Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 This is a very potent idea sir, may I request you to elaborate your own views and experiences on these lines? May I also ask if you have ever been through "Brahma sutra Bhasyas" and your views on the same? Surya. om_tatsat_om <om_tatsat_om wrote: Sri RR ji, during my one of the sojourns in Upanishadas readings, my attention was drawn to one line, "The Brahm states, "I engulf/eat myself." Tatvam-Asi --- rohiniranjan <rrgb wro , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb wrote: > > Maniv ji, > > Your point is well taken and is an argument that has come up several > times. The point, as I see it, is that human beings assign these > categories and levels of animal life forms being higher than plant > forms and humans being higher than animals and primate animals (just > because they are closer to us in the phylogenetic tree) are higher > than rodents (okay to experiment on a rat, but not on a cat but > certainly a big NO NO to use monkeys for research -- that kind of > thinking, you know). > > We go by obvious signs of life. Animals are more lively and so on so > we assume that they are higher life forms. It is this kind of > thinking that must be challenged. > > If you look at the evolution of racism, it has followed the same > kind of *logic*. These people do not dress like us and do not speak > our language, hence they are savages and must be tamed according to > some religions, and uplifted according to other religions. > > It is this kind of judgment that causes shivers up some spines. But > obviously not up many spines! Assuming there are that many 'spines' !! > > RR > > > > , "maniv1321" <maniv1321@> > wrote: > > > > Mr Tanvir, > > > > I would refute the perspective you have purported with regards to > > vegetarianism. > > > > 'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones sustenance, > > especially when there remains no practical alternative is not > > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives ( which have > > been scientifically proven to be far conducive to superior > physical > > and psychological health). So while a vegetarian would > be 'killing' > > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat-eater > > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection. The > > proportion of 'immoral' behaviour that the meat-eater would be > > indulging in is thus substantially greater than that of the > > vegetarian. > > > > Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not > survive; > > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is > really > > straightforward, and transparently rational. > > > > Regards > > > > Maniv > > > > > > , Ahir Bhairav > > <aahir_bhairav@> wrote: > > > > > > truly amuzing !!! > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I am writing some thoughtful articles in my personal website and > I > > thought that I would share a recently written one with you :-) > > > > > > I know this might be irrelevant as it has nothing to do with > > astrology but to me it is needed to clear up the vision about > > religion, ethics, dharma, morals, karma, etc. which an astrologer > > has to deal with all the times. > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > Tanvir > > > > > > > > > What cannot happen, can never happen. > > > Which is mine, is forever mine. > > > > > > http://www.jyotish-remedies.com - Vedic Astrology (Jyotish) > > > Predictive astrology with incredibly powerful problem solving > > remedies > > > Where relief and solutions are found > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================ > > > Morality > > > > > > Morality, though is defined and used very easily by all of us, > is > > a vogue idea itself. Ultimately, nothing is immoral. > > > > > > I would start from giving very straight forward examples to > > provoke some thoughts. > > > > > > Killing someone or something is perhaps the most immoral action > we > > can think of. But if we think well, we cannot really live without > > killing. How? It is very clear. > > > > > > We kill hens, cocks and cows to get chicken and beef. People > also > > eat mutton, pork, fishes, and so many things. Eating these cannot > be > > done without killing. Even eggs - yes, there is a hidden life in > it. > > > > > > Vegetarian people will now suggest eating vegetarian diets > because > > that is no killing. But is that really the truth? Eating > vegetarian > > for the sake of no killing was (perhaps) introduced when people > > probably thought that plants and trees have no lives. But now > days, > > we know they do. A tree needs foods to survive (Like water, > sunlight > > etc.) and it can reproduce and have all the qualities of a living > > being. So, they fully have lives. It cannot be doubted or > questioned > > who recognizes the validity of science. > > > > > > Now, vegetarians argue that trees and plants do have lives but > > they do not "feel" pain like creatures like fishes, hens, cows so > we > > can eat them, that is not immoral. But it is strongly argued > because > > when a small tree is put near a window, the tree will by days, > > gradually move or grow it's branches to the windows because > > it 'feels' that the sunlight is there so it wants to move there. > So > > it can feel. I am not sure about this because I have not done > enough > > studies, but logically, they should. May be people who studied > > botany or something like this can answer clearly. But even a one- > > celled Ameba can feel pain or discomfort then trees also must do. > > > > > > So it actually is not a valid argument that eating vegetarian is > > not killing. Logically, they do have lives, so eating them is > > killing. They do have lives, and eating them means putting an end > to > > their lives. So, it cannot be anything but killing. > > > > > > Rice grains are basically "rice plant eggs" as new rice plants > > would come out of them. So a person denying to eat eggs should > also > > deny eating rice. > > > > > > Just because a tree cannot moan or yell or cannot express it's > > feelings directly does not mean uprooting them is not killing. > Come > > on, be practical ! > > > > > > In that case if we want to stop killing, we cannot survive. Very > > clearly, our body needs nutrition