|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
 Posted - Oct 05 2006 : 4:09:33 PM
|
I guess i failed to address the "should one carry a gun" thing. Well, I used to carry a gun and I'll be damned, when I look back and wonder if I would have used it in some alley how miserable my life would be, not to mention if I would have been able to pull the trigger at all. I probably would have ended up being the bloody one. Now if I lived in a society where everyone has a gun (oh yeah, I do) then I think I shan't join in. If it gets to be too scary for my family (like some horrible conquering country taking over and creating mayhem) I may choose to do so, or leave if possible. What all this has to do with karma I don't know. Paying attention to the sacredness of life, and cultivating compassion in every scenario, should be the only karma we should concern ourselves with. If we kill someone, then so be it. We probably already have numerous times. What's the worse that could happen, we have death retributed to us down the road? If we face that, and all circumstances with awareness and are at peace in our hearts then we may be able to move on from such experiences.
Peace |
 |
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2006 : 9:20:03 PM
|
I always feel funny after making posts like those. It's all my opinion from things I've put together. Anything I say comes from one who is not in a state of awareness of being one with all. There is a little input from some tiny experience of oneness, because that is really our true state of being, but most is merely my ideas from the limited standpoint of a "separate self". My apologies for being loud. |
Edited by - Balance on Oct 05 2006 9:40:54 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2006 : 10:19:35 PM
|
It's all my opinion from things I've put together. Anything I say comes from one who is not in a state of awareness of being one with all.
Alan, it's the guys who cultivate the impression that --- da-da, [drum-roll please] everything they say comes from one who is in a state of awareness of being one with ALL -- they're the ones who should apologize for being too loud.
You're just fine. Keep talkin' buddy.
|
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 04:55:21 AM
|
This may be a little off topic.. but how about viewing the world like this: There is you and there is God and there is nothing else. Whatever happens to you, happens by God's will. God is just, so whatever happens to you at any time is justice. Why be afraid of justice and carry guns? Are you afraid that God would be injust to anyone? Why not embrace non-harming and non-resistance and cultive the feelings of love and compassion no matter what the circumstances?
At least until one is self-realised and knows the destiny of every soul, then they can truly decide for themselves whether dharma transcends violence and non-violence. Until that state we are pretty much blind so why risk sinking deeper?
Disclaimer: Anything I said came from one who is not in a state of awareness of being one with all. ;) |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 05:47:48 AM
|
Hi Chiron (and others),
your concept is great, but I don't know if I am able
to trust in God's protection when you are being attacked by pirates.
Isn't there truth in the saying "God helps those who help themselves" ?
There is a funny joke about a man whose ship sunk
and he is swimming in the ocean. He believes absolutely
that God will save him. It doesn't take long, and
a small boat comes near. The men in the boat ask him,
if he needs any help. He responds: "No thanks, God will
help me". He continues to struggle swimming and again
help appears, a helicopter throws a line down.
And again he declines and says "No thanks, God will
help me". Finally he drowns and dies. When he comes
to heaven he asks: "God, why didn't you save me ?"
God replies: "I really tried, son"
|
Edited by - Wolfgang on Oct 06 2006 06:12:06 AM |
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 06:16:18 AM
|
I do believe that God helps those who help themselves. I also believe that only God exists. What help does God need from anyone? There hasn't been a time when we have not lived, God is always alive. So what is there to worry about?
We can come up with countless situations where it would seem that violence is the right response in a situation. But I think instead we should cultivate harmlessness in our hearts, if we want to progress and break free from the cycle of birth and death. It is easier to get rid of non-violent karma, isn't it? It is much harder to be indifferent when violence comes back to us. So IMO by embracing non-resistance to evil we help ourselves from the long-term perspective. At least until we are self-realised and can know the full consequences of our actions. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 09:56:07 AM
|
Chiron, one of the problems with that in practice is the central problem of pacifism: the last ones who would agree to be non-violent are the bad guys. If everyone who cares about the world and other people developed an absolute non-violence policy, we would live in a world where the only ones who are violent are those who do not care. We would then live in a world of passive serfs under criminal boyars. No thanks.
And on the internal level:
There hasn't been a time when we have not lived, God is always alive. So what is there to worry about?
If this is true, then why is killing so special? I think at any time we should be doing the wisest and most intelligent thing. If that includes killing, it includes killing. If that breaks our hearts we can take solace in the fact that 'Only God has ever lived'.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 06 2006 09:56:57 AM |
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 4:46:27 PM
|
If killing is not special then why is non-killing so special? Lets just say it is very strong karma that very few people can let go easily.
