|
|
| Dear Brother BG:
Since you asked for figuring this out, let me give it a try:
You have eaten meat probably before you became mature, that is from your childhood. So, that became your habit. And, later not eating meat can appear only if you get convinced, and you choose to. Also, on choosing for YES, you will go through past withdrawl, and may start eating again. If you choose NO, then you stay as you are.
Now, I am sure you have NOT killed people since your childhood. If you frequently killed people regularly, you shall get the same withdrawl in stopping to kill. However, even then, you can choose to NO kill.
Now, eating and killing are two different things. Most people who eat meat will not like to kill that animal. Or, is that what you meant? I thought you meant killing people, such as in war. In the past, when White people came to USA and killed thousands of Native Indians, they did not feel killing any problem. It was difficult for them later, NOT to kill.
Peace from NO Kill and NO Meat
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | Dear Brother Neel,
You are correct in concluding that I have never killed another human being and that
I have eaten meat since childhood. [To the best of my knowledge, my ancestors have
killed no native americans, although it is possible that they did so and chose not to
add that to our family history. Still, many of my ancestors left diaries describing in some
detail their disgust for those who enslaved or killed others. It's hard to be certain of our
own history, and, in any event, we are not responsible for the acts of our forebearers.]
In fact, what I meant was this: I eat meat from animals that others have killed,
but I object to the killing of human beings. What bothers me is this: can we
say that it is acceptable to kill human beings while saying that it is unacceptable
to kill animals; or, can we say that it is unacceptable to kill human beings while saying
that it is acceptable to kill animals. There are two points here: is a human life different
from an animal life, and is the purpose of the killing (food, anger, defence) relevant
to the moral judgment?
Sigh, so late at night to be asking such questions....
Jaya Ganesha,
Bay Guy
|
|
| |
|
| Brothe BG:
Jay Shree Ganesha. When I wrote about White people killing American Indians, I did NOT mean your connection at all. I do not know anything of your background. My wife is white and she is divine. I only gave that event to prove my point.
Now, coming to your question: Killing Animal for eating is wrong Philosophically as much as Killing Human for eating. Killing Animal or Human in case of extreme need as described by Cyndiben (for example, in case of personal defense to save life, or in case of benefit of others when no other way seems to work, etc.) are considered equally acceptable.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| There are two points here: is a human life different
from an animal life, and is the purpose of the killing (food, anger, defence) relevant
to the moral judgment?
in many modern vegetarian and animal rights circles, the question of human life and animal life being different or the same is called an argument or discussion of "speciesism" and that may help you with a web search for some interesting arguments.
to the second issue, i think that the purpose of the killing is relevant to moral judgement, in fact reason is the basis of judgement to begin with. there arguments or discussions are reasoned, and one reasons with them, and then makes a judgement accordingly. The purpose or intent is what really determines the 'culpability' in regards to the action.
i liked neel's description too, in response to this.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-09-28 10:10 AM
Brothe BG:
Jay Shree Ganesha. When I wrote about White people killing American Indians, I did NOT mean your connection at all. I do not know anything of your background. My wife is white and she is divine. I only gave that event to prove my point.
Now, coming to your question: Killing Animal for eating is wrong Philosophically as much as Killing Human for eating. Killing Animal or Human in case of extreme need as described by Cyndiben (for example, in case of personal defense to save life, or in case of benefit of others when no other way seems to work, etc.) are considered equally acceptable.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org
Dear Brother Neel,
Do not worry, I took no offense and answered the comment only so that it would be answered.
Let me try this all in still another way. If I have the choice between saving
my own life and saving another's life (for whatever made-up reason we need in
order to pose this question), am I wrong to save my own in preference to the other's?
Or should we prefer the life of another to our own?
I can answer this only subjectively. I would almost undoubtedly save my own child's
life before mine, but some of my coworkers would certainly not be saved. Perhaps
I am just a normal human being in that regard, and perhaps the question that I have
posed is simply not meaningful; but if the question is meaningful, then I think it goes
to the root of all this discussion of killing or not killing. For, if we can kill to save ourselves,
then does it not follow that we can kill for other matters of our own love or convenience?
