|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | Hi Cyndi,
I don't agree with you at all. Let's look at it this way: we can control what
we ourselves do, but we can't control others. You or I can decide that we
are not going to participate in murder, even if others in the world do.
Do we defend ourselves and others?... well, of course we do....but killing
beyond even in the sense of killing someone to prevent them from
killing another is wrong...we are only rarely faced with the stark decision
of killing A to prevent the death of B, and if you take that balancing test
out of the question, killing is clearly always evil and wrong.
As for killing in the name god, which is to say for purposes other than the
immediate defense of life, well that is an abomination.
Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-09-22 10:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Whoa, that is not what I said, or meant. You misunderstood. I did not say killing anything in the name of God - period, whatsoever.
No, we cannot control others, that is why we have wars. No, we don't have to participate, we have choices that we are personally responsible for. It's interesting Satyam and I have this dicussion all the time. I used to feel exactly how you do - especially since I did practice Buddhism and I believe in non-violence. However, fighting and war is something that cannot be avoided. If it is done, there are ways of handling war and there is a proper time for it - go re-read the Mahabarat. In the Hindu culture they have the Chetria's - the warriors and protector's. They fight against evil are very brave and strong. Not everyone is capable of protecting or defending. To bring peace, sometimes you have to go through violence. It's all about bringing balance. |
|
| |
|
| As for above statements related to Bhagavadgita:
There are two types of scriptures in the Indian Philsophy. One - which are applicable in the Social sense, and the other for Spiritual Realization.
Spiritual Realization can be taught in a social sense to some extent. However, the practice is always individual. Whereas the social teaching is where social phenomena, etc. come into picture.
Bhagavadgita is a Science of Yoga extracted for Spiritual Realization from the Mahabharata Epic which is a Social Teaching. Veda Vyasa wrote Mahabharata for the society, and this formed various ceremonies existing in the Indian society now. Whereas, he himself distilled the spiritual understanding in BG, which is a dialog between Arjuna and Krishna. The starting point of it is: Arjuna does not want to fight because his relatives and teachers are on the other side. He has already chosen to fight because Kauravas have refused all decency, and completely captured the entire kingdom of Pandavas, even refusing to give 5 small villages to Pandavas, and also other such things as stripping off Draupadi, etc. Now, Krishna is giving him the knowledge to remove his ignorance and NOT to provoke him to fight, as sometimes misunderstood. krishna himself tried to stop all fighting by acting as a peace messager in the court of Dhrutarashtra who did not pay any heed. ETC ETC. Anyway, if one understands what BG is, then it is: How by following Karmayoga or Jnanayoga one can obtain Spiritual Realization. BG has not much to do with the fighting as such.
Also: How one can kill in the name of GOD: BG says when one's wisdom is lost, one perishes. kamat sanjayate krodha, krodhat bhavati samohah, samohat smritivibhramah. smritibramshat buddhinasho, buddhinashat pranashyati. The main difference between humans and all other animals is Intellect (verses Instinct). When, intellect is lost that is impaired, humans can do anything.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Neel,
Maybe BG -not Bay Guy, does not teach fighting from the spiritual realization, but in the Social Sense it is taught how to avoid as you said, but sometimes necessary. At least that is my recollection of the story. Even in the Bible they had stories such as this.
All I am saying is that this is part of our life that most of us see in the world today with the five senses, that we must accept. We don't have to accept that it is right or wrong, I am merely saying accept it as a part of what is happening in the world today. Sure, we can do lots of things to make the world a better place - at least we can try individually and sometimes collectively. We can act as peacekeepers and do the necessary things to bring about peace, but that is not always going to the outcome. I'm saying "Why live in an airy fairy" world and close my eyes and say, this is not happening..when in fact, it really is a reality - one of the realities of very many outcomes.