We do not know what the "wisest and most intelligent thing" to do in any situation is until we are self-realised. Until then we are ignorant and unaware of the full consequences of our actions.
I guess we need to find balance, as usual. Hopefully with love and harmlessness in our hearts.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
We would then live in a world of passive serfs under criminal boyars.
That's ironic, because that's the kind of world we live in right now. And 9/11 was a direct result of that. |
Edited by - Chiron on Oct 06 2006 5:12:17 PM |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 5:20:59 PM
|
| If you must kill do it with peace in your heart and love in the act |
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 5:22:56 PM
|
| LoL |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 5:26:12 PM
|
If killing is not special then why is non-killing so special? Lets just say it is very strong karma that very few people can let go easily.
Yes, I think I agree with you. Non-killing is important. To me though, it fits in a continuum with other considerations, which are based on a more general morality. I see 'non-killing' as the product of general morality, or the Golden Rule, not the foundation if it. Those who have a special, absolute rule on non-killing may find, in certain examples, that that absolute rule is not sitting well with the other foundations of general morality.
To me it is actually immoral to let the pirates kill you, or, even more definitely, your children or the other passengers.
This is why, in certain very rare extreme situations, I consider it immoral not to kill. I don't mean this in a pointing-the-finger way, it just points out that my moral code is a little different to some people's. In other words, morally, I don't see myself with a choice in such an extreme predicament. This follows for me because the Golden Rule, and not an absolute prohibition on killing, is my moral foundation.
For the sake of the topic, I'm going to let the 9/11-bait slide.  I'd like to talk about it, but not on this forum I think because it will de-rail the yoga-discussion.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 06 2006 5:30:52 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 5:44:27 PM
|
Balance said:
If you must kill do it with peace in your heart and love in the act
Agreed, if you are on a spiritual path. If you saw 'Saving Private Ryan', the sniper guy seemed to be on such a path.
I mention 'Saving Private Ryan' just so you know that that kind of warrior is not purely fictional. 
|
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 7:11:17 PM
|
Immoral not to kill? Can't you just shoot at the hand or something? Or throw a gas grenade and incapacitate? :P Why must you kill?
True mastery of fighting and conflict comes with the ability to subdue but not to destroy. To subdue and do the least amount of damage to the aggressor. Go ask the shaolin monks, they will tell you the same thing :)
I think balance is found when we do not remain passive, but neither do we aim to kill.
I agree that there are exceptions, but how many of us encounter such situations in our daily lives? Harmlessness and non-resistance is most applicable to most of us IMO. |
Edited by - Chiron on Oct 06 2006 7:18:45 PM |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 7:20:48 PM
|
| This may be a different order of killing, but I have learned not to slap mosquitos or even squash cockroaches and have learned to appreciate them for their individual selves, even if they do bug me, which does happen all the time. Our house is a menagerie of different communities trying to repect and get along with each other. I've known generations of mice to make me feel like a great-great-great-grandpa |
Edited by - Balance on Oct 06 2006 7:26:13 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 06 2006 : 8:54:17 PM
|
Immoral not to kill? Can't you just shoot at the hand or something? Or throw a gas grenade and incapacitate? :P Why must you kill?
In the pirate scenario, because it is the only realistic option for defense.
Then there is the more modern, real scenario of an armed assailant going 'postal' and doing a random shooting spree. (The term 'going postal' was coined because, for some reason, in the US, so many of these were postal workers!!! ). It has generally been the policy to shoot-to-kill in such a situation, if the assailant won't stop. Some years ago, I think it was in Spain, the authorities decided that they would change it to shoot-to-incapacitate. Unfortunately it isn't practical --- at some point some armed assailant started shooting people in a public place, and the authorities shot back, not to kill, but to wound. Unfortunately, after being wounded, he managed to kill three more people! (Not sure of the number, I think it was three.) That was the end of that policy.
I agree that there are exceptions, but how many of us encounter such situations in our daily lives?
Well, if you agree that there are exceptions, we are in the same boat. Such situations, at the individual level, are extremely rare, admittedly. But they make interesting food for thought about what should be the real root of our moral thinking.
However, at the national level, it does tie into questions about how to respond to something like Hitler's regime. The whole business of war and its morality is very murky and complex.
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 08 2006 : 10:57:51 AM
|
War and killing is self-perpetuating.
If your brother or son or dad or friend was a pirate and his crew was massacred while trying to loot a ship, would you just "let it go?"
Put yourself in the mind of the pirates.