Om Sri Ganeshaya nama,
BG
|
|
| |
|
| Dear Brother BG:
Thanks for taking no offense. Now, let me try to understand and/or answer your question asked by you in a certain way:
Saving your life or another person's is an activity. The intention behind that activity is altogether different thing. That intention decides what the karma is. For example, if you are saving your child's life because that child will feed you later or be grateful to you later or whatever, that is one thing. If you saved your child's life because you love the child as it is, then it is another thing. If you see no difference between yourself and the child as you have philsophically digested the idea that both of you are the same self, that is third thing. ETC ETC. Now, whatever the intention of that activity, the karma will be present. When the Karma is done one definitely has Intention. When, one does karma without expectation of any fruit for oneself, that is called Selfless work or Nishkama Karma. By performing this, one follows Karmayoga, and ultimately realizes the Self. On realizing self, one can not perform Karma, that means one performs activity, without creating karma.
All activities with Karma create kleshas. parinaamtaapsanskardukhairgunavrittivirodhachcha dukhameva sarvam vivekinah. Patanjali - 2nd chapter. A real wise person comes to know thall things in the material world create dukha, sorrow. Therefore, he aspires for liberation, kaivalyam.
Brother Neel
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| Let me try this all in still another way. If I have the choice between saving
my own life and saving another's life (for whatever made-up reason we need in
order to pose this question), am I wrong to save my own in preference to the other's?
Or should we prefer the life of another to our own?
i think that these are very valuable questions, particularly when we're talking abuot health and vitality arguments in relationship to vegetarianism. If killing an animal such that you can eat it allows you to be healthy such that you can have discussions about karma or save people's lives as a doctor, or make some other valuable social contribution, does that change the karmic situation or karmic outcome?
i think that it does.
I can answer this only subjectively. I would almost undoubtedly save my own child's
life before mine, but some of my coworkers would certainly not be saved. Perhaps
I am just a normal human being in that regard, and perhaps the question that I have
posed is simply not meaningful; but if the question is meaningful, then I think it goes
to the root of all this discussion of killing or not killing. For, if we can kill to save ourselves,
then does it not follow that we can kill for other matters of our own love or convenience?
most of these things are subjective. just because it's subjective doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. All things have context, it's how we think about it in light of the context that seems to make the difference.
It is likely that if you had to choose between your life and the life of your child, you would choose your child because of your hopes for and love for that child. Similarly, if you had to step in to save a coworker, it is likely that you might just do that--that something heroic--because its' the right thing to do or you simply care about people in general, your coworker included.
I think that a person can kill for any number of reasons. The question is, then, whether or not they should and how that is determined. Generally speaking, self defense and defense of other are socially considered the most appropriate reasons for killing human beings or animals. Certainly, one would kill an attacking bear as one would kill an attacking woman or man.
when we talk about killing in light of animals, we're also taking on another social (subjective) layer that often has to do with how we view animals, the purpose of animals, how we think animals should be treated, and balance these things with what we know to be our physical health needs and our understanding of nutrition.
i think that some people do have to choose between death and vegetarianism. people can become incredibly sick from a vegetarian diet, and their best option is to consume meat. So, if one has to choose, say, between saving themselves and saving an animal--most people would save themselves. This may be a mere matter of instinct to live or it may be something more philosophical or ideological or even simply social. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | zoebird - 2005-09-29 1:34 PM
I can answer this only subjectively. I would almost undoubtedly save my own child's
life before mine, but some of my coworkers would certainly not be saved. Perhaps
I am just a normal human being in that regard, and perhaps the question that I have
posed is simply not meaningful; but if the question is meaningful, then I think it goes
to the root of all this discussion of killing or not killing. For, if we can kill to save ourselves,
then does it not follow that we can kill for other matters of our own love or convenience?
This reminds me of a movie with McCauley Caulkin the Home Alone kid. He played in a movie once about these 2 kids in this family. I forget which one was the really bad, nasty kid...I mean really bad and evil. At the end of the movie, the Mother had to make a decision on whether or not which kid she was going to save from falling off this cliff, which I believe was caused by the bad kid. Needless to say, she chose the good kid.
