Discussão:Arahat Athersata Overpopulation
Jamesm 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Hi Sanjin. Thanks for posting this translation. What do the two "[1]" links refer to, please?
--Sanjin 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Hi. Well, actually there seems to be a little problem. These are supposed to be references, which are then supposed to be shown at the bottom of the page to properly explain the words. When I am logged in, they show up, but when I am not, then they are not there. That is probably the same thing you see (or don't see).
The word overlooking has two opposite meanings, so it is supposed to display the exact meaning of the word. Similar reason for the other references.
Could you help out, please?
--Sanjin 04:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Hi Jamesm. After some searching I came across his site:
Looks like it's a bug in the software, but can be worked around...
Regards!
--Sanjin 21:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Hmm, I just realized that sysops would have to revoke their editing rights and would have to have a separate account to do edits. But there are other ways to work around this:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Cite#Blank_when_not_logged_in
Is the installed Cite.php the newest version?
Hawaiian 08:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Arahat Athersata:
4. As first he is obliged (responsible) to the task of preserving his life for the duration of his developmentally given time; as second, he has to pay heed to the fulfillment of the duty, to further develop himself spiritually and consciously in the best possible way and to acknowledge the spiritual evolution as an important truth.
The Arahat Athersata acknowledges that humans should preserve their “developmentally” given time, but does he or she mean “natural life cycle”? If they are referring to Earth human’s natural life cycle of 350-450 years, then the second part of this #4 quote is a contradiction of the first part, since Earth human’s ageing gene has been manipulated by the Creator Overlords and shorten to 100 years.
Therefore, Earth humans can be technically considered as exploited “suicidal” beings deprived of the necessary life span to develop their spiritual evolution. But at the same time these Creator Overlords have not taken responsibility for this degeneration and benefited at our expense?
• The Laws and Directives of Creation ... ll life forms, not killing in degeneration, (which includes not committing suicide), learning from mistakes rather than condemning them, taking responsibility ... 17 KB (2863 words) - 23:08, 3 May 2009 Here again, according to Creational Laws and Directives provides support for life forms “not committing suicides”. Therefore can one party responsible for this degeneration be excused, while the other is bound to these Laws and Directives?
Billy Meier:
“Even if the human commits suicide, she/he does not possess any power over it, for by the self killing (suicide) she/he avoids only the real time, which is fixed by Death.” Again, BEAM comments about self-killing as depriving one’s real time through acts called suicide and time fixed by Death or in Earth human’s case…an “un-natural” Uncreational Death fixed at 100 years instead of 350-450 years. Truly if considered valid, a severe exponentially handicap of several life cycles and (un-necessary re-incarnations) to also include depriving of one’s “potentials”.
Thus, the “equational potentials” are out-of-balance for those that benefited and those who are the victims of exploitation by others.
--Sanjin 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)----Hi Hawaiian. As far as I understand it, the sentence tells you as an individual (and also everyone else as an individual) to preserve your own life as long as it has potential to develop. You and me don't really have much control over our shortened life cycles, but we can still do our best to prolong our lives with different means, like living healthy, observing precaution for anything that can endanger our lives, and also not committing suicide. If someone else cuts it short while we did our best to preserve it, then it is not our fault.
The German Word is entwicklungsmässig, which best translates to "everything that relates to development" or "development-related", but I think that "developmentally" preserves the same meaning and also makes it readable.
It is a debatable issue, especially about people who end up living connected to wires in a hospital. Can we consider them as still having a potential to develop in their consciousness or not?