Only in the movies does killing and war end a problem.
In real life killing makes sure the problem WON'T go away. Many killers are fooled because it causes a delay and a change of tactics.
When Bush says the war on terrorism will go on forever, he has the right idea. Stopping war and killing is the only end to problems, but it is much, much more difficult and takes much more courage. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 08 2006 : 2:09:02 PM
|
While that is rhetorically stirring, I find it overly-simplistic, but that is the way I find pacifist absolutism in general.
But to take it in its pieces:
War and killing is self-perpetuating.
Rhetorically stirring certainly. A good slogan for a pacifist position. But how sound is it philosophically? Not standing up to a bully can also be identified as perpetuating the bully's behavior. The choice of war-or-not just doesn't simplify into the choice of perpetuating-or-not.
Only in the movies does killing and war end a problem.
In real life killing makes sure the problem WON'T go away.
Again, this seems overly-simplistic. The pacifistic response to Hitler's regime would have been a disaster for humanity. The one that was taken was superior in terms of eliminating problems.
When Bush says the war on terrorism will go on forever, he has the right idea. Stopping war and killing is the only end to problems, but it is much, much more difficult and takes much more courage.
With what are you going to 'stop war and killing'? Are you going to press the 'stop all war and killing' button? If anyone finds it, I'm all-for pressing it. Of course, it has to stop war and killing on all sides in all conflicts in order to really work.
The problem is, the only choice we have is in the way we act; we can press the 'we won't kill' button but that does not press the 'no-one will kill' button, so to speak. The way we act has an influence on the actions of others but does not determine it entirely. Aggression may stir further agressive response; aggression may lessen further aggressive response; non-aggression may reduce aggression on the other side; non-aggression may invite aggression from the other side; no one rule fits all situations; the relationship between aggression and its response is not monotonic, meaning not going in only one way. If it were monotonic, we could eliminate aggression on the other side by not being aggressive; then, 'War begets war, killing begets killing' would move from being sometimes-misleading rhetoric to representing uniformly sound and moral self-defense policy.
BTW, this doesn't mean I agree with Bush's particular policy, but that is beside the point anyway. I don't know if there is any sane person who thinks war is always a good thing. People vary in their reluctance towards war. I'm actually on the 'very reluctant' end of the spectrum, but don't agree with pacifist absolutism either, which is all I am saying here. Real solutions are rarely found at the level of absolutes.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 08 2006 6:51:03 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 08 2006 : 2:47:09 PM
|
david wrote:
"War and killing is self-perpetuating.
Rhetorically stirring certainly. A good slogan for a pacifist position. But how sound is it philosophically? Not standing up to a bully can also be identified as perpetuating the bully's behavior."
Killing a bully doesn't change his behavior. He'll be the same next incarnation. It just puts you in his position; forcing your way. Then someone else or the law is after you and/or your family. It's the cowardly way out. I didn't say don't stand up to him. Stand up to him without killing him.
I'm not saying when somebody holds a gun to you to just stand still and give in.
The correct response is you try not to die, and try not to kill. It's not something you can answer in a hypothetical situation and expect to use in reality. It's complex and there are stories everyday of unexpected outcomes. It's your intent that is important in determining what you do. But if your knee jerk reaction is always "my safety before anything else" I guarantee you will stay spiritually stuck and not even realize what you're doing.
"Aggression may stir further agressive response; aggression may lessen further aggressive response; non-aggression may reduce aggression on the other side; non-aggression may invite aggression from the other side; no one rule fits all situations; the relationship between aggression and its response is not monotonic, meaning not going in only one way."
I agree. That's why hypothetical situations don't apply to reality. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 08 2006 : 3:23:57 PM
|
Killing a bully doesn't change his behavior. He'll be the same next incarnation. It just puts you in his position; forcing your way. Then someone else or the law is after you and/or your family. It's the cowardly way out. I didn't say don't stand up to him. Stand up to him without killing him.
One thing I don't believe in doing is basing our public morality on what are possibly magical or sacro-pietic assumptions. The problem with such unprovable, possibly magical assumptions is that we cannot as a society come to any agreements about the truths of them. We may have illusions about their source, and their reliability. Your statement above contains very strong unproven assumptions. It contains one assumption about re-incarnation. And even if re-incarnation were a fact, there is a further issue: how do you know, if re-incarnation is true, that killing a bully as he attempts to kill is not even good for him in a karmic sense? A violent death and a spell in hell may be 'just the thing'. At certain levels of development, force may be the only thing to constrain; in other words, the only deciding factor in whether someone will do wrong or not is whether they will get away with it. Compassion, and reason, both come from higher places and stages of development.
