Ahimsa and death penalty

[Guest guest]

If our practice proscribes the death penalty, then shouldn't we all abhor the

execution of those little souls in utero?

[Guest guest]

<<If our practice proscribes the death

penalty, then shouldn't we all abhor the execution of

those little souls in utero?>><br><br>Makes sense

to me. Why shouldn't our compassion be impartial? A

consistent pro-life position would include opposition to

both abortion and the death penalty, but with a gentle

mindfulness of human frailty rather than harsh

judgement.<br><br>I too voted for Nader. The Greens can't get much

more pro-choice than the Democrats already are, and

with the regrettable exception of abortion they looked

to be much more ahimsic than the

Democrats.<br><br>Peace and Good,<br>Homer

[Guest guest]

Are there any circumstances where violence and killing are acceptable?

[Guest guest]

<<Are there any circumstances where

violence and killing are acceptable?>><br><br>In a

number of Western (and Eastern) modes of thinking, this

question makes sense and has an answer. For example,

suppose you were coming from a rights-and-duties based

perspective in which for some reason human beings have a very

strong right not to be killed by others and even some

right to assitance from others in preserving his/her

own life provided that the observance of these rights

does not impose undue risks or burdens upon others. In

that case the answer would be "yes", there are some

circumstances where killing is permitted, though they don't

arise very often. (Say you are driving along in your 4

X 4 pickup and you observe a known ax murderer

approaching a group of of helpless children ax in hand, and

regrettably the only way to save the children is run him over

....)<br><br>What I'm curious to know is whether in some versions

of yoga philosophy one does one's ethics without

notions of good/evil or rights/duties and the like, and

in which it does not make sense to resolve moral

dilemmas in the abstract. Maybe there is some sort of

compassion-based ethic in which you practice ahimsa because of

your compassion and not because others have a"right"

to life and limb and you have the consequent "duty"

not to harm them.<br><br>When Western writers on yoga

discuss yama and niyama I often get the sense that they

are thinking in such a way and I wonder if would be

disposed to apply the same sort of thinking "further from

the mat", say with respect to social or political

issues.<br><br>Does anyone know where we can get info on

this?<br><br>Peace and Good,<br>Homer

[Guest guest]

" Maybe there is some sort of compassion-based

ethic in which<br> you practice ahimsa because of your

compassion and not because others have a"right" to life and

limb<br> and you have the consequent "duty" not to harm

them."<br><br>For ahimsa to be real it must come from compassion -

this is my understanding of eastern ethics.<br><br>The

rule only has value because it changes you - evolution

is the basic principle of any spiritual teaching.

[Guest guest]

funny, when i read about the proscription against

doing harm, it is often worded in a way that implies a

rule-based system, e.g. 'to progress on the path to

enlightenment/nirvana/samadhi, one should practice loving and doing no harm to

others.' perhaps this pereception of mine is based on my

western upbringing and/or the perspective of the

writers/translators.<br><br>to dwell on your abstract example of the

murderer/harmdoer endangering innocents, there is no solution there

in which the outsider can do no harm. to act is to

harm the intruder, to not act is to allow harm to the

innocents. one would have to choose between the options and

decide which is 'right'. in almost any society, well,

human society at least, harming the endangerer is the

appropriate action.

[Guest guest]

A superficial comment on a deep subject. Are you

assuming that because I am from alberta that I drive a

4x4? If that were the case I wouldnt run him over, I

would just turn down the Shania Twain CD, reach back

and grab my loaded "peacekeeper" from my gun rack and

dispense justice. Just kidding. I hate country music. On a

serious note I always have more problem executing the 8

limbs than I have in embracing them philisophically.

[Guest guest]

re: abortion. First of all, the mainstream agenda

of the right is not necessarily to ban abortions on

a national level, but to leave it to the states to

decide (like the death penalty). Consider the

consequences of banning abortion:<br><br>1. Millions more

unwanted children, born to the poor, to teenagers, to

women who, because they are not ready to have a child,

would not properly care for it.<br><br>2. Millions of

illegal abortions, in cimcumstances where a woman cannot

afford to travel to a state where abortion is legal and

safe.<br><br>3. Millions more adoptees for whom there is already

inadequate funding and care.<br><br>4. More people in this

already over-populated world.<br><br>5. The imposition

and invasion of what is still a woman's own

jurisdiction.<br><br>Sounds like ahimsa can work both ways. It's cruel to

bring unwanted children into the world; it's cruel to

the mother and the child.

[Guest guest]

Guess I'd better clarify: the "you" in the 4 x 4

example was meant to be abstract -- I didn't have any

particular person in mind (although, living in Kentucky I

sometimes do wish I had a big ol' pickup to haul around the

gardeing supplies).<br><br>The craziness of the example

was not meant to put anyone down -- it's just that

the general principle I spelled out on the previous

post gives such a strong presumption against killing

that one have to be in a pretty far-fetched situation

in order to kill and yet not violate that

principle.<br><br>In my previous post I was not interested in

resolving specific moral dillemas; I primarily wanted to

raise the question of whether there might be coherant

and reasonalby comprehensive ehthical outlooks,

somehow associated with yoga, which are not based on

notions of rights and duties and which do not attempt to

resolve specific moral dillemas by means of abstract,

general moral principles.<br><br>Gawd that was

wordy.<br><br>Homer

[Guest guest]

Good point Sun, I agree it is a woman's own

jurisdiction. On the larger issue of the death penalty and

ahimsa. What advise does Lord Krishna give to Arjuna in

the Gita? He advises for upholding the Dharma and not

giving in to fear.One has to ask what the fate of a

Jeffery Damer (sp) should be.

