regarding Gita and my take on it.

Your interpretation of Gita is quite twisted in using materialistic attachment (Indian-American's money) as a reason to justify ill-guided reaction toward those that are far less unfortunate than them in life. If you believe that Gita says that "action" however mis-guided and based upon materialism and maya is the way to go," then I disagree. And I'm not sure if it is sarcasm or straight shooting that makes you compare Arjun's position to that of Ruchir's. Seriously?! The essence of Gita is that do not get caught up in materialism because life is maya.

dude, read my post again with cool head..I said I liked Ruchir's interpretation of gita better, where did you get this comparison of ruchir's position with arjuna bit? did you even read my post? I clearly disagreed with his extrapolation of this "ACT" bit to make criminals out of illegals.
you totally missed my post because you are trying to super impose my take with that of the topic at hand. My take was confined only to Gita, without any reference or interpratation to the topic at hand and I think you totally missed that part.

For your sake, again, IMO, I think, the essence of Gita lies in call, a clarion call for ACTION , karma, without attachment or emotion. mate sangostu akarmani says Sri Krishan( do not be attached to akarma or inaction) quite clearly. IMO, this was in response to intertia taking over Arjuna and others during those times, of giving up one's duties and running into forests on the pretext of spiritual pursuits, of dropping the ball and becoming inert when the going got too tough.  Also, I disagreed with your earlier take which seemed to indicate that since everything is maya, and nothing can be taken from this world, we need not do anything ( in your words what's the use of losing sleep over unfortunate one's?). My take is, Gita quite firmly calls for action or fulfillment of one's duties/karma and assures salvation if one fulfills one's karma without attachment.

I think you will probably be able to appreciate my POV beter if you keep in mind that my take on Gita is not related to or any attempt to interpret current topic using Gita. It is just a stand alone take.