In all due respect, let's just say for a moment. What if she chose the bad kid instead?? If I looked at this situation with a different perspective, what if she saved this bad kid and somehow this kid would have had a second chance to make his life right and get his act together. Of course, seeing as how things were going in this movie, that kid would have needed a really big 2 x 4 to get his attention, but by letting the bad kid die, he did not have a chance to make it right and his soul goes further deeply into a dark place of some really bad karma. The good kid already had good karma and possibly would of continued his good karma in another life or whatever. So much to think about, huh? |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | zoebird - 2005-09-29 1:34 PM
I can answer this only subjectively. I would almost undoubtedly save my own child's
life before mine, but some of my coworkers would certainly not be saved. Perhaps
I am just a normal human being in that regard, and perhaps the question that I have
posed is simply not meaningful; but if the question is meaningful, then I think it goes
to the root of all this discussion of killing or not killing. For, if we can kill to save ourselves,
then does it not follow that we can kill for other matters of our own love or convenience?
most of these things are subjective. just because it's subjective doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. All things have context, it's how we think about it in light of the context that seems to make the difference.
It is likely that if you had to choose between your life and the life of your child, you would choose your child because of your hopes for and love for that child. Similarly, if you had to step in to save a coworker, it is likely that you might just do that--that something heroic--because its' the right thing to do or you simply care about people in general, your coworker included.
I think that a person can kill for any number of reasons. The question is, then, whether or not they should and how that is determined. Generally speaking, self defense and defense of other are socially considered the most appropriate reasons for killing human beings or animals. Certainly, one would kill an attacking bear as one would kill an attacking woman or man.
.
I'm not so sure that contextualism is the right way to approach life and death. I do, of course,
understand the point you're making, but what I'm trying to understand is whether there's
anything absolute about proscriptions against killing.
Why, for example, am I justified in taking another life in order to save my own?
Whether I am eating the being in question, or killing them to have their liver to
replace mine, or killing them because they are a threat to me or somebody I
happen to like, whatever the situation, I am killing them for my own personal
benefit. How can this possibly be justified? Why not kill them because I want the
shoes they are wearing?
And if we adopt a contextual relativism, where it's okay to kill somebody if
we ascribe a "high enough" subjective standard to the act, then doesn't the
subjectivism (which is always malleable) allow us to kill anybody under any
pretext whenever we are so inclined?
Sorry, I don't mean this to hostile toward anybody in particular, but the question
annoys me to no end.... 
Brother Neel had some comments about karma and killing which I am still trying
to digest....essentially that motive engenders karma which will in the long run
determine the outcome of any particular killing. And in this sense, it is not the
killing itself that has any importance (all being reincarnated, as Krishna told
Arjuna), but the intention that carries the weight of the act...even saving a life
can produce [bad] karma if done for the wrong reasons.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | BG,
Everything you have asked and talked about sounds like a Buddhist way of thinking. This is the kinda stuff I learned while in the Tibetan Monstary. Seriously, have you thought about studying Buddhism or have you already?? You sound like a ripe candidate for a Rinpoche. BTW, I am being sincere and not sarcastic. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Hi Cyndi,
I've never been a Buddhist in a formal way, although some of the concepts
had a strong influence on me years ago, before I came to yoga. I do have
some difficulty in separating Buddhist and yogic concepts, particularly, it seems,
in this area.
BG |
|
| |
|
| Dear Brother BG:
Absolute prescription related to Killing and Non Killing? Gee, you are a tough guy.
- Total NON Killing is possible only in a Kaivalyam State.
- When an incarnation such as Krishna (full incarnation, not partial) is born, killing by that incarnation is for the salvation of the person dying. This happens only a few times. And, the person dying this way is the beneficiary. For example, Ravana gets liberated being killed by Shree Rama.
- When any person with previous leftover Karma is born, this person has to exhaust the previous Karma, and that may involve killing in minor (which occurs in most of us) or in major amounts.
- Previous Karma has to be exhausted. However, when an activity is being performed, the intention of the activity decides future Karma. Thus, intention is more important. If the Karma is done for the benefit of others, and not for selfish motive, then it does NOT create new karma to be exhasted later, thus avoiding any killing in the present or future lives.