[Guest guest]

Ethics:<br><br>It is not so much the outward act

that is performed but the intention (Eastern-see

Tibetan Buddhism (Dzochen)) or level of rational thought

(Western-see Kohlberg) behind the act. It depends on your

level of consciousness as to whether you see acts from

a dualistic perspective or not.<br><br>Kohlberg

gives the following dilemma: If your partner were dying

and needed medicine that you couldn't afford to save

his/her life, would you steal it from the

pharmacy?<br>Ans: There is no right or wrong act, just the level of

rational thought, or rationalization, that explains your

act. This is what determines high ethical

behavior.<br><br>Buddhism: Do you kill the man with your vehicle to save the

children?<br>Ans: If your intention was to save the children, then

ok. If your intention was to kill, then no. The silly

monks in Nepal would say that the man suddenly jumped

in front of my car and thus was responsible for his

own death. Karma.<br><br>It is my belief that yoga

cultivates compassion (intention).<br><br>Yeshe

[Guest guest]

I was just having fun. Regarding your last post doesnt everything come down to

specifics? If a mathematical thereom(sp?) cant handle specifics isnt it

incorrect?

[Guest guest]

Trust in your buddha-nature. Trust that if you

abandon all your ideas and ideals about what is right and

ethical your true light of love and compassion will shine

through, that it will do what is appropriate for each

situation. If you try really really hard to do yamas and

niyamas, somehow it ends up being a little off. Like how

taoists distinguish between te, true virtue, and false

virtue, that you try to add or apply to yourself. Do we

really have to "add" yamas and niyamas to ourselves, as

if who we are isn't already good enough? Or is it

more a matter of getting rid of our false views and

conceptions? I think ideals like truth, honesty and compassion

will naturally express themselves through us the more

we open up and let them. The more we try to "be

more" of these principles the more we build up our

neurotic ego, which backfires and gets in the way of the

true intention. Trust yourself, I guess is what I'm

trying to say. I'm kind of paraphrasing what I've just

read from Trungpa Rinpoche...Cutting Through Spiritual

Materialism. He says that meditation is the continual act of

making friends with yourself. I think that's

awesome!<br><br>As far as the death penalty goes, I think

eye-for-an-eye justice is b.s. Killing IS the problem with the

death penalty. I don't see how this kind of punishment

could ever be justified.

[Guest guest]

That handles specifics. Well said. Thankyou.

[Guest guest]

I want nothing les than to get into a fight with

you, sun -- you are one of my favorite characters on

this board. I would also rather not be drawn into an

extended debate on abortion.<br><br>However, note that in

my post I approved of the idea that we oppose

abortion. I did not mention banning it legally.<br><br>In

theory I would be in favor of such a ban, just as I

support laws against other forms of killing. But, for the

very reasons you cite, outlawing abortion wouldn't

work very well in a society where pro-choice

mentalities are so strongly entrenched. In the absence of a

strong and well-reasoned pro-life consensus the only

practical way to oppose abortion is to persuade folks that

the act itself is unjustified (at least in almost all

circmstances) and to describe the ways in which the world would

be a better place if abortion were not practiced,

EVEN IF there are population concerns and rape still

occurs and men and women aren't perfectly in control of

their sexuality (which is a primary cause of the

majority of crisis pregnancies anyway).<br><br>From a

rights-based ethical perspective, the question of whether I am

right or wrong in asserting that abortion is in most

cases an act of wrongful killing turns pretty much on

the question of whether or not a fetus is a person

(i.e., a being with a right to life that is as strong as

the right to life that we seem to think we

possess).<br><br>If you care to duke it out from the rule-based

perspective, I suppose I could give a tight and rather

bloodless argument that fetuses are persons. What would

interest me more in this forum is how someone from the

compassion-based point of view looks at abortion in comparison

with other types of killing (for killing it certainly

is, though we may disagree on what sort of being is

getting killed).<br><br>Peace and Good,<br>Homer

[Guest guest]

Umm, yes, I guess (mathematicians have a specific

technical definition of "theorem" that makes itt hard for

me to know how to respond). Maybe I shouldn't try --

let's just have the fun. Especially in our

practice!<br><br>Homer

[Guest guest]

Homer, a fetus is alive, even if dependent on the

mother. But why be absolutist about aborting a fetus when

we are not absolutist about killing plants? When we

rip a cabbage from the Earth we are depriving it of

its full expression as a plant-being. We have no

problem weighing the pros and cons of such an act (not

eating ever again versus no plant killing). So why can't

we weigh the pros and cons of conditional abortion

(more unwanted, inadequately cared-for babies versus

adherence to principles)? Aren't consequences the true

determination of ethics? The consequences of unwanted babies

are universally, tangibly felt.

[Guest guest]

A fetus is a potential life. A mother is an

actual life. Does that make a difference? Whose life is

more important?<br><br>My understanding of ahimsa is

that we destroy things simply by being alive, but that

effort should be made to harm as little as possible.

Therefore killing a simple cabbage is less of a crime than

killing a complex, pain-feeling cow. <br><br>A Buddhist

might tell you that, all lives being equal, a cow will

feed many people but a fish will feed only one person,

so killing a fish for food is more wasteful and

selfish than killing a cow and sharing.

[Guest guest]

<<A Buddhist might tell you that, all lives

being equal, a cow will feed many people but a fish

will feed only one person, so killing a fish for food

is more wasteful and selfish than killing a cow and

sharing. >><br><br>That's a great twist on this. I

know the cabbage thing is a stretch, but it's just to

laugh in the face of absolutist pro-lifism.