|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 30 2006 : 05:19:26 AM
|
Shweta said: quote:
So by the laws of karma.. if you can do something without attaching a feeling to it.. its not wrong.. suppressing the feeling is not the same as non-attachment. The people who can truely non-attach are the yogi's or enlightened ones.. and they would not find it necessary to kill now would they?
Hi Shweta, if a truely non-attached person was presented with the scenario where someone close to them such as their child was about to be killed by a mugger or robber, if the non-attached person had access to a gun would they kill the person if that was the only way to stop them slaughtering the child. I think the answer is yes.
And whether there is attachment or non-attachment in this scenario - would their be bad karma?
And is this not the theory behind the "Just War" - so is their karma associated with the "just war"?
Louis 
|
 |
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Sep 30 2006 : 05:28:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
Wolfgang wrote:
"Karma can explain all situations, but as long as I am not aware
that in some past life I did such and such wrong,
(and therefore I am today in such and such a suffering situation),
as long as I am not aware of my past life, how can karma be
resolved ?"
Ether wrote:
Because it is never a dark secret. Problems created by past Karma pop up again in this life so you are faced with Karma a good deal of the time. It's very obvious what karma has to be dealt with in your life. Only if you spend a lot of energy avoiding your problems do they get twisted and hard to understand.
It's not a matter of doing things "wrong" that creates karma. Right and wrong are illusions. What creates karma is making bad choices. Some choices pile on more baggage, others help you to travel lighter.
Hi Ether,
it is a fact for me, that I do not remember a single instance
of one of my past life times, and I do not remember what I have
done or what choices I have made.
For many years I didn't believe in reincarnation, or didn't believe
that reincarnation might be possible.
Nowadays I find it more possible or reasonable that there is some
kind of reincarnation.
Still, it is a believe, and I have no proof, I do not remember
any of my choices from previous lifetimes.
And as for "right or wrong" and making choices: it is still the same,
isn't it ? I can make a good choice or a bad choice.
I may have made a bad choice in some past life, and therefore
the law of karma now presents me with a situation where I can
make another choice ...
But again, if I don't remember having made a good/bad choice,
how then can karma be resolved ?
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Sep 30 2006 : 07:52:04 AM
|
Wolfgang:
It has nothing to do with remembering past lives. Karma presents itself in the form of problems to be solved in THIS life.
No action is necessary to discover your Karma. It comes to you everyday. just deal with life's problems and you are dealing with your karma.
Sparkle wrote:
"if a truely non-attached person was presented with the scenario where someone close to them such as their child was about to be killed by a mugger or robber, if the non-attached person had access to a gun would they kill the person if that was the only way to stop them slaughtering the child. I think the answer is yes.
And whether there is attachment or non-attachment in this scenario - would their be bad karma?
And is this not the theory behind the "Just War" - so is their karma associated with the "just war"?"
Yes there would be bad karma associated, just as there is in fighting a just or "holy war".
The reason it seems unfair in your hypothetical story is a result of language and our ability to imagine things that are not real.
Hypothetical stories create hypothetical results, and cannot be fairly applied to reality, because they assume a simple, cartoon-like reality, while a real situation is extremely complex more like a tapestry.
The danger in hypothetical thinking is when a similar situation presents itself, the parent may see the gun as the only answer, when in fact much better solutions were available. Only if the parent was very cowardly would the gun be the only solution. He could have probably rushed the predator and stopped him, or maybe there was a baseball bat or fireplace poker available, etc. The parent would have an unbending intent to stop the predator, and in most situations a gun would not be available. Also there would be mitigating factors like the predator is probably a relative, and probably severely mentally ill, as is usually the case in these situations, and could be stopped without killing him.
This is why I don't like hypothetical stories to be used to make some kind of universal decision. When someone attempts to use it, I will interject my own information into the story that would make it different, or ask a million questions about position of people in the story, exactly what the predator is doing, time of day, etc, until they give up. Real situations are never as simple as a hypothetical one, and hypothetical stories are just used to trap you into making a wrong decision. They cause faulty logic by trying to apply a specific decision to a universal decision.
For instance somebady could ask you "if your mom always carried weapons and killed people everyday for no reason would you kill her?"