- Thus, when one performs any activity, they shall have to
a) check how they feel. If they are driven to that activity, then they have past karma. For example, Shree Krisna told Arjuna, 'even if you avoid to fight in this war, the urge to fight will pursue you because that is your dharma meaning inborn tendency meaning kshatriya-varna meaning past karma'.
b) check the intention of fighting and avoid pure selfish motives out of it.
For example, a person is in a forest or wherever. He/she is very hungry. No vegetarian food is available. Only a small animal is available to kill and eat. Now, if this person is sattvic, he can not kill at all and shall prefer to die. If the person is incarnation, he/she will never kill for their own sake. If the person is born Kshatriya, then they will perform the killing for their own survival.
Without any offense, but only to state the fact, when the white people killed american indians, it was due to their rajasic tendency meaing past karma. They could not have kept peaceful and not killed them. It was their savage nature which forced them to kill. Therefore a Real Yogi forgive all, including savages. Thus, Mahatma Gandhi forgave British, not because they were right, but he understands their tendency, he does not want to create new karma, he wants to win their heart, so that future karmic fighting can be stopped. This is what has happened.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2005-09-30 9:26 AM
Without any offense, but only to state the fact, when the white people killed american indians, it was due to their rajasic tendency meaing past karma. They could not have kept peaceful and not killed them. It was their savage nature which forced them to kill. Therefore a Real Yogi forgive all, including savages.
American History Lesson 101
Neelbhai, according to the scriptures  , the white men were the ones running around calling the redskins aka Native American Indians "Savages" and said they needed to be civilized with towns and structured permanent buildings. To set the record straight, due to all the songs i.e. like in the Disney movie Pocahontas that goes something to the tune of...Savages, Savages, they are barely human (talking about Native Americans). Instead of being savages, could there be another name like perhaps, "Evil Monsters" that ravaged the land and the Indians. |
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy - 2005-09-29 11:15 PM
I'm not so sure that contextualism is the right way to approach life and death. I do, of course,
understand the point you're making, but what I'm trying to understand is whether there's
anything absolute about proscriptions against killing.
so far, the only thing that i've figured out actually exists is subjective things. everything seems to be context, and life and death in and of themselves aren't that big a deal either way. the only thing that seems to matter in both is context.
Why, for example, am I justified in taking another life in order to save my own?
Whether I am eating the being in question, or killing them to have their liver to
replace mine, or killing them because they are a threat to me or somebody I
happen to like, whatever the situation, I am killing them for my own personal
benefit. How can this possibly be justified? Why not kill them because I want the
shoes they are wearing?
slippery slope fallacy again.
but, the idea of killing for this, killing for that, killing for this, and killing for that. How about killing because we drive cars which uses oil drilling which then affects ecosystems which then affects all sorts of plants, animals, and human communities?
truthfully, we all have impact, and there's no way to be 'zero impact' and we benefit and other things benefit and we destroy ourselves and other thigns are destroyed. And that's life and death and life.
And if we adopt a contextual relativism, where it's okay to kill somebody if
we ascribe a "high enough" subjective standard to the act, then doesn't the
subjectivism (which is always malleable) allow us to kill anybody under any
pretext whenever we are so inclined?
absolute relativism has it's problems. But, culturally we have understandings that guide our thinking. anti-speciesists argue that it's only a matter of time before animals are considered 'equals' to humans--morally speaking--and therefore we will not kill them for food or medical testing or invade their habitats, etc. Our current thinking only allows for humans to be given this much consideration, and later animals will be added. They point to the fact that in the past, certain classes of humans (women, children, people of color) were not considered 'human' or didn't have the same moral import or standing as white male humans, and how those ideas changed over time.
It's these subjective cultural ideas that we agree to (in the legal system, we call them 'legal fictions') that makes our 'absolute moral standard.' Or our objective standard, and from this, contextualism begins. This is why slippery slope doesn't function (killing someone (human) for shoes--but in fact, you likely do kill someone (animal) for shoes, if you wear leather! ;) ).
but, the interesting thing about the 'legal fiction' is the cultural recognition that it is subjective, and that because of this subject to change based on our cultural evolution--which includes a moral evolution.
