Jai mata di! - Page 3

Originally posted by: Walden

@bold 1: A large section of believers do that- yes (the 3rd option that I mentioned in the post😆) but I don't think ALL believers do. So really there is nothing unique or different about Indira here- if you've faced adversity in life, blame god. But what confuses me is that she goes on to say that she does not believe in god but rather believers in her ability tocreate her own fate(or something along these lines...can't remember the exact dialogue). So shouldn't she blame herself for what's happened then? 😆

Originally posted by: light_28

Actually, In HD , Indira and rishi , both are firm believers in god ..Rishi .. the direct portray of believer in god and Indira happens to be the Indirect believer in god. There are people lke Indira who blame god for difficult times but are in action of goodness that somehow they have learnt(either from experiences, or previous early lessons of childhood i.e.to do good means to get a reward from god) .. basically they are doers of good deeds.. so unknown to themselves, a part of their thoughts do believe in god, in the sense,they hope for some reward (happiness,appreciation, support) for their good deeds.

There are some who believe in god in the sense, they make god responsible for everything but practically they are doers of nothing..good deed nor bad deeds or some amount of fakeness in both the deeds. like SF members.

Another party of believers are like rishi.. they are basically neutral to such debates.. they do believe in god and pray to him sincerely.. even do their actions that would head towards goodness just like the first group (indira-like) but more lively.. nobody ever bothers them to ask.. do you believe in god ? their appeal is such that it shows their belief in god

Some who do not believe in god and are real bad people..they have never been taught what goodness is.. again.. many varieties ofcomplications lie in such portray of people. Most of the time these lie hidden.. world comes to know about them after they have created some history !

Originally posted by: 100raj

it reminds me of amithabh bacchans nastik--

indira character similar to that character--in nastik amithabh pretends to be nastik but in heart he is firm believer of god.

Originally posted by: sumitbigfan

Walden... I totally agree with you.. Even though I believe that we Must take onus on our own doings, faith has nothing to do with our destiny. We all believe that there is a supreme power who guides us but the ques is it also for our wrong doings...also..

Originally posted by: 100raj

no.i dont agree with above lines.

--the persons who really believes god--they will give credit to god--but takes blame on them self only--saying they punished because of there sin and there karma.

it is non believers who blame god when something goes wrong.

believers think--what ever god dose for them is good for them.

bhagwan jo bhi kartha hai hamare acche keliye kartha hai--so there is no point in blaming him.--this exact thought of believer of god.

------------------------------

above post of TM clearly shows indira is non believer of god--otherwise she should have accepted gods given life gracefully without blaming him.

Originally posted by: Walden

Originally posted by: Walden

I firmly believe that we make our own destiny and that's our "Nashib" . When we are good we get good rewards. if we are bad we suffer for it and that's our destiny !! I may disagree with you a bit here...I think we have control over our actions (for the most part) but not our destiny and doing good does not always beget good (not in the personal sense anyways). I have always interpreted Karma as a universal principle- not a personal one.

The last sentence...karma as an universal principle and not so much a personal one...not sure I understand what you mean here. How have you interpreted this?

From where I see it, personal karma (whether big, small, important, or unimportant) plays a part in a larger, universal motif. In short, as in most other things in life, personal is a subset of universal and contributes to the making up of the universal. I hope you're able to get my point.

And if your point is that because all good karma does not always result in good and therefore, its not only about personal karma, then one school of thought is that good karma always results in good and will compulsorily come back to you. It will beget good, but may not be in a manner that you would necessarily recognise or expect.

Sorry, did not mean to intrude in a conversation, but just wanted your side of this point.

Originally posted by: Adhyaay-Chapter

The last sentence...karma as an universal principle and not so much a personal one...not sure I understand what you mean here. How have you interpreted this?

From where I see it, personal karma (whether big, small, important, or unimportant) plays a part in a larger, universal motif. In short, as in most other things in life, personal is a subset of universal and contributes to the making up of the universal. I hope you're able to get my point. Yes, this is exactly what I meant but maybe didn't articulate it as well. I don't think there is a personal record of good karma...i think it ends up in the universal box...but if you think about it, that does matter. The most important way that "good karma" can come back to us is if others around us do good to us- help us out in times of need, are compassionate and empathetic towards us- this is afterall the ultimate good..so this is not our karma, but the others doing good karma. So the more good karma there is in the universe, the more likely we are to encounter good karma coming back to us.

And if your point is that because all good karma does not always result in good and therefore, its not only about personal karma, then one school of thought is that good karma always results in good anwill compulsorily come back to you. It will beget good, but may not be in a manner that you would necessarily recognise or expect. You bring up a really interesting point. I am probably going to do a poor job explaining myself here again but I'll try. @bold: if we take this stance, then it comes down to how humans qualify anything as "good" or "bad." Maybe there is no such thing as "good" or "bad." Even cancer, even the tsunami, death and destruction are all "good," but we just fail to see them that way. So if its not the human interpretation of good and bad that matters, then do "good" and "bad" even exist?

Sorry, did not mean to intrude in a conversation, but just wanted your side of this point. Thanks for writing in and bringing up some really thought-provoking points- may I know your name? btw feel free to intrude anytime:)