If someone breaks in my house tonight and tries to hurt me or my daughter. I have a gun and I will kill that person. That is the bottom line. Sure, I've locked my doors, I've done everything I possibly can to avoid it. I will also give the person fair warning again, even though he or she is trespassing, and when they strike, I'm going to strike back in self defense. As for the karmic results of that, well that will be my karma and I will deal with it. That does not make me an evil person and it does not mean that is what I think about every day or keep in my mind. I just accept that this is part of living in a non-perfect world and I do what is necessary. Does that make me a bad Yogi for killing..that I don't know, I really don't think so.... but I will chant mantra's, I will do pooja and I will accept whatever karma I have done. I will also have a tremendous amount of compassion for the person I may have to kill and I pray for his moksha.
Oh well, BG, this is an interesting subject to say the least. I just hope and pray I never have to kill anyone.
Edited by Cyndi 2005-09-23 12:19 AM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Cyndi - 2005-09-23 12:11 AM
If someone breaks in my house tonight and tries to hurt me or my daughter. I have a gun and I will kill that person. That is the bottom line. Sure, I've locked my doors, I've done everything I possibly can to avoid it. I will also give the person fair warning again, even though he or she is trespassing, and when they strike, I'm going to strike back in self defense.
Oh well, BG, this is an interesting subject to say the least. I just hope and pray I never have to kill anyone.
Cyndi --- This is the balance test to which I referred, and the reality of our world. Sometimes
we are pushed to make such choices, and few would let their loved ones die in order to avoid
killing...but as Neel mentioned, we have intellect that often allows us to prevent such
situations from arising in the first place. If I don't solve my problems with name-calling,
I am less likely to get into a fist fight. If I don't own a gun, people in my household are
less likely to die from gunshot. If I don't go to war, I am less likely to kill
someone than if I do go to war. If I don't take my neighbor's food and water, he is
less likely to attack me for his own survival. And so on. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Bay Guy - 2005-09-23 7:37 AM
Cyndi --- This is the balance test to which I referred, and the reality of our world. Sometimes
we are pushed to make such choices, and few would let their loved ones die in order to avoid
killing...but as Neel mentioned, we have intellect that often allows us to prevent such
situations from arising in the first place. If I don't solve my problems with name-calling,
I am less likely to get into a fist fight. If I don't own a gun, people in my household are
less likely to die from gunshot. If I don't go to war, I am less likely to kill
someone than if I do go to war. If I don't take my neighbor's food and water, he is
less likely to attack me for his own survival. And so on.
BG, that's a good way of thinking, no doubt. It's just not a reality. It may or may not be for some people. Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I have to use it either. I can call names all day to a ravaged individual who is hell bent and determined to kill me, it may or may not work. Sure, I'll give it my best shot...but that may or may not solve the problem. Have you ever had to shoot anyone??? I have, and that's all I have to say about the matter. The person didn't die, but they almost did.
You really should be careful about how you *judge* things, otherwise you might find yourself faced with something you never imagined in a million years...you may have to face your karma one day. Or better yet, you yourself might be faced with the barrel of a gun one day too! I hope not, for your sake, but never say never. Be careful about where you place yourself on your pedestal.
Edited by Cyndi 2005-09-23 9:08 AM
|
|
| |
|
| one of the things that has come out of my more recent readings of the BG is the sense of duty and how there are these two layers--as neel refers to them the social and the spiritual realization.
on the one hand, we are living in this reality where there is violence and on occassion we may have to defend ourselves. this is the larger, social context of the BG as i've read it, and that there is a certain duty among certain individuals and classes (warrior and protector groups--not meant in a heirarchy structure). When doing their duty, socially, and still keeping their minds and hearts of Krishna (or God) or on the larger picture (spiritual realization layer), then there is no karmic impact on them, the process of war can lead to realization if approached properly, etc.
interestingly enough, along with this i fell into some amazing research regarding vedic/indian martial arts. in what i have read, they teach the healing practices first, and then how those healing practices can be used in a martial sense--and the duty that the warrior has to himself and to his combatants to use both of these tools at the appropriate times (in battle, and to heal after battle).
and in another space entirely, my husband is doing extensive research on the worship of Oden (norse god of war, poetry, etc) via the 'berserks' which were a particular class of warriors. Before going to war, they would do a ritualized dance that enduces an ecstatic state--a state of union with Oden--which would then lead to a battle process that is in the spiritual realization category and not just a social mechanism. Similarly, these warriors were considered resistant to injury (in the same way that many indian/vedic warriors apparently were/are) because of their ecstatic state, and they also had healing abilities and methods that they were taught and were expected to use throughout the battle process and afterwards.
