|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
elderberry
USA
49 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 27 2024 : 2:10:03 PM
|
As with many things in yoga, ahimsa (non-harming/nonviolence) appears to be both cause and effect.
I like the AYP approach which tends to lean a bit more towards effect rather than cause. The general principle seems to be something trending towards "keep up your spiritual practice and ahimsa will arise naturally". However, there is something to be said for it being cause as well as effect. To quote christi's book "Kundalini Awakening - Questions and Answers: A Guide for Spiritual Practitioners":
"If we are harming others, that will create blockages in our subtle nervous system, which could take many years to clear out."
Fair enough. In that vein, we should certainly strive to avoid doing harm, lest we make our spiritual progression harder than it needs to be!
However, I would like to explore the mechanics of this a bit.
Is the idea of harm determined by the conscience of the individual? Or is it determined by some type of objective standard rooted in universal consciousness?
Let's take something that is deliberately controversial or morally ambiguous depending on one's culture, background, or viewpoint. Let's use the example of abortion. For some, choosing to undergo this procedure could be interpreted as a kind and loving act in order to protect the well being of the mother. For others, it may be viewed akin to murder.
Imagine one undertook this procedure. How might this affect the subtle nervous system?
Would it be the case that someone who viewed the procedure as morally "harmless" would not add blockages to their subtle nervous system; whereas someone who viewed the act as morally reprehensible, but performed the procedure anyway, would experience blockages in their subtle nervous system?
In other words, to what degree if any does our viewpoint affect the karmic outcome of a particular action?
Or is there some greater universal moral compass which would determine the karmic outcome of this action, regardless of one's particular viewpoint?
This is not meant to bring up a debate on the morality of abortion. That is not the point. I just tried to select something that is morally controversial in order to illustrate the greater question.
Or perhaps, another way of addressing the question. To quote again from christi's book:
"Ultimately there is no such thing as right, or wrong. These are just ideas in the mind which are transcended during the process of awakening."
It feels as if this is at odds with the idea of non-harm. If there is no such thing as right or wrong, how could there be such a thing as harm or non-harm within any particular action? |
Edited by - elderberry on Jun 27 2024 2:44:26 PM |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4512 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2024 : 11:06:35 PM
|
Hi Elderberry,
One thing that can be useful to reflect on when it comes to karma (cause and effect) comes from the teachings of the Buddha: That karma is essentially unfathomable.
That being said, we can look at what happens in practical terms. What happens to someone who commits an act of harm towards another person? Imagine if a child deliberately pokes another child in the ribs with a stick, in order to hurt them. Then twenty years later they sit down to meditate and find that they are distracted because they remember that action and feel bad about it. So, looking at what is happening, there was an action, in this case harm to another, and then a reaction, a feeling of sadness and remorse many years later. So, something was stored somewhere which resurfaced later, causing suffering.
But what happens if a child does something to try to help someone else, but which actually harms them? Imagine if one child can't do their homework, so another child simply does it for them. The child who did the homework might feel as if they are helping. The child who had their homework done for them, may flunk the test at the end of term, but let's imagine, for the sake of simplicity, that the child who did the kind action does not know that. As far as the child who did the homework is concerned, they simply performed an act of kindness, which will lead to them feeling happy and which may help to create a habit of performing kind acts for others in the future. The child who did the homework, will not suffer, even though they may have actually done harm, inadvertently.
So, the karmic repercussions come down to the conscience of the individual. If people believe that what they are doing is kind/ helpful/ good/ right etc. then it will have good consequences for them, regardless of the actual effects of their actions.
And the same thing goes not just for harming others, but for things like stealing, lying, sexually abusing ourselves or others, and so on. In general it is best to avoid doing all these things, as they will likely lead to the suffering of others and to our own suffering, either now, or in the future.
But, it does always come down to the conscience of the individual. There are times when lying would be the kindest and least harmful thing to do. Imagine if there's a war on, and there are soldiers that are protecting your village hiding in your loft. Then the invading army arrives and soldiers knock on your door and ask if you have seen where the other soldiers are hiding. If you say "yes", then they could be taken away and shot, so you would have caused their death, or at least played an active part in it. If you lie and say "no", then they might escape. So, saying "no" could cause the least amount of harm and be the preferred action.
It is because of the increasing ability to perceive the consequences of actions that we are often drawn towards applying the yamas and niyamas in our lives, as we progress on the path of yoga. The more we are able to see the effects of actions playing out, the more strongly we are drawn to regulating our own actions accordingly. But the yamas and niyamas are only guidelines to pure action. They are not absolutes. There are situations where it can be the best thing to do, to do the opposite.
Another situation that could be imagined is a doctor working in an assisted dying clinic in Switzerland. Assisted dying is legal there in some cases, under medical supervision. Imagine if a man is dying from cancer and is in great pain, and requests for his life to be ended through lethal injection, with his loved ones around him. The doctor who administers the injection would be killing the man. It would be an obvious act of harm (himsa). But the alternative could be weeks of pain for the man to suffer, and denying him the chance to say goodbye to his family at a stage when he is still conscious. So the act of refusing to end his life at his request would also involve harm, and potentially more harm.
As for right and wrong, they are ultimately ideas that are created in the mind. They are useful for running a society, but that does not raise them to the level of being true. But, even though they are only ideas, ideas about what is right or wrong can affect karmic consequences. If someone helps someone else but believes that what they are doing is wrong, then that can cause suffering for them (the person who holds that belief) immediately and in the future.
Even if karma (action and consequential reaction) is unfathomable, one thing we can do is to ask the question: "How can I act in a way that will result in the least amount of suffering for myself and others?". It is not that dissimilar to "Love thy neighbour as thyself". When suffering is reduced, this in turn reduces karmic reactions. And when karmic reactions are reduced, this will result in a quieter mind. And when the mind becomes quiet, we begin to know ourselves to be that which is never affected by actions or its consequences. So, we do not need to fully understand karma in order to transcend it. |
 |
|
|
elderberry
USA
49 Posts |
Posted - Jun 28 2024 : 12:28:26 PM
|
Incredible answer. Thank you so much christi.
That makes complete sense that it is, at least in some part, determined by the point of view of the person taking the action.
I would imagine that as people from different backgrounds get far along the spiritual path, their conscience and morality will trend towards a more or less common point. That is not to say everyone will end up with the exact same sense of morality at the end of the spiritual journey, but I would imagine that if we could gather up enlightened folks from wildly different cultures and backgrounds, they would all have a somewhat similar sense of morality, even in relatively nuanced situations such as the ones described above.
That is to say, I think the example you gave about someone meditating years later on their actions is especially poignant. Weather or not an individual sees the harm in their actions in this moment, is not particularly relevant. As we progress on the spiritual path, I imagine we will trend towards that similar sense of morality mentioned above, and we will be liable to look at our past actions with a completely different perspective.
It's probably worth noting that these discussions aren't needed in 99% of cases. I think we all know the difference between harm and non-harm in the overwhelming majority of situations in life. However, sometimes I can't help myself from engaging with a particularly juicy philosophical discussion such as this one! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
The Mechanics of Karma