Then if you said yes, that person could go around telling people you said you would kill your mom!
hypothetical thinking tricks you into believing that imaginary thinking can be applied to universal circumstances, but when a real situation presents itself such thinking takes you out of the moment and delays your reactions so you are more likely to react poorly, and "search for the gun" rather than stop the predator. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Sep 30 2006 08:38:05 AM |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Sep 30 2006 : 11:12:22 AM
|
Etherfish
Your absolutely right, no point in being trapped in hypotethical thinking. The real here and now scenario is ever changing and flowing and who knows what might present itself.
Thanks
Louis |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 30 2006 : 3:01:45 PM
|
Etherfish said:
The danger in hypothetical thinking is when a similar situation presents itself, the parent may see the gun as the only answer, when in fact much better solutions were available. Only if the parent was very cowardly would the gun be the only solution. He could have probably rushed the predator and stopped him, or maybe there was a baseball bat or fireplace poker available, etc. The parent would have an unbending intent to stop the predator, and in most situations a gun would not be available. Also there would be mitigating factors like the predator is probably a relative, and probably severely mentally ill, as is usually the case in these situations, and could be stopped without killing him.
I disagree.
The danger in hypothetical thinking is when a similar situation presents itself, the parent may see the gun as the only answer, when in fact much better solutions were available.
In this case, the problem is that in the situation you described, the parent has not apprehended the real situation in its true complexity. That is the problem you've brought up; reasoning-through-hypotheticals is not the problem. And you have simply substituted a different hypothesis for the one stated. The one stated is when a gun is the only realistic means to stop the predator. By talking about the poker or the baseball bat as options to stop the predator, you are basically changing the subject in a hidden way, and providing an answer to a different question, and smuggling it in as the answer to the same question.
Such situations, in which a gun is the only realistic means to stop a predator, are actually real, even in the strict literal sense. Although extremely rare in the strict literal sense, there are analagous situations that are much more common, in which you need to find a realistic means to counter agression with some sort of force, where the realistic force is more severe in its effects than you would wish.
Only if the parent was very cowardly would the gun be the only solution.
Well, that's obviously false under the scenario in question. To imagine it always true, is just another way to be out of touch with the possibilities of reality. So I, on the other hand, think that hypothetical situations are a great tool for trashing out some moral principles. It's not that I think they are the beginning and end of moral thought, just very good tools, which, like all tools, have to be used well and with the right precision in order to be effective.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Sep 30 2006 5:08:54 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2006 : 11:06:04 AM
|
The problem with hypothetical questions is they limit the number of answers while in reality the number of answers is not limited unless your thinking is.
I know people who carry a gun in L.A. and who believe you are an idiot if you don't.
The answer that the parent should be holding in his mind is that one should always avoid killing people, at all costs, whenever possible.
But limiting one to a "yes or no" answer does not allow that.
Shooting the predator in the leg would most likely stop the predator without killing him. But that was not given as an option. If this happened in my house there definitely would not be a gun available, but that was not an option. In any sane household with a child any gun would be locked up and not loaded. But that was not given as an option.
So hypothetical questions aren't dealing with reality.
To illustrate this, if I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 2+2=6, and have the greatest mathematicians agree with me, and also give you a million dollars, would you say 2+2=6? Most people would agree in a minute, then i could go around telling everyone they said 2+2=6. This is what you're doing with hypothetical questions.
If the answer you get from a hypothetical question is not applicable immediately to reality, then what good is it? It is used to force people to say something to prove your point, when in reality only actions could do the proving. Thinking about killing somebody with a gun is quite different than doing it.
If you want to encourage people to think constructively, then ask them a hypothetical question without limiting the answers.
If you ask a parent what they would do if a predator was attacking their child, you will get an answer true to reality. Only when it happens in reality would the answers be limited, and then they are limited by karma, not a person. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Oct 01 2006 11:43:56 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2006 : 2:33:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
The problem with hypothetical questions is they limit the number of answers while in reality the number of answers is not limited unless your thinking is.
I know people who carry a gun in L.A. and who believe you are an idiot if you don't.