Anyway, very interesting cultural mirrors on the nature of a social war and a certain mindset leading to a spiritual revelation for individuals and groups. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | This thread reminded me of something my Guru once said. He said, "Fish can't live in too clean of water".
|
|
| |
|
| Cyndiben:
I like all what you wrote. Others:
Karmic law works like this: When one performs any action, whatever it is, he/she knows the intention behind that action. That intention is what creates the future karma. So, if Cyndiben kills a burglar who has attacked her family at midnight or her baby, she is NOT killing the person for killing that person, but to save the baby. This will create a divine karma. And, that is what Shree Krishna is telling Arjuna to do. He is telling him he should fight because it is his duty now to save India from the hands of evil Kauravas. Same, as Cyndiben's duty to save her child. But, what Cyndiben should do the same even if the burglar is her cousin or teacher, whereas Arjuna was confusing his relations with the evil army.
One's actions are in the context of situation, but one's intentions are what creates Karma. At the time of Buddhist philosophy or whatever such, one has to see what the contextual situation is. One should not apply social teachings given in one contextual situation to other situations. And, that is what fanatic Religions do and therefore it creates wars/fighhts/killing and the intention behind that war/killing is NOT divine like that of Cyndiben, but it is for converting people to their own belief developed from a contextual situation. In Indian Philosophy, they are not muh worried about names of paths, they say, ekam sat sadvipra bahuda vadanti. There is a single truth, which described by many in many words. Also, there many paths to reach the same truth. So, the name of religion is not important to them. But, they already know that the truth is only one, called as Brahman, Allah, God, whatever. And, all other things such as material things, Including Society, are transitory at that the Self Realization.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Thank you Neelbhai. Whew!! I made it last night, didn't have to use my gun, 
Seriously, I posted earlier about my experience of shooting someone. I really don't want to get into too many details about that event. However, I can certainly relate to Arjuna, because I was dealing with a person who was very close to me, my son's Father. I was so grateful to have so much support from friends, family and even the DA who was trying to prosecute me at that time.
Today, 16 years later, I can sit in the same room with my Son's Father and have a conversation, we have been through a lot. The karmic outcome could of been much worse, but it was not and I'm very grateful for that. As for why it happened, I cannot answer that, but I can say that the experience was necessary and changed so many things about my life and my son's Father's life. You have no idea. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Cyndi, that sounds like a very trying experience, to say the least!
I think that I have been saying all along that killing is contextual, in
the sense that we may be trapped into killing in order to save a life.
I am not going to argue that point, since we all seem to agree on it.
I will continue to say that killing in the name of religion ("in god's name")
is abhorrent. That's killing over matter of belief and principle alone.
With regard to Brother Neel's comments about doing one's duty, I am
left a bit puzzled. There are many ways to accomplish good ends, and
we are clever enough that we can usually manage this without killing our
opponents. As a case in point, I will ask whether Gandhi-ji did his duty
when he opposed the British in a non-violent way or whether he might
better have resorted to armed conflict.
BG |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | BG, this is what the Muslims have been arguing for all these years. This is what some Hindu's do in Nepal when they kill chickens to offer to Kali. I agree that this is so ridiculous and even in Nepal, the priests have been outraged at these instances in Nepal where this practice continues.