Sorry, I don't mean this to hostile toward anybody in particular, but the question
annoys me to no end....
i do not feel that you are being hostile. do you feel that you are being hostile? that's certainly something itneresting to consider. I didn't read you as hostile. Maybe that's just me. Maybe it's because i've posed these questions many times to myself and to others and i have looked at the animal rights issues in multiple ways since becoming vegetarian--so i asked the same questions of myself.
And this lead me to make certain decisions about my behavoirs--in multiple facets of my life in regards to diet, activities, shoes, or wahtever else. but, i've also recognized that there is no way to be alive and not destroy something, harm somehting--that's part of being in body. But, i kinda think of it like shiva's dance. Sometimes, you have to destroy to create.
Brother Neel had some comments about karma and killing which I am still trying
to digest....essentially that motive engenders karma which will in the long run
determine the outcome of any particular killing. And in this sense, it is not the
killing itself that has any importance (all being reincarnated, as Krishna told
Arjuna), but the intention that carries the weight of the act...even saving a life
can produce [bad] karma if done for the wrong reasons.
right, which takes us back to context. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Well, Zoe, yes we can do this all via subjectivism, and legal fiction, etc, which is to
say that particular groups at particular times will decide in which context it's ok
to kill. Cultural context is the best that we've managed to come up with, and it
has variously allowed for slavery, the murder of indigenous peoples, and wars for oil.
And, yes, if I exist, I consume resources that other living things might need and
thereby indirectly deny some of them of life, showing that I must kill something
to exist. However, I most certainly do not need to engage in deliberate or predictable
killing of other human beings in order to exist.
When people killing people is conditionally acceptable, the conditions are always
going to be adjusted according to prejudice, greed, and convenience. I think that
that slippery slope is the essential question here, and it is the reason to ask what
the absolutes might be. In terms of our cultural/legal context, which I certainly
prefer to be secular and not governed by [religious] absolutes, the functional problem
is the slipperly slope...well-funded regressive interests regularly overpower the democratic
process, and a poorly educated populace easily accepts slogans masquerading as ideas
(to borrow a phrase from Isaiah Berlin). I think that context is a nice way run a society,
but I don't see that it is particularly informative about the, uh, ultimate acceptability of
killing.
[And as for hostility, no, I didn't think I was being hostile, but I've been accused
of hostility so often on these boards that I just felt like sticking in a disclaimer...]
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-09-30 10:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Dear Brother Neel,
Thank you for the long answers above. I will think about this for
a while before trying to answer. At the moment, my head is still
full of western legal fiction, and I need to move it back to the context
of yoga!
Bay Guy |
|
| |
|
| Well, Zoe, yes we can do this all via subjectivism, and legal fiction, etc, which is to
say that particular groups at particular times will decide in which context it's ok
to kill. Cultural context is the best that we've managed to come up with, and it
has variously allowed for slavery, the murder of indigenous peoples, and wars for oil.
and throughout all of these cultural contexts, there have also been those who dissent--who do not think something is right, etc.
i find that the only absolute comes out of the yoga sutras--but i left my copy in the car, so i'll have to write in in later--something about yoga is when one stands as one's true self, as observer to the world. Non attachment, i guess.
And, yes, if I exist, I consume resources that other living things might need and
thereby indirectly deny some of them of life, showing that I must kill something
to exist. However, I most certainly do not need to engage in deliberate or predictable
killing of other human beings in order to exist.
doesn't this answer your original question though? to me, the whole thing hinges on the concept of necessity. I strive to only kill when necessary. I recognize that it is necessary for me to drive a car at this time (i hope in the future to live in a place where i will not have to drive a car)--and in doing so i'm involved in wars that kill people, in things that kill ecosystems, and pollution that causes harm to many far beyond the immediate time and space where i drive. But, i see it as a necessity because i need to work, and i need to work to have food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and internet access (ok, that last one may not be a need!).
