Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most here are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is gone, in the past. I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing and so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon or via voice!!) RR , "auromirra19" <nalini2818 wrote: > > Dear all, > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it is a > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) idea. > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely fit > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, over > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw(pun > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His sole > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was not > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has evolved, > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now debating > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one culture is > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > implications in the fabric of morality in different cultures.Dating, > living together have different connotations in different social > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, when > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed immoral > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the same > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a variable, > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in science? it > can be in English - an oxymoron. > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or criticise > others'. > Regards > Nalini > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > dear surya garu > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support his > or > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are right > or > > wrong. > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > bharat > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > name, > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he applied > his > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint anything > in > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland which > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP put an > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying their > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked the > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter if > he > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad people > > to support their own theories. > > > > with best wishes > > arjun > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana Khanda > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove everything ... > Just > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you think > to > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one only > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and if > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any hesitation. > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > "'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" > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking that > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > fall > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM SAYING > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are SAME. > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base your > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that a > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, and > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there can > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing with > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > mail > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a hen > is > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, just > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no pain > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly shows it > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you should > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain or > they > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that killing > a > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have to > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives in > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to say or > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really ever > say > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that cases > they > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > shout > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really do > not > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a human > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and pain. > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and forbids > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > Vedic > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > deserve > > the living right. > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another does > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > feeling > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which is > > WRONG. > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but then > with > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if you > have > > never read my original post. > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that you > do > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > Because > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS WHY, > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY it is > a > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > killing > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want to > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this expression > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human living > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a hunt > of > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > goes > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves around > the > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the people > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! Even > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never listened, > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of trees > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought logically > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which you > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > narrow > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at the > end > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one Indian > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say that > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over it > > carefully. > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > less > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of life > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you must > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So we > are > > same guilty. > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > plant > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is better > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing only. > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the type we > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > killed > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are more > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty because I > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES because > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable he > is > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but when > a > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible for > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > vegetarian > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian though > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of which > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not general. > Most > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than an > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes like > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in general, a > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and incomplete. > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than animals > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > killing > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only by > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people can > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > cause > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than a > man > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, do > not > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do not > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > 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 > > > > > > - > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 True should be practiced, but when in doubt discussed:-) Should be because it has been going on for quite some time and I jumped into the bandwagon quite late in the day. Nalini , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb wrote: > > Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most here > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > gone, in the past. > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing and > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon or > via voice!!) > > RR > > , "auromirra19" > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it is > a > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) idea. > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > fit > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > over > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw (pun > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His sole > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was not > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has evolved, > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now debating > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one culture > is > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > cultures.Dating, > > living together have different connotations in different social > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, when > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > immoral > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > same > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > variable, > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in science? > it > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or criticise > > others'. > > Regards > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support his > > or > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > right > > or > > > wrong. > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > bharat > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > name, > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he applied > > his > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > anything > > in > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > which > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP put > an > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying their > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > the > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > if > > he > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > people > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > with best wishes > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana Khanda > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove everything ... > > Just > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > think > > to > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one only > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > if > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > hesitation. > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking that > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > fall > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > SAYING > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > SAME. > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base your > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that a > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > and > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > can > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > with > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > mail > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > hen > > is > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, just > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > pain > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly shows > it > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > should > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain or > > they > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > killing > > a > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > to > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives in > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to say > or > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really ever > > say > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that cases > > they > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > shout > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really do > > not > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > human > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > pain. > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > forbids > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > Vedic > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > deserve > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > does > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > feeling > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > is > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but then > > with > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if you > > have > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that you > > do > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > Because > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS WHY, > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY it > is > > a > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > killing > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want to > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this expression > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > living > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a hunt > > of > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > goes > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves around > > the > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > people > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! Even > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never listened, > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > trees > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > logically > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which you > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > narrow > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at the > > end > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one Indian > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > that > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over it > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > less > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > life > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you must > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So we > > are > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > plant > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > better > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > only. > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the type > we > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > killed > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are more > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty because > I > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > because > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable he > > is > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > when > > a > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > for > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > vegetarian > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > though > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > which > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not general. > > Most > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > an > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > like > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in general, > a > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and incomplete. > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > animals > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > killing > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > by > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > can > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > cause > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than a > > man > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, do > > not > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > not > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > - > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 No I am sorry but I would not fall for clever words in this matter! >From no one!! Morality is not negotiable! Or amenable to discussions!!! RR , "auromirra19" <nalini2818 wrote: > > True should be practiced, but when in doubt discussed:-) > Should be because it has been going on for quite some time and I > jumped into the bandwagon quite late in the day. > Nalini > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@> > wrote: > > > > Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most > here > > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > > gone, in the past. > > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing > and > > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon > or > > via voice!!) > > > > RR > > > > , "auromirra19" > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it > is > > a > > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) > idea. > > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > > fit > > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > > over > > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw > (pun > > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His > sole > > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was > not > > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has > evolved, > > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now > debating > > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one > culture > > is > > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > > cultures.Dating, > > > living together have different connotations in different social > > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, > when > > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > > immoral > > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > > same > > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > > variable, > > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in > science? > > it > > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or > criticise > > > others'. > > > Regards > > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support > his > > > or > > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > > right > > > or > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > > bharat > > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > > name, > > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he > applied > > > his > > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > > anything > > > in > > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > > which > > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP > put > > an > > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying > their > > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > > the > > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > > if > > > he > > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > > people > > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > > > with best wishes > > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana > Khanda > > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove > everything ... > > > Just > > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > > think > > > to > > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one > only > > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > > if > > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > > hesitation. > > > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking > that > > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > > fall > > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > > SAYING > > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > > SAME. > > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base > your > > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that > a > > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > > and > > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > > can > > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > > with > > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > > mail > > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > > hen > > > is > > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, > just > > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > > pain > > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly > shows > > it > > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > > should > > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain > or > > > they > > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > > killing > > > a > > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > > to > > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives > in > > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to > say > > or > > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really > ever > > > say > > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that > cases > > > they > > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > > shout > > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really > do > > > not > > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > > human > > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > > pain. > > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > > forbids > > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > > Vedic > > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > > deserve > > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > > does > > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > > feeling > > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > > is > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but > then > > > with > > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if > you > > > have > > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that > you > > > do > > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > > Because > > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS > WHY, > > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY > it > > is > > > a > > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > > killing > > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want > to > > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this > expression > > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > > living > > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a > hunt > > > of > > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > > goes > > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves > around > > > the > > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > > people > > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! > Even > > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never > listened, > > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > > trees > > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > > logically > > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which > you > > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > > narrow > > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at > the > > > end > > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one > Indian > > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > > that > > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over > it > > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > > less > > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > > life > > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you > must > > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So > we > > > are > > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > > plant > > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > > better > > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > > only. > > > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the > type > > we > > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > > killed > > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are > more > > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty > because > > I > > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > > because > > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable > he > > > is > > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > > when > > > a > > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > > for > > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > > vegetarian > > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > > though > > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > > which > > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not > general. > > > Most > > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > > an > > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > > like > > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in > general, > > a > > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than > a > > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and > incomplete. > > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > > animals > > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > > killing > > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > > by > > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > > can > > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > > cause > > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than > a > > > man > > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, > do > > > not > > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > > not > > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ragaji, Since you feel challenged already -- as do all of us, or why are we here in this reality, all the more reason why discussions will get us nowhere! As you have seen undoubtedly, here, there, elsewhere, everywhere! Since we are all papi, if I understand your message it is time we got down to shining our little rocks rather than discussing what morality is! Since we are not accomplished in morality, let us not pose to be experts! And there is no support group for morality that can function really! Religions have tried that and failed -- and the newest of all religion, NEW AGE, has its own coda that can blow ones mind away. Does that make sense? RR , Ahir Bhairav <aahir_bhairav wrote: > > how discouraging, for someone morally challenged like me ! > > rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most here > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > gone, in the past. > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing and > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon or > via voice!!) > > RR > > , "auromirra19" > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it is > a > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) idea. > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > fit > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > over > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw (pun > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His sole > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was not > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has evolved, > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now debating > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one culture > is > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > cultures.Dating, > > living together have different connotations in different social > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, when > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > immoral > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > same > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > variable, > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in science? > it > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or criticise > > others'. > > Regards > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support his > > or > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > right > > or > > > wrong. > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > bharat > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > name, > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he applied > > his > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > anything > > in > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > which > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP put > an > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying their > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > the > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > if > > he > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > people > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > with best wishes > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana Khanda > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove everything ... > > Just > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > think > > to > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one only > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > if > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > hesitation. > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking that > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > fall > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > SAYING > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > SAME. > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base your > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that a > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > and > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > can > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > with > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > mail > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > hen > > is > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, just > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > pain > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly shows > it > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > should > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain or > > they > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > killing > > a > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > to > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives in > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to say > or > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really ever > > say > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that cases > > they > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > shout > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really do > > not > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > human > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > pain. > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > forbids > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > Vedic > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > deserve > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > does > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > feeling > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > is > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but then > > with > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if you > > have > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that you > > do > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > Because > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS WHY, > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY it > is > > a > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > killing > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want to > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this expression > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > living > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a hunt > > of > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > goes > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves around > > the > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > people > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! Even > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never listened, > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > trees > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > logically > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which you > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > narrow > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at the > > end > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one Indian > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > that > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over it > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > less > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > life > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you must > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So we > > are > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > plant > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > better > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > only. > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the type > we > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > killed > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are more > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty because > I > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > because > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable he > > is > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > when > > a > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > for > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > vegetarian > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > though > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > which > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not general. > > Most > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > an > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > like > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in general, > a > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and incomplete. > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > animals > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > killing > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > by > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > can > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > cause > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than a > > man > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, do > > not > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > not > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > - > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 sorry!!! too late in the day for that. a lot of water has already flown under the bridge, in fact group discussion concluding we are waiting for the moderator's opinion/decision ( I meant this mini group(morality) discussion. Can see people already in the process of "been there done that" and hanging their thinking hats. Nalini , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb wrote: > > No I am sorry but I would not fall for clever words in this matter! > From no one!! > > Morality is not negotiable! Or amenable to discussions!!! > > RR > > , "auromirra19" > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > True should be practiced, but when in doubt discussed:-) > > Should be because it has been going on for quite some time and I > > jumped into the bandwagon quite late in the day. > > Nalini > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > > > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > > > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most > > here > > > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > > > gone, in the past. > > > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > > > > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > > > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing > > and > > > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon > > or > > > via voice!!) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "auromirra19" > > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said > it > > is > > > a > > > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) > > idea. > > > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is > precisely > > > fit > > > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > > > over > > > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man > in > > > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw > > (pun > > > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His > > sole > > > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was > > not > > > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has > > evolved, > > > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now > > debating > > > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does > wearing > > > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one > > culture > > > is > > > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > > > cultures.Dating, > > > > living together have different connotations in different > social > > > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, > > when > > > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > > > immoral > > > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > > > same > > > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > > > variable, > > > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in > > science? > > > it > > > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or > > criticise > > > > others'. > > > > Regards > > > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support > > his > > > > or > > > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > > > right > > > > or > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > > > bharat > > > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and > fast > > > > name, > > > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he > > applied > > > > his > > > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > > > anything > > > > in > > > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > > > which > > > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP > > put > > > an > > > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying > > their > > > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture > asked > > > the > > > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the > painter > > > if > > > > he > > > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > > > people > > > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > > > > > with best wishes > > > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana > > Khanda > > > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove > > everything ... > > > > Just > > > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > > > think > > > > to > > > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and > would > > > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I > think > > > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one > > only > > > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops > there > > > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any > logical > > > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) > and > > > if > > > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > > > hesitation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking > > that > > > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does > not > > > > fall > > > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > > > SAYING > > > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > > > SAME. > > > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base > > your > > > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple > that > > a > > > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to > live, > > > and > > > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing > there > > > can > > > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are > arguing > > > with > > > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my > original > > > > mail > > > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing > a > > > hen > > > > is > > > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, > > just > > > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > > > pain > > > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly > > shows > > > it > > > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > > > should > > > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain > > or > > > > they > > > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > > > killing > > > > a > > > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you > have > > > to > > > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no > lives > > in > > > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to > > say > > > or > > > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really > > ever > > > > say > > > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that > > cases > > > > they > > > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree > cannot > > > > shout > > > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really > > do > > > > not > > > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs > are > > > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > > > human > > > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > > > pain. > > > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > > > forbids > > > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic > that > > > > Vedic > > > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > > > deserve > > > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > > > does > > > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > > > feeling > > > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things > which > > > is > > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but > > then > > > > with > > > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if > > you > > > > have > > > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that > > you > > > > do > > > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > > > Because > > > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS > > WHY, > > > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY > > it > > > is > > > > a > > > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > > > killing > > > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want > > to > > > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this > > expression > > > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > > > living > > > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a > > hunt > > > > of > > > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east > and > > > > goes > > > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves > > around > > > > the > > > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > > > people > > > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! > > Even > > > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never > > listened, > > > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of > the > > > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > > > trees > > > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > > > logically > > > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which > > you > > > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > > > narrow > > > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at > > the > > > > end > > > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one > > Indian > > > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > > > that > > > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over > > it > > > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you > are > > > > less > > > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value > of > > > life > > > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that > an > > > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you > > must > > > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter > which > > > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. > So > > we > > > > are > > > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing > a > > > > plant > > > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > > > better > > > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is > killing > > > only. > > > > > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the > > type > > > we > > > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we > both > > > > killed > > > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are > > more > > > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty > > because > > > I > > > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > > > because > > > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of > vegetable > > he > > > > is > > > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > > > when > > > > a > > > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably > responsible > > > for > > > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > > > vegetarian > > > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non- vegetarian > > > though > > > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > > > which > > > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not > > general. > > > > Most > > > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food > than > > > an > > > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big > fishes > > > like > > > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in > > general, > > > a > > > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES > than > > a > > > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and > > incomplete. > > > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > > > animals > > > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > > > killing > > > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that > case > > > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. > Only > > > by > > > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many > people > > > can > > > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source > would > > > > cause > > > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better > than > > a > > > > man > > > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying > again, > > do > > > > not > > > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. > Do > > > not > > > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a > breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Dear Nalini ji, Morality as a constant factor becomes less tenable.For a humanbeing ever willing to learn(need also delearn yet times) by comparitive knowledge can always come out with balanced and acceptable views. question how and when this can be possible:I some how even if we debate there is nothing wrong but must be open to know the good and bad of his views/practices. Morality is only practised but not preached or other way it is only preached may not be true.it is an opinion or at best a view as one feels or understands.Ther is always room for it's variability whether one wishes or not. For me morality is more a social concept but very personal and is not to encroached upon unless one comes up with his own views and is open to modifiaction. Infact what ever taboos in society are more or less existed are only from some moral perspective .if not to instill morality. so morality can be preached,practised and modified based on attitudes.The debate is not bad but be given an opportunity for conveying views and opinions only to analyse and understand. what Shri Tanvir ji initiated has certainly stimulate many members and it is now for him to find how much deviations he has noticed as compared to others.if willing he may bring in necessary moderation. krishnan auromirra19 <nalini2818 wrote: True should be practiced, but when in doubt discussed:-) Should be because it has been going on for quite some time and I jumped into the bandwagon quite late in the day. Nalini , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb wrote: > > Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most here > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > gone, in the past. > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing and > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon or > via voice!!) > > RR > > , "auromirra19" > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it is > a > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) idea. > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > fit > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > over > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw (pun > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His sole > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was not > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has evolved, > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now debating > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one culture > is > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > cultures.Dating, > > living together have different connotations in different social > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, when > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > immoral > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > same > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > variable, > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in science? > it > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or criticise > > others'. > > Regards > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support his > > or > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > right > > or > > > wrong. > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > bharat > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > name, > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he applied > > his > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > anything > > in > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > which > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP put > an > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying their > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > the > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > if > > he > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > people > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > with best wishes > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana Khanda > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove everything ... > > Just > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > think > > to > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one only > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > if > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > hesitation. > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking that > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > fall > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > SAYING > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > SAME. > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base your > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that a > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > and > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > can > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > with > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > mail > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > hen > > is > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, just > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > pain > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly shows > it > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > should > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain or > > they > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > killing > > a > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > to > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives in > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to say > or > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really ever > > say > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that cases > > they > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > shout > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really do > > not > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > human > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > pain. > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > forbids > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > Vedic > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > deserve > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > does > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > feeling > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > is > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but then > > with > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if you > > have > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that you > > do > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > Because > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS WHY, > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY it > is > > a > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > killing > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want to > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this expression > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > living > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a hunt > > of > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > goes > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves around > > the > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > people > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! Even > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never listened, > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > trees > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > logically > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which you > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > narrow > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at the > > end > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one Indian > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > that > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over it > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > less > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > life > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you must > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So we > > are > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > plant > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > better > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > only. > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the type > we > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > killed > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are more > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty because > I > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > because > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable he > > is > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > when > > a > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > for > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > vegetarian > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > though > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > which > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not general. > > Most > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > an > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > like > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in general, > a > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and incomplete. > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > animals > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > killing > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > by > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > can > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > cause > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than a > > man > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, do > > not > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > not > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > - > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. Relax. Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 that is why I remained focused on the science vs the nonscience (is there a typo there ;-) and stayed clear from the defining of morality! Well, I suppose, the experts have spoken, so you are right the bridge has seen a lot of waters pass underneath ;-) RR , "auromirra19" <nalini2818 wrote: > > sorry!!! too late in the day for that. a lot of water has already > flown under the bridge, in fact group discussion concluding we are > waiting for the moderator's opinion/decision ( I meant this mini > group(morality) discussion. Can see people already in the process > of "been there done that" and hanging their thinking hats. > > Nalini > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@> > wrote: > > > > No I am sorry but I would not fall for clever words in this > matter! > > From no one!! > > > > Morality is not negotiable! Or amenable to discussions!!! > > > > RR > > > > , "auromirra19" > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > True should be practiced, but when in doubt discussed:-) > > > Should be because it has been going on for quite some time and > I > > > jumped into the bandwagon quite late in the day. > > > Nalini > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > > > > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > > > > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming > most > > > here > > > > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality > is > > > > gone, in the past. > > > > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > > > > > > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start > another > > > > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am > typing > > > and > > > > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using > dragon > > > or > > > > via voice!!) > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "auromirra19" > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said > > it > > > is > > > > a > > > > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) > > > idea. > > > > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is > > precisely > > > > fit > > > > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > > > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say > so, > > > > over > > > > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man > > in > > > > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the > raw > > > (pun > > > > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? > His > > > sole > > > > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it > was > > > not > > > > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has > > > evolved, > > > > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now > > > debating > > > > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > > > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is > evident. > > > > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does > > wearing > > > > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man > immoral? > > > > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > > > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one > > > culture > > > > is > > > > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > > > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > > > > cultures.Dating, > > > > > living together have different connotations in different > > social > > > > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, > > > when > > > > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > > > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > > > > immoral > > > > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > > > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > > > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply > the > > > > same > > > > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > > > > variable, > > > > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in > > > science? > > > > it > > > > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > > > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or > > > criticise > > > > > others'. > > > > > Regards > > > > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > > > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to > support > > > his > > > > > or > > > > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories > are > > > > right > > > > > or > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses > and > > > > > bharat > > > > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and > > fast > > > > > name, > > > > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he > > > applied > > > > > his > > > > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > > > > anything > > > > > in > > > > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the > motherland > > > > which > > > > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in > UP > > > put > > > > an > > > > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying > > > their > > > > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people > when > > > > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture > > asked > > > > the > > > > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the > > painter > > > > if > > > > > he > > > > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and > bad > > > > people > > > > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > with best wishes > > > > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana > > > Khanda > > > > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove > > > everything ... > > > > > Just > > > > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what > you > > > > think > > > > > to > > > > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and > > would > > > > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I > > think > > > > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one > > > only > > > > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops > > there > > > > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any > > logical > > > > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) > > and > > > > if > > > > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > > > > hesitation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are > taking > > > that > > > > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does > > not > > > > > fall > > > > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I > AM > > > > SAYING > > > > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they > are > > > > SAME. > > > > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and > base > > > your > > > > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple > > that > > > a > > > > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to > > live, > > > > and > > > > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing > > there > > > > can > > > > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are > > arguing > > > > with > > > > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my > > original > > > > > mail > > > > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if > killing > > a > > > > hen > > > > > is > > > > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, > > > just > > > > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels > no > > > > pain > > > > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly > > > shows > > > > it > > > > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then > you > > > > should > > > > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel > pain > > > or > > > > > they > > > > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > > > > killing > > > > > a > > > > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you > > have > > > > to > > > > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no > > lives > > > in > > > > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now > to > > > say > > > > or > > > > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really > > > ever > > > > > say > > > > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that > > > cases > > > > > they > > > > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree > > cannot > > > > > shout > > > > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we > really > > > do > > > > > not > > > > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs > > are > > > > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing > a > > > > human > > > > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief > and > > > > pain. > > > > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > > > > forbids > > > > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic > > that > > > > > Vedic > > > > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even > trees > > > > > deserve > > > > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and > another > > > > does > > > > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is > not > > > > > feeling > > > > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things > > which > > > > is > > > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but > > > then > > > > > with > > > > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as > if > > > you > > > > > have > > > > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact > that > > > you > > > > > do > > > > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG > perception. > > > > > Because > > > > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS > > > WHY, > > > > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO > WAY > > > it > > > > is > > > > > a > > > > > > better alternate who people using either alternate > (Whether > > > > > killing > > > > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and > want > > > to > > > > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this > > > expression > > > > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a > human > > > > living > > > > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be > a > > > hunt > > > > > of > > > > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east > > and > > > > > goes > > > > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves > > > around > > > > > the > > > > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun > the > > > > people > > > > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! > > > Even > > > > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never > > > listened, > > > > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of > > the > > > > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives > of > > > > trees > > > > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > > > > logically > > > > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, > which > > > you > > > > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding > and > > > > > narrow > > > > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is > at > > > the > > > > > end > > > > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one > > > Indian > > > > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you > say > > > > that > > > > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think > over > > > it > > > > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you > > are > > > > > less > > > > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value > > of > > > > life > > > > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that > > an > > > > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you > > > must > > > > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter > > which > > > > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. > > So > > > we > > > > > are > > > > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that > killing > > a > > > > > plant > > > > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" > is > > > > better > > > > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is > > killing > > > > only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the > > > type > > > > we > > > > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we > > both > > > > > killed > > > > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one > rich > > > > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you > are > > > more > > > > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty > > > because > > > > I > > > > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > > > > because > > > > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of > > vegetable > > > he > > > > > is > > > > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) > but > > > > when > > > > > a > > > > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably > > responsible > > > > for > > > > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > > > > vegetarian > > > > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non- > vegetarian > > > > though > > > > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only > of > > > > which > > > > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not > > > general. > > > > > Most > > > > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food > > than > > > > an > > > > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big > > fishes > > > > like > > > > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in > > > general, > > > > a > > > > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES > > than > > > a > > > > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and > > > incomplete. > > > > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > > > > animals > > > > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type > of > > > > > killing > > > > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that > > case > > > > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. > > Only > > > > by > > > > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many > > people > > > > can > > > > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source > > would > > > > > cause > > > > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better > > than > > > a > > > > > man > > > > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying > > again, > > > do > > > > > not > > > > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot > yell. > > Do > > > > not > > > > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a > > breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Roger ! copy ! rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: Ragaji, Since you feel challenged already -- as do all of us, or why are we here in this reality, all the more reason why discussions will get us nowhere! As you have seen undoubtedly, here, there, elsewhere, everywhere! Since we are all papi, if I understand your message it is time we got down to shining our little rocks rather than discussing what morality is! Since we are not accomplished in morality, let us not pose to be experts! And there is no support group for morality that can function really! Religions have tried that and failed -- and the newest of all religion, NEW AGE, has its own coda that can blow ones mind away. Does that make sense? RR , Ahir Bhairav <aahir_bhairav wrote: > > how discouraging, for someone morally challenged like me ! > > rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most here > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > gone, in the past. > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing and > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon or > via voice!!) > > RR > > , "auromirra19" > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it is > a > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) idea. > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > fit > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > over > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw (pun > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His sole > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was not > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has evolved, > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now debating > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one culture > is > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > cultures.Dating, > > living together have different connotations in different social > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, when > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > immoral > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > same > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > variable, > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in science? > it > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or criticise > > others'. > > Regards > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support his > > or > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > right > > or > > > wrong. > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > bharat > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > name, > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he applied > > his > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > anything > > in > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > which > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP put > an > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying their > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > the > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > if > > he > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > people > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > with best wishes > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana Khanda > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove everything ... > > Just > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > think > > to > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one only > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > if > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > hesitation. > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking that > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > fall > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > SAYING > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > SAME. > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base your > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that a > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > and > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > can > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > with > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > mail > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > hen > > is > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, just > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > pain > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly shows > it > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > should > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain or > > they > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > killing > > a > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > to > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives in > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to say > or > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really ever > > say > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that cases > > they > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > shout > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really do > > not > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > human > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > pain. > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > forbids > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > Vedic > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > deserve > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > does > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > feeling > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > is > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but then > > with > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if you > > have > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that you > > do > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > Because > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS WHY, > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY it > is > > a > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > killing > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want to > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this expression > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > living > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a hunt > > of > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > goes > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves around > > the > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > people > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! Even > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never listened, > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > trees > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > logically > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which you > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > narrow > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at the > > end > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one Indian > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > that > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over it > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > less > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > life > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you must > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So we > > are > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > plant > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > better > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > only. > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the type > we > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > killed > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are more > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty because > I > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > because > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable he > > is > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > when > > a > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > for > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > vegetarian > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > though > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > which > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not general. > > Most > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > an > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > like > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in general, > a > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and incomplete. > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > animals > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > killing > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > by > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > can > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > cause > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than a > > man > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, do > > not > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > not > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > - > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 "Socially-defined!" That is important, Sir, as you say! Is a beef-eating Christian or Muslim individual who has never hurt a fellow human being, and is otherwise morally strong weaker than a Hindu born in a family where for 20 generations folks were vegetarians, fed ants flour and sugar, but were into the business of money-lending and over the 20 generations managed to deprive many poor people of their livelihood and indirectly even their lives? Hypothetical, as the scenario may be, can anyone say that it is impossible, untenable or even unreal? We can haggle over whether it was 20 generations or five or one, but let us remain focused! It is not about the food you eat but how you live that defines and detarmines morality and your moral standing. And it is overall, and not instance by instance. We will all fail on the latter count. Let us not forget that even Gandhiji by his own statement, tried eating goat meat! What makes him moral is everything else that he did, despite that or failing four times (that was not immoral at all, actually but let me introduce some 'humanness' in this august body of 'Godlike' beings!! RR , vattem krishnan <bursar_99 wrote: > > Dear Nalini ji, > Morality as a constant factor becomes less tenable.For a humanbeing ever willing to learn(need also delearn yet times) by comparitive knowledge can always come out with balanced and acceptable views. > question how and when this can be possible:I some how even if we debate there is nothing wrong but must be open to know the good and bad of his views/practices. > Morality is only practised but not preached or other way it is only preached may not be true.it is an opinion or at best a view as one feels or understands.Ther is always room for it's variability whether one wishes or not. > For me morality is more a social concept but very personal and is not to encroached upon unless one comes up with his own views and is open to modifiaction. > Infact what ever taboos in society are more or less existed are only from some moral perspective .if not to instill morality. > so morality can be preached,practised and modified based on attitudes.The debate is not bad but be given an opportunity for conveying views and opinions only to analyse and understand. > what Shri Tanvir ji initiated has certainly stimulate many members and it is now for him to find how much deviations he has noticed as compared to others.if willing he may bring in necessary moderation. > krishnan > > auromirra19 <nalini2818 wrote: > True should be practiced, but when in doubt discussed:-) > Should be because it has been going on for quite some time and I > jumped into the bandwagon quite late in the day. > Nalini > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@> > wrote: > > > > Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most > here > > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > > gone, in the past. > > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing > and > > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon > or > > via voice!!) > > > > RR > > > > , "auromirra19" > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it > is > > a > > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) > idea. > > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > > fit > > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > > over > > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw > (pun > > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His > sole > > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was > not > > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has > evolved, > > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now > debating > > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one > culture > > is > > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > > cultures.Dating, > > > living together have different connotations in different social > > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, > when > > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > > immoral > > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > > same > > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > > variable, > > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in > science? > > it > > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or > criticise > > > others'. > > > Regards > > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support > his > > > or > > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > > right > > > or > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > > bharat > > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > > name, > > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he > applied > > > his > > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > > anything > > > in > > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > > which > > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP > put > > an > > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying > their > > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > > the > > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > > if > > > he > > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > > people > > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > > > with best wishes > > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana > Khanda > > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove > everything ... > > > Just > > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > > think > > > to > > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one > only > > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > > if > > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > > hesitation. > > > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking > that > > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > > fall > > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > > SAYING > > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > > SAME. > > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base > your > > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that > a > > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > > and > > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > > can > > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > > with > > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > > mail > > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > > hen > > > is > > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, > just > > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > > pain > > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly > shows > > it > > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > > should > > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain > or > > > they > > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > > killing > > > a > > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > > to > > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives > in > > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to > say > > or > > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really > ever > > > say > > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that > cases > > > they > > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > > shout > > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really > do > > > not > > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > > human > > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > > pain. > > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > > forbids > > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > > Vedic > > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > > deserve > > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > > does > > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > > feeling > > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > > is > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but > then > > > with > > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if > you > > > have > > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that > you > > > do > > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > > Because > > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS > WHY, > > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY > it > > is > > > a > > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > > killing > > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want > to > > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this > expression > > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > > living > > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a > hunt > > > of > > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > > goes > > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves > around > > > the > > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > > people > > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! > Even > > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never > listened, > > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > > trees > > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > > logically > > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which > you > > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > > narrow > > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at > the > > > end > > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one > Indian > > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > > that > > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over > it > > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > > less > > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > > life > > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you > must > > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So > we > > > are > > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > > plant > > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > > better > > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > > only. > > > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the > type > > we > > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > > killed > > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are > more > > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty > because > > I > > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > > because > > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable > he > > > is > > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > > when > > > a > > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > > for > > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > > vegetarian > > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > > though > > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > > which > > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not > general. > > > Most > > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > > an > > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > > like > > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in > general, > > a > > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than > a > > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and > incomplete. > > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > > animals > > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > > killing > > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > > by > > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > > can > > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > > cause > > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than > a > > > man > > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, > do > > > not > > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > > not > > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Relax. Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 You forgot to add the important 'I' ("Roger! I copy!!") Sometimes I is not about just ego but boldly expressed personal responsibility! The first step towards morality!! ;-) RR , Ahir Bhairav <aahir_bhairav wrote: > > Roger ! copy ! > > rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: Ragaji, > > Since you feel challenged already -- as do all of us, or why are we > here in this reality, all the more reason why discussions will get > us nowhere! > > As you have seen undoubtedly, here, there, elsewhere, everywhere! > > Since we are all papi, if I understand your message it is time we > got down to shining our little rocks rather than discussing what > morality is! Since we are not accomplished in morality, let us not > pose to be experts! And there is no support group for morality that > can function really! Religions have tried that and failed -- and the > newest of all religion, NEW AGE, has its own coda that can blow ones > mind away. > > Does that make sense? > > RR > > , Ahir Bhairav > <aahir_bhairav@> wrote: > > > > how discouraging, for someone morally challenged like me ! > > > > rohiniranjan <rrgb@> wrote: Should morality be discussed or > practiced? ;-) > > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most > here > > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > > gone, in the past. > > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing > and > > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon > or > > via voice!!) > > > > RR > > > > , "auromirra19" > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it > is > > a > > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) > idea. > > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > > fit > > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > > over > > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw > (pun > > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His > sole > > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was > not > > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has > evolved, > > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now > debating > > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one > culture > > is > > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > > cultures.Dating, > > > living together have different connotations in different social > > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, > when > > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > > immoral > > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > > same > > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > > variable, > > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in > science? > > it > > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or > criticise > > > others'. > > > Regards > > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support > his > > > or > > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > > right > > > or > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > > bharat > > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > > name, > > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he > applied > > > his > > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > > anything > > > in > > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > > which > > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP > put > > an > > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying > their > > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > > the > > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > > if > > > he > > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > > people > > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > > > with best wishes > > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana > Khanda > > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove > everything ... > > > Just > > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > > think > > > to > > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one > only > > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > > if > > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > > hesitation. > > > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > > "'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" > > > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking > that > > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > > fall > > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > > SAYING > > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > > SAME. > > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base > your > > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that > a > > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > > and > > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > > can > > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > > with > > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > > mail > > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > > hen > > > is > > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, > just > > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > > pain > > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly > shows > > it > > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > > should > > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain > or > > > they > > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > > killing > > > a > > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > > to > > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives > in > > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to > say > > or > > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really > ever > > > say > > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that > cases > > > they > > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > > shout > > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really > do > > > not > > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > > human > > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > > pain. > > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > > forbids > > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > > Vedic > > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > > deserve > > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > > does > > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > > feeling > > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > > is > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but > then > > > with > > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if > you > > > have > > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that > you > > > do > > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > > Because > > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS > WHY, > > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY > it > > is > > > a > > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > > killing > > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want > to > > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this > expression > > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > > living > > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a > hunt > > > of > > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > > goes > > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves > around > > > the > > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > > people > > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! > Even > > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never > listened, > > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > > trees > > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > > logically > > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which > you > > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > > narrow > > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at > the > > > end > > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one > Indian > > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > > that > > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over > it > > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > > less > > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > > life > > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you > must > > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So > we > > > are > > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > > plant > > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > > better > > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > > only. > > > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the > type > > we > > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > > killed > > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are > more > > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty > because > > I > > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > > because > > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable > he > > > is > > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > > when > > > a > > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > > for > > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > > vegetarian > > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > > though > > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > > which > > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not > general. > > > Most > > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > > an > > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > > like > > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in > general, > > a > > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than > a > > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and > incomplete. > > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > > animals > > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > > killing > > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > > by > > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > > can > > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > > cause > > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than > a > > > man > > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, > do > > > not > > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > > not > > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.