To say that there are many ways to accomplish good ends without killing our opponents is False. There are ways that we would like to see that happen, we all share that view of NOT wanting to kill, but sometimes it is most definitely necessary. It is unfortunate. What is even more really unfortunate is that for someone NOT to see that this may have to be this way. To sit by and watch, to participate by letting suffering continue due to someone's lack or inability to kill due to improper thinking to possibly have to kill in order to end suffering is a potential for a great sin or paap. We must be able to make that judgement - that is our duty as human beings and to NOT do so is also lazy and/or basically a lack of courage or being a chicken. (I know you are going to hate me for saying that, ) |
|
| |
|
| Dear BG:
I agree with Cyndiben above. Additionally, in the example of Gandhiji, whom I bow down any time:
a) He could not have defeated British by resorting to guns. He would be defeated in that battle. British were more powerful, I mean cruel, cunning, powerful, and evil. If he resorted to guns, there would have been more loss. Many before Gandhi tried such a thing without success.
b) I did NOT mean: Gandhiji took the path of nonviolence because he could NOT have resorted to guns. I am just stating that he would have lost in that.
c) As Cyndiben correctly said, Gandhijji found a better way to oppose British, which British understood and had to accept. But, if British were stupid (they were cunning and evil, but NOT stupid), and they tried to be Brutal without understanding Gandhiji's nonviolence, then he has to resort to killing them. That was the fact with Kauravas. They were evil, stupified (as was Duryodhana was their leader) and egotistic. So, the only means at that time was to kill them, which was Arjuna's duty as he was leader of the society. What Shree Krishna told him was : Do your duty without thinking of its fruits, and without mixing your relations who are fighting from the enemy side. This is same as do not give a job to bad candidate only because he is your relative.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Dear Brother Neel and Cyndi,
Let me offer the following. The situation of Arjuna and the Kauravas is too
simple a situation. Arjuna is confronted with a perfectly evil and unredeemable
enemy, and he has a deity, Sri Krishna, telling him that it's okay to kill them.
When we step outside of the ancient text, we humans are *never* given the
kind of certainty that Krishna provides to Arjuna. We are never confronted
with a perfectly evil enemy. We are confronted with other human beings with
human problems and motivations. And there's no deity standing at our side
telling us whether or not to raise our bow. We have to decide for ourselves.
The enemies that we meet are evil by degrees. Some are worse than others, some are
more aggressive or more threatening. Some cause us more lasting pain or inconvience.
Deciding which, if any, of these evil people to kill is a matter of interpretation, situation,
and also of the respect with which you regard human life.
Which brings me back to Krishna, who speaks of seeing oneself in the eyes of others,
who speaks as god of being part of all that lives. What Krishna says is to be
compassionate, free of attachment, and filled with love every human being.
I find nothing in those ideas to support killing off people when those people are
flawed...those ideas speak of helping flawed people to overcome their evils.
When I tell people that we should not kill, I am sometimes told that I am "naive"
or that this thought is "impractical" or "unrealistic". All three charges are true if
one accepts that the world has to remain full of evil and killing. But that's like saying
don't try to cure smallpox because everyone knows that it's simply part of life.
It's like saying that we should never aspire toward our best instincts. It's like saying
that we can be no better than the worst of us. That kind of thinking has never taken
us anywhere. And I don't get that message from the Bhagavad Gita.
Om shanti,
Bay Guy |
|
| |
|
| neel:
in regards to karmic law et al, that has long been my understanding of karma as well as my belief in regards to religion. this is why i always find it funny or unusual that people would have a problem with blending religions or learning from multiple religions or practicing different religious practices simultaneously. To me, it's all going to the same place/source/idea/whatever, and therefore being catholic is being hindu is being buddhist is being whatever--and learning from all of these illuminates the whole process.
