http://www.vedabase.net/bg/2/en

BG 2.16: Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

BG 2.17: That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.

BG 2.18: The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata.

BG 2.19: Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain.

BG 2.20: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

BG 2.21: O Pārtha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?

BG 2.22: As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

BG 2.23: The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

BG 2.24: This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

BG 2.25: It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.

BG 2.26: If, however, you think that the soul [or the symptoms of life] is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed.

BG 2.27: One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

BG 2.28: All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?

BG 2.29: Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.

BG 2.30: O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.

These statements should be self-explanatory… The body is a covering over the soul, a vehicle, and when it becomes useless there is no loss in discarding it.  One should try to rise above the bodily conception of life to understand that we are spirit soul.  Every body is destined to be destroyed.  The wise do not lament the inevitable destruction of the body.

“A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one’s birth.”
Ecclesiastes 7:1

"The wise do not lament the inevitable destruction of the body."

Ow! My ears are ringing from how hard you nailed that one, Pandu!

No argument regarding the fact that every body is destined to be destroyed.  But that is not the essence of the quote.  The quote is not about dying but about living.  Both concepts seem quite compatible with each other.

Hate to do this, but the quote went right over your head, pardner. The quote is about taking the long view, and realizing that we are around for an eternity. This life is but a blink of an eye when put into perspective.

Depends on your perspective, I guess.  The original quote talks about how we live our lives in the here and now, especially in the approach to death.  That was the point.  It is easy to find (or make up) a perspective that undermines or nullifies the meaning to just about any quote.

Pandu’s quote is actually much different, seeing that he is Hindu.  I believe in eternity as does he, but our view of life and death (and reincarnation) are radically different.

From my perspective, there is value in the Joe Carter quote, just as there is value in those Pandu shared - even for a Christian like me.  But one doesn’t nullify the other, when they are dealing with drastically different scenarios.

If my daughter complains about a sliver in her hand, her complain has meaning to me.  It is child’s play to prove the insignificance of her complaint in the light of the situations in Sudan and the Congo and terrorism in Iraq and Israel.  But it still has meaning to me.

I’m not Hindu, but Vaishnava.  Hindu is a racist term imposed on the people living on the East side of the Indus River by the muslims on the West side.  I’m not Indian bodied, never even been to India.  Additionally, “Hindu” is generally taken to be polytheistic or even overtly atheistic, but Vaishnava theology is monotheistic.  As a matter of fact, I have seen enough evidence to convince me that Jesus spent the middle portion of his life before crucifiction in India, and was also a Vaishnava.

I have known numerous Indians, some of whom refer to themselves as Hindu.  Sorry to lump you into a category with non-like individuals.