to survive and that nutrition > can > > come from something that has/had some life-material / organic > > compounds in them. We cannot really have nutrition from non- > organic > > materials like irons, plastics, etc. etc. > > > > > > So basically, our own bodies must sustain from eating "others > > bodies" means a body of a cow (beef) or a body of a hen (chicken) > or > > a body of a tree (leaves, vegetables) or some organic parts that > is > > yet to be a body (eggs, rice etc). > > > > > > Trees are silent cannot really imply that they do not have > desires > > to live. They do not want to die, for sure. A tree moving it's > > branches from shadow to bright sunlight clearly shows it wants to > > survive. That is the nature of any living entity, for sure. > > > > > > Can we really live without killing? Let us look closer. > > > > > > Our body everyday destroys uncountable germs like viruses, > > bacterias etc. Sometimes we take medicines and therapies to > destroy > > them, but our bodies always are destroying them silently all the > > times which are weaker or known to the body itself. But logically, > > they do have lives, and they want to survive. But then, they cause > > us diseases. So to be healthy, we must kill them. So is not this > > killing immoral? But without being this immoral, we cannot survive > > ourselves. Even our body itself destroys such germs everyday > without > > even asking us. So what does it mean? It directly shows we need to > > kill trees, plants, mammals etc. to thrive ourselves by nutrition, > > as well as for our own protection, we need to kill those germs > like > > viruses etc. > > > > > > One possible argument is the viruses are making us sick and > > leading us to death that is why it is not immoral to kill them. > They > > are harmful to us so we can kill them. Come on. . . we are also > > harmful to cows, hens and other animals same way. If eating beef, > > chicken and vegetables are not immoral, then what bad the viruses > > are doing by entering our body and trying to get nutrition? > > > > > > So another dilemma occurs, what we really should do then? If I > am > > in a jungle, and a tiger attacks me, should I not run and rather > > offer myself as his food? Hm. . . I will try to escape or even > kill > > the tiger if I can. So, it is being selfish to protect my own > self, > > not to offer myself as others' food. And then, cows, hens, trees > > have this same right not to offer their lives, or sacrificing > their > > selves. But just because we are stronger and smarter, we kill them > > anyway. Same way we kill viruses to protect our selves. Then, it > > shows the ultimate selfishness going on everywhere in the nature > > itself. The strong one killing another weak one to thrive and to > > protect itself. How can we say then that we should not be selfish > or > > immoral about such and such things in life? > > > > > > Some will say that we human are the best creature so we can kill > > hens and cows for our nutrition and we can also kill viruses to be > > disease-free. The virus dilemma part is discussed earlier through > > tiger example. The other part, killing cows and hens for nutrition > > being superior creature (or superior animals?) is much of an > Islamic > > idea. (As per Islam the world is the domain of mankind for it's > own > > benefit and consumption etc.) So then, the argument comes, that if > > we are superior because we are smarter than other animals and we > are > > more knowledgeable? If so, then does it mean that the value of a > > knowledgeable person's life is much than an illiterate dumb > person's > > one? If we say yes, it goes against our common standard of moral. > > (And then it can be also argued that the value of rich people's > > lives are more than the poor ones, that sounds more immoral and of > > inhumanity!) If if not, then we must conclude that the values of > > everyone's lives are equal irrespective of their knowledge. That > > > is for sure. Because, all feel pain. A knowledgeable person > will > > feel pain to die, but will not a dumb person feel the same pain? > > Who's pain is stronger? Can you really measure? > > > > > > One can argue that a knowledgeable person can offer the mankind > > many things so he has better rights to live (Than a dumb one). But > > then, it is again against of our common moral values. We are > talking > > a lot about discrimination of sex, age, caste, nationality these > > days. We are also talking about not hating the poor. Slavery also > > has been uprooted long back. So? > > > > > > If if we accept that a knowledgeable person's life values more, > > but then. . . hey, you can never know who is dumb and who is > > brilliant. You can never know who is going to offer what > revolution > > in the future. Many scientists were 'dumb' in their early age, > while > > schooling. Even an illiterate person can offer great revolutionary > > ideas and gift the mankind many things. It once happened in our > > country long back that a young poor boy living in a slum once > saved > > an entire train from accident and saved hundreds of lives! He > noted > > the breakage of the rail line and altered the incoming train by > > moving his red shirt. > > > > > > So, such debate leads us to the conclusion that all have equal > > values of lives. Then, we cannot kill cocks, cows, trees, or even > > viruses! But then we cannot live either. So we understand, being > > selfish and immoral is the basic rule of this world. Of the > > creation. We cannot really talk about being selfish or moral while > > in each and every steps of our lives we are being selfish and > > immoral. > > > > > > Long back in my astrology discussion forum the topic of black > > magic was being discussed and one guy asked (all) that if it is > okay > > to try winning a girl with qualification, smartness, skills (Like > > singing), appearance etc., why would it be immoral (or unethical) > to > > try winning a girl with black magic? Both parties are using their > > skills are efforts. So? > > > > > > Thinking very unbiasedly and straightly, such questions become > > very hard to answer. > > > > > > If a guy without any qualification tries to impress a beautiful, > > very qualified lady, many will say that the guy is actually being > > unethical, and is trying to ruin her life by marrying her because > > she would get a far better guy than him. Someone will say that if > > you really love the lady then for her own good do not marry her > > because she can find a far better guy so let not her be a looser. > > > > > > But, when one marries someone, he or she can never claim that it > > was the best match for him or her. We see it everywhere, very > great > > looking girls marrying ugly boys (and vice versa), very rich > people > > marrying poor ones, very wise people marrying dumb ladies etc. No > > one can say that he would not get a better match. Of course he > > would. May be a far better lady would be interested to marry him > but > > just she did not meet him. This happens everywhere. > > > > > > And now the question occurs - if you really know that your > spouse > > can get a better partner then are not you cheating your spouse or > > making him or her a looser or putting him or her at loss? > > > > > > The thin (or non-existing) boundary of morality and immorality > can > > best be felt with such examples. > > > > > > In business we come across some practices which are often called > > unethical. Some of them are even illegal, too. Such strategies > > include selling a product for a lower price than it's production > > cost, or in simple words, selling it at loss. What happens there, > > that for the lowest price in the market, only that product is sold > > and the other companies cannot sell their products with a higher > > price. Smaller companies would not be able to survive this > > competition and would lose and quit the market. Then, the company > > practicing this strategy will be the only one in the market and > can > > sell his same product for 3 times more because the buyers really > do > > not have a choice now. > > > > > > Such practices and more serious practices than this are > > either 'unethical' and often illegal, too. But if there are other > > clever (yet not illegal) business strategies to win the market, it > > becomes impossible to answer why this particular strategy will be > > unethical or illegal. All the companies try their best to cut down > > the cost to offer a lower price to bit the competitors. So? > > > > > > Another practice which is surely illegal (at least in our > country) > > is to store crops and stuff for a long time so it is out of supply > > and only then taking it out of the storage and selling it for a > > higher price. Comparing it to other legitimate business > strategies, > > it becomes impossible to answer why it was made illegal. Monopoly > is > > never illegal, right? And what is about 'free market' and 'free > > economy' terms we use? > > > > > > Big companies fight each other in many clever ways. Even job > > applicants do so. In such cases, ethics and illegal practices are > > hard to be differentiate and logically, if one strategy is legal, > > the other similar one cannot be illegal. I read in our book that > > some merchandise store (May be buy.com, not sure) started selling > > their product just for buying price or sometimes even lower than > the > > buying price and their dialogue is that, we offer you the lowest > > price in the earth. Clearly, others cannot sell at buying price or > > for lower. So they will definitely lose in competition. But what > the > > company does, that when they sell for the least price, the rush or > > traffic in their sites increases a lot, and so, they increase the > > advertisement charge of their website a lot, and thus they make up > > the loss of selling products at a lower price!!! > > > > > > Such business strategies are simply "business strategies" only > and > > if one is marked legal, others cannot remain illegal. They all > > should be legal, in my view. Because each of us is trying to get > the > > best out of our lives, whether in jobs, career, romance, marriage, > > money, business or anything. It is very simple. > > > > > > Suicide is illegal. I wonder, why? I really wonder. Everyone > wants > > to live, and when a person wants to die then it means he or she is > > having so much problem or pain or grief in the life that he wants > to > > end it. Only ending the life may be the end of the grief > sometimes. > > If you are in a jungle loaded by ferocious creatures, you may > escape > > the jungle. But when your life itself is full of pain or agony > that > > you can never forget for single moment, all you can think about if > > to escape from the life itself ie suicide. It is you who wants to > > end your life because you cannot carry the grief anymore, and who > is > > law (or Govt) to interfere. I really do not understand. I really > do > > not. > > > > > > We see people suicide for many reasons. Raped ladies suicide > > because they cannot carry the insult or agony of being raped, they > > cannot think of facing society, a big part of which would rather > > insult her this way and that way and reject her through all the > > possible ways. A read in a newspaper that few months ago a hungry > > KID suicide because she could not tolerate hunger for any longer. > > (And no one offered her food, including the ones who would mark > > suicide as illegal.) > > > > > > Some can argue that one has responsibilities for family and > > parents etc. so he cannot suicide. He cannot make others sorry by > > suicide. Oh, cool. If I am being fair and moral by taking pain to > > make YOU happy, then are YOU being moral by making me pained to > make > > YOURSELF happy? > > > > > > You cannot make a person feel better in his pain or problem, but > > you cannot let him end his life either. basically, you force him > or > > her to be in or to carry this painful life. And this is the > > civilization, this is the humanity !! > > > > > > Well, this is 1.17 AM right now, I think it is enough as of now. > > Going to sleep as I have an exam tomorrow (Selfishness!) ; the > rest > > (if any) would be written as the later parts. > > > > > > ===================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND > RELISH > > THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Terms of > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software Visit your group "" on the web. Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.