Also, since it started at animals in the question somewhere--when does one need to deliberately and predictably need to kill animals? i mean, it's a honest question for oneself, isn't it?
slippery slope stuff
here, i'm using quotes to make space between ideas.  i like the form of it.
anyway, the slippery slope can be an issue--particularly with that slogans/ideas thing. As an example, a friend of mine is really into (american) football. Now, he watches these over-wrought NFL films thingies, and was watching them while his wife and i were beading on friday nite. There was this weird thing that the film kept going on about "respect." over and over they kept saying (and quoting different teams, coaches, and individual players) that "it's about respect." and finally i said "what the F does that mean? i mean really. It's freakin football! what does it have to do with respect? and what do they mean by respect? what are they trying to say? what is the idea?" it's totally that slogan as ideas thing, because my friend was like 'well, other teams disrespect the eagles because. . .' and i'm like "what? disrespect a football team? i mean really!"
anyway, to say the least, i cleaned up beads pretty quickly and got out of there (he can get aggressive aobut football). but, what was up with that?
truthfully, ignorant people make ignorant choices. the issue isn't really a question of contexts and who uses and abuses them. on a grand scale, certainly, we hae to be mindful of that. But intimately--in one's personal practice of yoga, it's really about what you do and what you think, so *your* context. your bodily context is different from my bodily context. you have a bum knee and my hearing is weird on the left side (or whatever). where i live is different than where you live. my education is differnt from yours.
so, step one of context in this instance (predictable and deliberate killing) is really about *your* context. then, it's about talking to others about *their* context--if they can even see things this way, as most people can't see things 'meta-culturally.' |
|
| |
|
| *accidental double post*
Edited by zoebird 2005-10-03 12:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I live in a very masculine, hetero town (on the surface) where "respect" means everything to these football-watching worms. That kind of "respect" is butt-kissing ego gratification. I read in Ms. Magazine a decade ago that the #1 fear for women is to be killed. The #1 fear in men is to be made fun of/to be laughed at. Again, more ego-protection from the male species. No offense, yoga.com guys. I'm referring to all men EXCEPT the men who read/post to this website.
The idea that you "respect" someone because he might hurt or kill you is truly barbarian.
Karma really is a bytch
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | *Fifi* - 2005-10-03 3:57 PM
I live in a very masculine, hetero town (on the surface) where "respect" means everything to these football-watching worms. That kind of "respect" is butt-kissing ego gratification. I read in Ms. Magazine a decade ago that the #1 fear for women is to be killed. The #1 fear in men is to be made fun of/to be laughed at. Again, more ego-protection from the male species. No offense, yoga.com guys. I'm referring to all men EXCEPT the men who read/post to this website.
The idea that you "respect" someone because he might hurt or kill you is truly barbarian.
Karma really is a bytch
I remember years ago being told off by some old fart in a meeting, when I suggested
that a senior person should pay the same parking fee [at work] that the rest of us
paid. He glared at me and bellowed "It's about RESPECT!" |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | zoebird - 2005-10-03 12:02 PM
And, yes, if I exist, I consume resources that other living things might need and
thereby indirectly deny some of them of life, showing that I must kill something
to exist. However, I most certainly do not need to engage in deliberate or predictable
killing of other human beings in order to exist.
doesn't this answer your original question though? to me, the whole thing hinges on the concept of necessity. I strive to only kill when necessary. I recognize that it is necessary for me to drive a car at this time (i hope in the future to live in a place where i will not have to drive a car )--and in doing so i'm involved in wars that kill people, in things that kill ecosystems, and pollution that causes harm to many far beyond the immediate time and space where i drive. But, i see it as a necessity because i need to work, and i need to work to have food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and internet access (ok, that last one may not be a need! ).
Zoe, this is a vegetarian perspective. I'm talking about people actively killing people.
truthfully, ignorant people make ignorant choices. the issue isn't really a question of contexts and who uses and abuses them. on a grand scale, certainly, we hae to be mindful of that. But intimately--in one's personal practice of yoga, it's really about what you do and what you think, so *your* context. your bodily context is different from my bodily context. you have a bum knee and my hearing is weird on the left side (or whatever). where i live is different than where you live. my education is differnt from yours.
so, step one of context in this instance (predictable and deliberate killing) is really about *your* context. then, it's about talking to others about *their* context--if they can even see things this way, as most people can't see things 'meta-culturally.'