You have very strong unprovable (and not by any means universally shared) assumptions behind your thinking, and you are identifying those who do not have the same approach as 'taking the cowardly way out'.
I'm not saying when somebody holds a gun to you to just stand still and give in.
Don't worry, I wasn't implying you were saying that. You were saying that you must never kill in response, which is the only issue I am addressing. But...
It just puts you in his position; forcing your way.
here you just seem here to have described 'not giving in' in a negative light....
I agree. That's why hypothetical situations don't apply to reality.
The fact that the response to aggression is not monotonic doesn't imply that hypothetical situations don't apply to reality.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 08 2006 3:53:32 PM |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Oct 09 2006 : 04:05:34 AM
|
According to the story of David and Goliath (no pun intended David )
it was David told by God to fight against the Philistines represented by Goliath.
And it turned out, that David killed Goliath.
Did this produce bad karma for David ?
Did it produce good karma may be for both sides ?
We don't know for sure, if we are jewish or christian,
we probably will believe that is was correct to kill,
if we are Philistines we will try to find arguments, like:
killing is bad, you did something evil, you will have
to pay for this ...
There is another story in the Bahavadghita, where Krishna
tells the king to go to war and kill the enemies.
The story is I think in the Mahabharata, and it was after
trying in vain to settle peace.
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Oct 10 2006 : 9:49:46 PM
|
David wrote:
"One thing I don't believe in doing is basing our public morality on what are possibly magical or sacro-pietic assumptions."
Sorry; I was assuming a hindu perspective because that's where yoga comes from. I'm not sure what the public morality where I live (USA) is based on, but it says killing is wrong also.
"how do you know, if re-incarnation is true, that killing a bully as he attempts to kill is not even good for him in a karmic sense? A violent death and a spell in hell may be 'just the thing'."
I don't believe in hell, but I do believe in re-incarnation because of latent memories. But I don't take actions because of the karma of other people; only my own.
"At certain levels of development, force may be the only thing to constrain"
i agree. but killing and constraint are vastly different. Constraint gives your opponent another chance to learn.
"and you are identifying those who do not have the same approach as 'taking the cowardly way out'"
Not because their approach is different; it's the killing that makes them cowardly. Cowardice means fear in the face of danger. So I see guns as cowardly because you can do away with the life of another human being equal to yourself in many respects with the slight pressure of a trigger finger. It requires no effort, no struggle, no communication, as if you are important, but that person has no value in your eyes.
"The fact that the response to aggression is not monotonic doesn't imply that hypothetical situations don't apply to reality."
I think it does. Your statement that aggression could create more or less aggression, and non-aggression could do the same, illustrates that the outcome of a hypothetical situation cannot be determined from logic and words.
A person intending to kill before he gets killed could easily sacrifice himself. What if he gives the child a permanent brain injury so he's a vegetable and permanently injures the attacker also? The person with the gun would end up in jail and disgraced, and the attacker's defense would claim he wasn't hurting the child.
It's quite a common occurence. I knew a guy in L.A. who was a registered black belt in karate, and on three occasions he had defended himself from attackers (bouncer stuff),putting them in the hospital, and had assault charges on his record for all three because his body is considered a deadly weapon! These guys warned me that whomever has the greatest injury at the end of a confrontation will usually be considered the victim in the eyes of the police, regardless of how it started or who was right.
So having a gun with intent to kill could very well ruin your own life and your family too. It wouldn't be much consolation having the kid you saved visit you in jail while the rest of society calls you a murderer and shuns your family. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 10 2006 : 10:43:06 PM
|
Your statement that aggression could create more or less aggression, and non-aggression could do the same, illustrates that the outcome of a hypothetical situation cannot be determined from logic and words.
No, there are some hypothetical situations in which the response to aggression (or non-aggression) is definite.
Cowardice means fear in the face of danger.
No, not really. More like avoiding doing what one believes to be the right, or best thing, because of fear. A true 'hero' can ( and maybe should ) feel fear in the face of danger.
Well, maybe we've both said what we can about this and won't come to agreement, which is fine.
My summing up is that you seem to believe that killing is always wrong. I would find your position very hard to defend based on reason, which is maybe why I have a different view; I believe that there are some very rare situations in which it is the best thing to kill; the best thing, the smartest thing, the most compassionate thing, the most intelligent thing, and indeed, the thing which arises directly out of a sense of 'unity' and the Golden Rule.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Thanking God for evil