what is interesting for me is the vegetarianism arguments. I often tell people that they should try vegetarianism to see if it is right for them. That the intention behind eating is not per se uncompassionate. That if one needs nutrients, and one can only gain those nutrients from particular sources, then there is no harm (karmic) in doing so because the intent isn't to wantonly kill animals, but rather to eat and be healthy. i also find that it's hard to convince other vegetarians of this possibility as well. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| All - great discussion. I don't want to get too deeply into it myself because my understanding is less than encyclopedic but here's a small thought. From my first reading of the BG, my sense was that Krishna was mainly reminding Arjuna to practice diligenlty and all his doubts would be erased. I think he is saying that if one does the yogic practices well and with tapas, he will always be able to do his duty, will always have God foremost in his heart and always act from a place of compassion, truth, justice etc. Westerners go to war because "I spoke to God and God said I'm right" whereas Krishna is saying "if you do your practice and purify your mind/body/spirit, you will KNOW what is right and not need me hanging around in your chariot telling you what to do and how to proceed." |
|
| |
|
| Dear Zoebird:
You brought up an interesting statement. As for Vegetarianism, your arguement needs to be thought little more carefully. One should not kill animal because one is not getting nutrient from another source. Because, this logic can be extended to killing one's own human friend or relative in order to get such a nutrient when otherwise not available. The fact is that a normal human being does not do such an activity, and is therefore called as Murder if one does. In the same manner, a normal human being never never never feels like eating an animal for food. The only way a normal human being can consume food is: a)by Habit or habitual practice b) by modifying the animal into a palatable substance for excessive cooking, and condiments, etc. (OF course, this applies to lot of vegetarian food as well, which is not a human food really. For example, eating dried lentils called Dal in Indian cousine is a habit developed by making the Dal palatable by cooking and adding spices. Of course, it tastes good.) Of course, eating Dal is not killing an animal. Thus, in general vegetarian food is correct, animal food is wrong. And, all vegetarian food is not ideal, but does not involve killing.
As for learning from all source as you wrote: learning from all sources may be OK, but it is NOT essential. In fact, it is not possible due to various reasons. Many a times from one good source is beter.
Dear sister Tourist:
Where did you get the ideas you presented? Are they from a source or your own ?
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Neel - just my own weird thoughts. We are encouraged to look at the BG at least once a year for an assignment or two. It doesn't matter so much if our ideas agree with traditional commentaries. The main thing is that we can learn from them and help with our own practices. I still say the main thing it says to me is that I must practice diligently. |
|
| |
|
| elson - 2005-09-01 12:36 PM
Hey TGirl :-)
Yep, from the point of view of a Protestant Systematic Theology, the bible has several interesting things to say about Asana practice:
1) Physical training is of some value to the Christian life. Since asana trains the body in strength, flexibility, concentration, relaxation, increased O2 (if you are doing breathing exercises), &etc, then it is of at least equal value to the Christian life as running or aerobics or dance.
2) God looks at the heart, not the hands. That isn't to say that He doesn't care if your hands are holding up a liquor store :-). but His main concern is with your heart/ intentions. That principle is paired with the next one...
3) Worship is not a vague thing, but a specific interaction between God and man. If a person in a Christian church sings hymns to God and raises his hands and takes notes on the sermon and gives money for the work of the church, and outwardly seems to be doing everything to worship God - but if he is doing it for some reason other than just the love of God - then it is not worship.
4) Combining points 2 & 3, the yoga class that I most value is an Anusara class, which is all eat up with Tantra and God as a she, and we have a devotional at the beginning of class, and much of the asana is spoken of as an offering. In short, I am in the middle of a new age/buddhist worship service or sorts.
Since I am not offering worship to their dieties, I do not sin in that. Also, the motions that they offer to their gods are not worship in the Christian sense. Their heart attitude is their worship (in Xtn doctrine). So since I do share their heart attitude, I do not sin.
There are a couple of other important points that bear thought. First, You and I need to be careful that we do not lead our weaker brothers into sin. In other words, if I practice yoga freely because my conscience is clear, but my brother thinks that there is something sinful about it, then I cannot allow my example to lead him to do something that he considers sinful. So if my practice of yoga is a danger to the faith of another Christian, then I need to do something aout that (like teach him a better understanding of theology, so that he then understands correctly that the matter is not inherently sinful.