The answer that the parent should be holding in his mind is that one should always avoid killing people, at all costs, whenever possible.
But limiting one to a "yes or no" answer does not allow that.
Shooting the predator in the leg would most likely stop the predator without killing him. But that was not given as an option. If this happened in my house there definitely would not be a gun available, but that was not an option. In any sane household with a child any gun would be locked up and not loaded. But that was not given as an option.
So hypothetical questions aren't dealing with reality.
Again, you are talking about failure grasp the available possibilities in situations, and seem to be conflating it with flaws in hypothetical reasoning itself. Can you not engage in hypothetical reasoning, while preserving your ability to grasp available possibilities in real situations?
I don't think my engaging in hypothetical reasoning has any negative effect whatsoever on my ability to grasp the available possibilities in situations. In fact, it the former probably even improves the latter, through exercising and disciplining the mind.
Hypothetical reasoning fits schemes like 'If A then B', or often the form of discussion is 'If A then what?' Sometimes A is true; sometimes it is false and the discussion is still meaningful.
If I say something like 'If you have a blown-out tire and have no available replacement tire, you are not going to be able to continue your journey in your car uninterrupted at full speed', and someone says 'That's wrong; there is always an available replacement tire', then they are making two mistakes; the first way they are wrong is that, even if there were always an available replacement tire, the statement would still be correct. The second is that there is not, in fact, always an available replacement tire; reality is being denied.
while in reality the number of answers is not limited unless your thinking is
If this is supposed to mean that situations never arise in which your only realistic options are to kill or be killed, I disagree. A person denying the existence of such situations may be holding onto magical thinking.
If a person holds onto magical thinking, they may simply refuse to co-operate with your line of reasoning. No matter how intelligent they are they will not use their creative imagination in surveying the situations that arise according to your hypothesis (which even have existed many times).
What I believe is that an intelligent person who co-operates and has no hidden agenda to deny the facts, has the ability to come up with situations in which you have no reasonable options but to kill (or be prepared to kill) in order to save life -- situations which have actually existed before, and will exist again.
To illustrate this, if I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 2+2=6, and have the greatest mathematicians agree with me, and also give you a million dollars, would you say 2+2=6? Most people would agree in a minute, then i could go around telling everyone they said 2+2=6. This is what you're doing with hypothetical questions.
No, this doesn't show anything wrong with hypothetical reasoning; if you said they said 2+2 = 6, you would be simply telling lies, that's all. In your example, "they" didn't say 2+2=6, rather they said that "if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 2+2=6, and had the greatest mathematicians agree with you, and also give me a million dollars, I would then say 2+2=6".
If you want to encourage people to think constructively, then ask them a hypothetical question without limiting the answers.
I can certainly agree with you this far, Ether, and that is that we certainly fail often to grasp the available possibilities in situations. And the above exercise looks like an appropriate exercise to expand apprehension of possibilities. It's a different kind of exercise to hypothetical reasoning though, and doesn't contradict it. Hypothetical reasoning and creative imagination are not in an either-or relationship with each other, no more than sex and spirit, or pranayama and meditation, wealth and compassion, work and play etc etc etc.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 01 2006 2:42:12 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2006 : 3:40:34 PM
|
David wrote:
"No, this doesn't show anything wrong with hypothetical reasoning; if you said they said 2+2 = 6, you would be simply telling lies, that's all. In your example, "they" didn't say 2+2=6, rather they said that "if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 2+2=6, and had the greatest mathematicians agree with you, and also give me a million dollars, I would then say 2+2=6"."
That's exactly what is wrong with hypothetical reasoning. You take the person's answer to the artificial situation and pretend it means something in the real world, when in fact it ONLY applies to the artificial situation, and therefore has no meaning whatsoever.
If a judge only hears one side of a divorce case, he is likely to rule in favor of the person who's side he heard. Hypothetical questions only allow input from one side of the argument. That's what limiting the answers does. It makes one side of the argument appear to be the only logical side.