Hmm... yes, there's a context of educated/ignorant in this. In Latin "noblesse oblige"...
those of us able to think sbout the "larger" questions have an obligation to do so for the
sake of everyone who can't. [God that sounds arrogant! But we should all try, no?]
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | [What's with these double posts?....slow server?]
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-10-03 10:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-09-30 9:26 AM
Dear Brother BG:
Absolute prescription related to Killing and Non Killing? Gee, you are a tough guy.
- Total NON Killing is possible only in a Kaivalyam State.
- When an incarnation such as Krishna (full incarnation, not partial) is born, killing by that incarnation is for the salvation of the person dying. This happens only a few times. And, the person dying this way is the beneficiary. For example, Ravana gets liberated being killed by Shree Rama.
- When any person with previous leftover Karma is born, this person has to exhaust the previous Karma, and that may involve killing in minor (which occurs in most of us) or in major amounts.
- Previous Karma has to be exhausted. However, when an activity is being performed, the intention of the activity decides future Karma. Thus, intention is more important. If the Karma is done for the benefit of others, and not for selfish motive, then it does NOT create new karma to be exhasted later, thus avoiding any killing in the present or future lives.
- Thus, when one performs any activity, they shall have to
a) check how they feel. If they are driven to that activity, then they have past karma. For example, Shree Krisna told Arjuna, 'even if you avoid to fight in this war, the urge to fight will pursue you because that is your dharma meaning inborn tendency meaning kshatriya-varna meaning past karma'.
b) check the intention of fighting and avoid pure selfish motives out of it.
For example, a person is in a forest or wherever. He/she is very hungry. No vegetarian food is available. Only a small animal is available to kill and eat. Now, if this person is sattvic, he can not kill at all and shall prefer to die. If the person is incarnation, he/she will never kill for their own sake. If the person is born Kshatriya, then they will perform the killing for their own survival.
Without any offense, but only to state the fact, when the white people killed american indians, it was due to their rajasic tendency meaing past karma. They could not have kept peaceful and not killed them. It was their savage nature which forced them to kill. Therefore a Real Yogi forgive all, including savages. Thus, Mahatma Gandhi forgave British, not because they were right, but he understands their tendency, he does not want to create new karma, he wants to win their heart, so that future karmic fighting can be stopped. This is what has happened.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org
Dear Brother Neel,
I've thought a bit more about your post, and the following seemed to come out of it.
There is implied in this an absolute standard that killing is not acceptable among the
enlighted (or purusha vishesha?). Killing occurs as a natural result of karma
amongst those who still have karma to work out; but once karma is resolved, there is
no killing. Have I got this right?
If so, it seems to suggest that the standard we should aspire to is never to kill?
I:24. Klesha karma vipakashayaira aparamrishtah purushavishesha Ishawaraha.
--- Bay Guy
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-10-03 10:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Bay Guy - 2005-10-03 10:37 PM
In French! "noblesse oblige"...
Why does this silly system limit us to corrections for just 30 minutes? ARGH!
|
|
| |
|
| Darling Bay Guy:
I do not know why your brought Purusha Vishesha in all this. Yes, your understanding is kind of correct, leave aside Purush vishesha. However, when one says karma it means the accummulated karma, not the one which one might create if the action is done with a motive. So, when actions are done without a motive, and all past karma is exhausted, then NO killing is possible. It is possible even then if an incarnation performs it in a certain context, such as Krishna's killing Shishupal, or Kamsa. There are two things: a) these killings are not done with a motive which is with attachment. b) these killings offer moksha to the one being killed.
I do not know why you brought PurushVishesha here. The Maharshi Patanjali is mentioning Purushavishesha Ishwara here in the context of Ishwarapranidhan to state the method of devotional surrender to Ishwara as one method to obtain the Samadhi. The method is further clarified as tat japas tadarthabhavanam -- repetition of OM with focus on Ishwara.
And, lastly Patanjali Yoga is a Spiritual Science which is to be taken as a Personal Practice. It is not a socio political statement such as dharma shastra.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org. |
|
| |
Can Christians Practice Yoga?