The other point, that is most important to you, is to look deeply within yourself every class to make sure that your faith is not being changed by the Buddhist teaching.
Dale
I know that I am late to this thread but afther reading the majority of this posts in this thread. I like what you said Dale.
Ash |
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2005-09-25 11:19 PM
Dear Zoebird:
You brought up an interesting statement. As for Vegetarianism, your arguement needs to be thought little more carefully.
of course, i only paraphrased. it has been my experience through a great deal of research and personal experimentation (as i am a lacto-ovo vegetarian--and i eat mostly raw foods) as well as observation, that not all humans can survive and thrive on raw vegetarian, raw vegan, or even only somewhat raw vegetarian or vegan diets. So, they must find food sources that provide them with the necessary amounts of nutrients--and those sources may be animal sources.
there are, of course, vibrant philosophical and ethical reasons for being vegetarian. I think, though, that many vegetarians (at least many western vegetarians) confuse the philosophy and the nutritional science. While vegetarianism can be healthy nutritionally for many people, it may not be feasible for everyone. If not. then they must seek other sources--which can include animals. Many vegetarians assume that 'everyone can be a vegetarian'--but i simply do not observe that this is the case.
I agree, though, that a large part as to why many people do not even consider vegetarianism is because of ignorance, fear, and habit. First, many people do not know where their food comes from, how it got to be from living animal to seared meat on the plate. they don't know the nutritional value of food in general. they don't know the problems of eating meat or eating vegetarian. they don't know the benefits of each one either. And, they don't know, or won't engage the philosophical or spiritual arguments for engaging vegetarianism.
as for fear, people have many. I find that many people fear 'standing out' or 'being different' from their families. I know that when i mention to people that i'm vegetarian, many will say "i could never do that, because so much of my family is about food!" of course, they're refering to those fun family holidays where you have large meals. I'm really not different from them--my family also likes to take meals together! And, of course, my family is omnivorous as well. We have adapted our family meals to be inclusive, and when we have holidays together, we have some meals all vegetarian and some meals that have plenty for me and includes meat. So, adjustments--social adjustments--can be made if vegetarianism is something that you want to do. Also, people fear for their health and wellbeing. There is a lot of misinformation about vegetarianism out there, as well as a lot of ignorance in general, and people fear getting sick as a vegetarian. So, these sorts of thigns put them off.
but i think it's habit that is the main reason why many people continue to eat meat. It's what they know, it's what they understand, it's what they believe is healthiest, it's what their family does, it's what their culture does. So, they go along out of habit.
One should not kill animal because one is not getting nutrient from another source. Because, this logic can be extended to killing one's own human friend or relative in order to get such a nutrient when otherwise not available.
actually, this is a logical fallacy called a 'slippery slope' argument. So this argument needs to be reconsidered.
The fact is that a normal human being does not do such an activity, and is therefore called as Murder if one does. In the same manner, a normal human being never never never feels like eating an animal for food.
it is difficult to define 'normal.' Also, considering food availability across climates and cultures, it makes sense that arid areas would have more meat eating than lush, temperate or tropical areas. The food availability is different. So, what is normal in the arctic or in the desert is going to be very different than what is normal in a lush region. 'normal' is largely a matter of cultural determination.
but, across cultures, there is this concept of 'murder.' across cultures, it refers to the treatment of humans, not to the treatment of animals (although some people would like that language changed to include animals).
The only way a normal human being can consume food is: a)by Habit or habitual practice b) by modifying the animal into a palatable substance for excessive cooking, and condiments, etc.
actually, many people eat raw animal products. Sushi and sushimi is raw fish. there is also raw dairy and many foods thta are raw eggs. many people consume raw or rare meats from land animals as well. There are many ways to eat meats, and many of them can be and are consumed raw on a regular basis.