A judge may ask a suspect if he thinks it is wrong to kill people. But he would never set up a hypothetical case like yours to "prove" that the person could actually kill someone. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2006 : 5:52:50 PM
|
Ether, that isn't something wrong with hypothetical reasoning. It's simply an error of logic. "IF A THEN B " doesn't mean "If it half-looks-like A, THEN B". If you see that particular mistake being made, you should point it out. But don't throw hypothetical reasoning out the door because this error of logic gets made. Don't invalidate the tool because some people are not using it properly.
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 7:48:58 PM
|
I'm not objecting to hypothetical reasoning, just one type of hypothetical questioning where the answers are limited, thereby forcing an agenda.
Your question involving the gun and child at risk to me is unrealistic because to me killing someone is always the WRONG answer. So I will never be in that kind of kill or no-kill situation.
I know people however who are convinced that killing is a good answer, and they carry loaded guns, have an arsenal at home, and have reasons to prove they need them. So those people would kill the attacker in a moment, and don't hesitate to shoot people for much less. Those people who are convinced they need guns find themselves in situations where they use them.
To me your question is analogous to the question 2+2=, and giving
me the choice of 3 or 6.
Both answers are wrong in your question too. That's why it's unfair and unrealistic. You're saying it's possible that killing him is the only option. If the gun is the only thing available, highly unlikely,
a thumb to the eyeball or bullet to the arm or leg is just as likely to stop them as trying to hit their heart or brain. You have to get
close anyway to miss the child.
but your kill or no kill options didn't allow those, even though they would have been available. An open ended question would have been more fair, such as "You're in a closed room with the attacker and child and a loaded six shooter and nothing else. What would you do?"
That's hypothetical thinking without forcing an agenda. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 11:26:58 PM
|
OK, truce on the issue of hypothetical reasoning itself. 
Your question involving the gun and child at risk to me is unrealistic because to me killing someone is always the WRONG answer. So I will never be in that kind of kill or no-kill situation.
Whether or not choosing to kill or not is always the WRONG answer is a moral issue. But it's a matter of fact that situations have existed, and still exist, where people's only reasonable choice is to either kill or be killed.
One scenario, much more common in the past, was bandits, or their nautical equivalent, pirates.
If your ship was beset by pirates in past centuries, they always killed you all, even if you surrendered. Because they didn't want you to report on their whereabouts, recognize them on land, or run the risk that one of you was rich or well-connected and might go on a vengeance mission against them later. Besides, it was more fun anyway to kill you than to let you live. If you had a wife and children aboard, you could probably expect to see them raped first. If they felt like some sadistic fun, they might torture you before they killed you. Of course, making you watch your wife and children being raped before they are killed would be a jolly good start to your torture....
Now I have to say, Ether, if we find ourselves in a situation like that, pirates approaching too fast for us to get away, and you are the ship's captain, and I'm second in command, and you instruct us to leave the muskets and cannons alone while we first try to overwhelm them with the ships supply of baseball bats and pokers while they attack us with muskets of their own, my first act with the baseball bat is going to be to knock you unconscious, and I won't have to yell 'To the muskets and cannons men!' because they are already doing it of their own accord, being reasonable men, before you hit the ground.
Knocking such a captain unconscious isn't hostile or personal on my part. I would consider such a captain out of touch with reality in a way that is an egregious danger to the life of innocent civilians under his care, and my knocking him unconscious would be an act of duty on my part.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 06 2006 10:01:08 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 03 2006 : 08:17:42 AM
|
How is that a truce on hypothetical reasoning? It's still trying to force people to think the way you do with the rock and a hard place scenario.
It is somewhat more open ended however. If someone is intelligent enough they can figure it out. But then you would change the scenario again. . . |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 03 2006 : 09:57:37 AM
|
How is that a truce on hypothetical reasoning? It's still trying to force people to think the way you do with the rock and a hard place scenario.
You misunderstood what I meant by that. Never mind that, scratch it then.
unrealistic because to me killing someone is always the WRONG answer
What I am doing is showing you that scenarios in which you must either kill or be killed are actually realistic. Such scenarios don't become 'unrealistic because killing someone is always the WRONG answer'. The scenarios are real; if they are real, no moral considerations can make them unreal. We mustn't deny reality if it doesn't seem to fit our moral thinking nicely. If that's happening, the moral thinking may need adjustment.