Similarly, cooking has it's benefits. IN the case of oxolates in certain greens, cooking actually breaks these down and makes the nutrients more absorbable. For those with various stomach needs or specialized digestive needs, the process of cooking can help them access nutrients more effienciently. cooking has multiple benefits for many kinds of foods.
Thus, in general vegetarian food is correct, animal food is wrong.
obviously, i found many of your previous arguments flawed, and therefore i cannot agree with this 'thus.'
And, all vegetarian food is not ideal, but does not involve killing.
i agree that not all vegetarian food is not idea, but some vegetarian food, at least in the modern context, does involve killing. Consuming eggs and milk products often causes the deaths of chickens and cows in multiple ways (when they no longer produce, male calves becoming veal, etc). So, even vegetarian food can have some killing component, even if it is not direct. This is why sourcing is so important for many vegetarians.
As for learning from all source as you wrote: learning from all sources may be OK, but it is NOT essential.
i completely agree that it is not essential. I think that it is appropriate, enlightening, fun, and incredibly useful. I have no problem if someone else doens't want to do it. THe only time i have a problem with someone else (and it's not a big problem) is when they say that *I* or *someone else* shouldn't do it, or that it's wrong, or that there is only one religion that is right or that one is better than another. Most of these things are matters of preference and opinion. I have a preference for cross-cultural study. Others do not. I can accept this, but often there isn't a lot of reciprocity.
In fact, it is not possible due to various reasons. Many a times from one good source is beter.
one good source can be valuable, and one can spend a lifetime on one source. But one can also spend a lifetime on one idea, and gain insight from many sources regarding this idea. Sometimes, that's better.
Thanks for the great discussion. I look forward to more of your insights. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Bay Guy - 2005-09-24 11:55 PM
Dear Brother Neel and Cyndi,
Let me offer the following. The situation of Arjuna and the Kauravas is too
simple a situation. Arjuna is confronted with a perfectly evil and unredeemable
enemy, and he has a deity, Sri Krishna, telling him that it's okay to kill them.
When we step outside of the ancient text, we humans are *never* given the
kind of certainty that Krishna provides to Arjuna. We are never confronted
with a perfectly evil enemy. We are confronted with other human beings with
human problems and motivations. And there's no deity standing at our side
telling us whether or not to raise our bow. We have to decide for ourselves.
\
Namaste` BG,
What's wrong with simplicity?? Why does it have to be complicated??
As for your comments about "humans are never given the kind of certainty that Krishna provides to Arjuna." Yes, we are given this kind of certainty...every moment that certainty is available to us....every single moment. The problem is that most humans are not confident enough and/or do NOT believe that this certainty exists and/or that they are capable of having this certainty, therefore...your right, it is not available...but only because of ignorance or by choice of not wanting to tap into that Divine source within us all...so to speak. Yes, there are leaders and human beings out there in the world making half hazard, mindless, not looking at the bigger picture based on impurities of the mind, choices and decisions that affect millions of lives every day. |
|
| |
|
| Dear ZoeBird:
I do thank you and also accept some flaws in my statements. However, my statements as you correctly said come from Philosophical point of view rather than only Nutrition point of view. Nutrition only for getting otherwise unavailable nutrients means Body Focus to me. And, I was not aware, due to my ignorance of the fact, that there are people who directly feel like eating raw meat while in their natural condition. Now, the example you gave is that of Fish and such. But, I am not aware of anyone who would like to eat live chicken, or cow, or goat, or dear or rabbit for that matter. But, that may exist. I am now getting scared. But, I still agree with your points related to Nutrition.
Now, as for me, at least to my best guess, I shall possibly die but not eat any meat to keep myself alive when nutrients are not available. Because, for me the benefit achieved by keeping the body alive is much less than the loss I shall incur due to eating meat. But, again, I am not forcing this on others.
But, I did like your posting the way you have explained and respect it.
Regards
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2005-09-26 11:12 PM
But, I am not aware of anyone who would like to eat live chicken, or cow, or goat, or dear or rabbit for that matter. But, that may exist. I am now getting scared. But, I still agree with your points related to Nutrition.
Neelbhai,
Well, if you are referring to *dear* as in dear human, I am getting scared with you. Last time I checked there was such an animal called a Deer though,
You'll really freak out when you learn about what *Steak Tartar* is all about..it's something relatively familiar to Sushi and Shashimi except with Beef.
I prefer my Sushi in the California Roll style....which consists of seaweed, avocado, and veggies. No *raw* meat for me, no way. I learned a valuable lesson 21 years ago with Raw Oysters on the half shell! Take care, |
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2005-09-26 11:12 PM
However, my statements as you correctly said come from Philosophical point of view rather than only Nutrition point of view.
i got that feeling or sense from reading your post, which is why i mentioned it. In fact, i find these arguments or ideas far more intreging than the nutritional arguments for vegetarianism.
for me, nutritional studies and the cultural studies that surround it are fascinating, interesting, and even fun to consider. it's a personal joy and hobby. certainly, i don't think that it's a topic that interests everyone!
And, I was not aware, due to my ignorance of the fact, that there are people who directly feel like eating raw meat while in their natural condition. Now, the example you gave is that of Fish and such. But, I am not aware of anyone who would like to eat live chicken, or cow, or goat, or dear or rabbit for that matter. But, that may exist. I am now getting scared.
it does. people eat raw beef, poultry, and even wild game. it's rather fascinating. Many people even consume raw blood from living animals (the animal, still alive, is pricked, the blood taken and consumed, and the animal still lives because they simply bind the small prick with a bit of mud and herbs). It's actually quite amazing what humans can and do eat, throughout the world.
Now, as for me, at least to my best guess, I shall possibly die but not eat any meat to keep myself alive when nutrients are not available. Because, for me the benefit achieved by keeping the body alive is much less than the loss I shall incur due to eating meat. But, again, I am not forcing this on others.
i know many people who also follow this sentiment--both east and west--and not the least of which is Ghandiji. When we went to england for his studies, he vowed for his mother that he would not eat any animal products (vegan diet in the modern sense). While in england, he became gravely ill, and through a discussion with his doctor and about the restrictions of the vow--he was convinced that drinking goats milk--which the doctor felt was necessary--would not break the vow, as it was predominently about cows. Until the end of his days, he consume goats milk.
but after this experience, and inhis may writings about the nonviolence stance that he took, he stated that he would never eat meat to save himself, because of this philosophical notion (among others) that you mention.
But, there are other perspectives in the east, particularly in ayurvedic circles. Sometimes, meats are used for a time to heal the body, then the person transitions back to a vegetarian diet that suits their particular needs. other times, they may consume meat throughout their lives.
in other vedic traditions, such as the sikh tradition, there are many phrases about how vegetarianism or nonvegetarianism doens't inhibit the 'salvation' (for lack of a better word) progress of the individual. in many buddhist circles, it's not the meat that's the problem but the intention. if the animal was killed to feed the village, and the village supports the monk, then the monk eats. If the cow was killed to celebreate or honor the monk, then the monk cannot eat.
So, there are also various philosophical perspectives--many of which are valuable for understanding the diversity of reasons for choosing vegetarianism. Like you said, there's no point in pushing a rule on someone else!
But, I did like your posting the way you have explained and respect it.
thank you. i also greatly admire your perspective and agree with it personally in many ways. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
In all this discussion of vegetarianism, particularly in connection with
statements that one would perish before eating meat, how can a
vegetarian ever justify killing? If you won't eat meat to live, then
how could you kill to survive? Yes, I'm being picky and I know it,
but I find contradictions to be very useful in thinking about principles...
... we learn a great deal from the soft spots in our reasoning...here I am
a person who eats meat and objects to killing people. Help me figure this
out.
 |
|
| |
Can Christians Practice Yoga?