To tie it in with Yoga: perhaps the biggest insult possible in many cultures is 'Your mother is a bitch'. However, if we see this reality as our mother, Kali Ma, we have to face the truth behind the biggest insult there is; our mother is a bitch. No way around that. The ancient Indians knew our mother is a bitch, and depicted her with a garland of severed arms and heads. Scenarios like the one I mention are part of the body of Kali Ma. It may be heartbreaking to face the fact that our mother throws situations at people where they have to choose to either kill or be killed. But it is the truth.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 03 2006 1:57:39 PM |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Oct 03 2006 : 2:26:10 PM
|
| Don't you be talkin' 'bout my Mama like that! |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 03 2006 : 6:51:53 PM
|
I think it is possible to be in a situation where I would have to kill or be killed. But i believe if i hold in my mind the intention that killing should be avoided at all costs, it is much more likely that I will gather good karma.
Because I hold this belief, I thought of a solution to the pirate scenario right away. The people I know who carry concealed weapons would immediately think of killing the pirates as the only solution. It's all in how you train your mind.
If you talk to the greatest martial arts masters you'll find they hold the same ideals. The beginners they teach love the feeling that they can easily do a lot of damage to their enemies. It makes them feel safe. Then they slowly cross the spectrum to where the masters are. The masters know they can stop aggression without causing any damage, and they love that feeling. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 03 2006 : 10:15:51 PM
|
I think it is possible to be in a situation where I would have to kill or be killed.
Fair enough.
Do you really have a solution to the pirate scenario though? A realistic one? I hope you aren't going to say shoot their legs or something, because that won't work....
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 03 2006 : 10:44:37 PM
|
But if I were in such a situation, it is very unlikely I would kill.
It is also very unlikely i would be killed, but you don't understand how that's possible.
You don't need to be a martial arts master to think in that way. If you believe protecting yourself is more important than anything of course you can't see that way. It takes courage. People who think killing is a solution to problems are lacking in faith, full of fear, and are quick to make desparate moves without thinking. So in real situations they are likely to be easily killed because the fear makes them barely aware, nervous and clumsy.
But once you adopt the conviction that killing is to be avoided at all costs you see again and again that you are on the right path, and it's not all about sacrificing yourself for everyone else, because on that path ultimately you have the most to gain personally.
I'm not going to say how the pirates could be handled because it is much more useful if it is conceived by someone who is convinced that you must kill. There is more than one solution. Anyone?
To give you a hint, people in those situations think about the possibility beforehand. If you've ever known sailors, they have a LOT of time to talk at sea, and there aren't many subjects that don't get covered, and passed on like wildfire as they dock at different ports. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 03 2006 : 11:35:12 PM
|
People who think killing is a solution to problems are lacking in faith, full of fear, and are quick to make desparate moves without thinking. So in real situations they are likely to be easily killed because the fear makes them barely aware, nervous and clumsy.
Well, I'll dispute that part. I have a counterexample: myself. I think killing can be a solution to certain problems such of disposing of assailants bent on killing you; I don't lack faith (depending on meaning) actually, am not even close to full of fear, and definitely am not quick to make desparate moves without thinking. In fact, in an emergency situation, I have been even as a child noted for keeping my cool and taking care of the situation....
Now, maybe you can prepare something in advance that the pirates aren't expecting. I would be curious what you have in mind. However, it wouldn't change the fact that there are scenarios in which you have a choice to kill or be killed --- like for example, either because you are in a situation that does not have preparation of this type, or, because it was used before and the pirates have a defense against it.
Still, if you can think of something that would really work reliably even once, and is realistic, and doesn't clutter or handicap the ship in the preparation, my hat goes down for you for creativity....
I should say I would 'raise my hat to you', not 'my hat goes down for you'. I think the thoughts of the pirates brought me back a few centuries to when hats were raised and dipped.
Is your defense something along the lines of pretending there is plague in the ship? A version of Kirks 'Korbamite manouver'?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 04 2006 2:28:50 PM |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Oct 04 2006 : 3:12:22 PM
|
Let me jump in here in your discussion and summarise a bit:
Ether doesn't like hypothetical situations
David seems to like playing with such situations.
Ether seems to avoid killing at all costs, believing that
there is always another (better) solution.
David tries to make the point that there may not be an option
and therefore one should be prepared to kill
I think none of us can fully predict the future and
therefore it may be necessary to kill or to be killed.
Ether seems to believe strongly that such a situation
(kill or be killed) can be avoided - by whatever means,
and it's no point of constructing hypothetical situations.
The point is, Ether believes it strongly (Ether's belief)
and so does David (David's belief).
So, we got two contradicting belief-systems.
Now my theory: both belief systems work !
Because Ether believes it, real-life will provide
a solution, however a certain risk remains: the risk
of being killed.
Because David believes in his reality-hypothesis, he
is prepared to kill, but also here a risk remains:
the risk of not successfully killing the other party,
and therefor the consequence of being killed.
My theory: The stronger our belief-system, the smaller risk.
Bash me now  |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Oct 04 2006 : 3:57:12 PM
|
You've bashed yourself! Nice summary Vulfgang. But please expand on "The stronger our belief-system, the smaller risk."
And now for something completely different (sorry, no Monty Python music and naked man playing the piano!)
Just kidding, please don't let me interrupt. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 04 2006 : 3:59:23 PM
|
the risk of not successfully killing the other party,
and therefor the consequence of being killed.
You know, Wolfgang, in the case of the pirates, there is a good chance that you might kill some pirates and then die yourself. That's something I'm happy to do. I'd prefer to have died after having killed some of the pirates rather than before. That way, I'd feel I had given something extra to society before I died. With a few pirates dead, there's a good chance a number of people are spared being murdered in the future.
That's consistent with 'ahimsa' as I see it.
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2006 : 02:24:13 AM
|
Hi,
well I don't know quite how to elaborate on
"The stronger our belief-system, the smaller the risk"...
But may be it boils down to a situation like Jesus'
If he had the power to call upon legions of angels,
yet he allowed himself to be killed.
So Ether is trying to follow Jesus' example
and David doesn't want to be killed.
Shall I keep out of the ring ?
Keep on bashing  |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2006 : 05:22:17 AM
|
Afterthought:
if one believes that killing results in bad karma,
then he will try not to kill, actually he has no
other choice as not to kill, it is a law for him
to not kill. He either has to accept being killed,
or hope for some miracle or possess enough siddhis
to turn the threat of being killed.
If one believes that killing does not necessarily
produce bad karma, then he has the choice to kill or not to kill.
The result of this choice is not known (we do not know
if it produces bad karma or any karma at all).
Having the choice of killing or not killing is
however in my eyes a higher level of freedom,
than not having the choice.
What about the aspect of one's fear to not produce karma ?
I believe it is a poor situation where somebody
avoids killing somebody (in self defense) out of fear
of bad karma ...
If I decide to do something (action or non-action doesn't matter)
and I am just acting because of fear for bad karma,
then I am trapped in fear.
Ok, enough now, keep bashing  |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2006 : 12:14:02 PM
|
believe it is a poor situation where somebody
avoids killing somebody (in self defense) out of fear
of bad karma ...
I agree. If you are prepared to die saving others from marauders, why wouldn't you be prepared to face bad karma for it?
|
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2006 : 2:08:41 PM
|
Okay, I got my finger in the pudding. Guess I'll have to join in...just a little.
Maybe if one were to buy some time with the pirates, offer to move some booty, or swab the deck or something. Then, when their guard is down and you have won some trust you might be able to discuss with them the error of their ways.
Seriously though
One would naturally experience some fear in such a situation (except perhaps the great advahut, Bhagavan Nityananda). At that initial moment it would be wise to watch your reaction and observe it, and detach from your thoughts and emotional reaction. Take stock. Breathe. The moment is sacred, like any other moment. Perhaps more sacred in that the intensity of the obvious sacredness of your bodily temple being threatened with dissolution (or that of a loved one) is so poignant. Being still as the witness of the sacredness would be the first step to acting appropriately. This is the moment when the Master would say "Pay attention grasshopper." But you must be listening. Now, can you see that belief structures don't play a part in the moment?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Thanking God for evil
