Guest guest Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ? Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was his brother. In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna which developed in Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brother but only as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the time he realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana. I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not know Arjuna as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Dice and also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in the house of was when they were asleep. Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear renuji,This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be some universal law which binds humanity?Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishing arjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing.Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging our soldiers, during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemies as they can?So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in a context and it is futile to make general and universal statementsBest wishesSanthosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear Renu ji, When I posted that thread, I had to emphasise on a certain point, which is done with. In war killing is mandatory, and if I do not kill my opponent, he will kill me. regards/Bhaskar. , santhosh wrote: > > Dear renuji, > This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be some universal law which binds humanity? > Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishing arjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing. > Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging our soldiers, during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemies as they can? > So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in a context and it is futile to make general and universal statements > Best wishes > Santhosh > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel > > > " renunw " renunw > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:56 > > Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > //I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime the brother may have committed ?// > > Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to kill anyone. > > blessings, > > Renu > > , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote: > > > > > > I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it > > fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime > > the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ? > > > > Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was his brother. > > > > In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna which developed in > > Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brother but only > > as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the time he > > realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana. > > > > I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not know Arjuna > > as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Dice and > > also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in the house of > > was when they were asleep. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear Santosh ji, This is my personal view influenced by my upbringing. I understand your points. blessings, Renu , santhosh wrote: > > Dear renuji, > This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be some universal law which binds humanity? > Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishing arjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing. > Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging our soldiers, during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemies as they can? > So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in a context and it is futile to make general and universal statements > Best wishes > Santhosh > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel > > > " renunw " <renunw > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:56 > > Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > //I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime the brother may have committed ?// > > Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to kill anyone. > > blessings, > > Renu > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it > > fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime > > the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ? > > > > Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was his brother. > > > > In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna which developed in > > Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brother but only > > as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the time he > > realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana. > > > > I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not know Arjuna > > as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Dice and > > also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in the house of > > was when they were asleep. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Dear Girish, Again you have made a statement of ‘fact’ and not answered my question. Will you allow the killer to kill the baby and talk to him that what he is doing is wrong OR will you use your pistol. By the way you are a Karate master. So I guess you will say, you wont use the pistol, instead you will use your karate skill to neutralize the killer J Best wishes Santhosh On Behalf Of Girish menon Sunday, November 29, 2009 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Santosh Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is approaching the baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dont get perturbed. You are there with a live pistol in your hand. Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill or are you going to shoot at the killer, to kill I dont know but i feel renuji is correct Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to kill anyone. Thanks and regards Girish --- On Sun, 11/29/09, santhosh (AT) sudhamayi (DOT) com <santhosh (AT) sudhamayi (DOT) com> wrote: santhosh (AT) sudhamayi (DOT) com <santhosh (AT) sudhamayi (DOT) com> Re: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Sunday, November 29, 2009, 8:39 AM Dear renuji, My utmost respects to your good upbringing and salute your parents responsible for that. I guess you are a buddist. Are you? Any lets speak on practical terms. Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is approaching the baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dont get perturbed. You are there with a live pistol in your hand. Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill or are you going to shoot at the killer, to kill? So you see every principle, even personal principles, could turn topsy turvey. Being flexible in every way is name of life. God bless you. Santhosh Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel " renunw " <renunw (AT) (DOT) co.uk> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:46:36 -0000 <ancient_indian_ astrology> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Santosh ji, This is my personal view influenced by my upbringing. I understand your points. blessings, Renu ancient_indian_ astrology, santhosh wrote: > > Dear renuji, > This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be some universal law which binds humanity? > Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishing arjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing. > Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging our soldiers, during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemies as they can? > So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in a context and it is futile to make general and universal statements > Best wishes > Santhosh > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel > > > " renunw " <renunw > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:56 > <ancient_indian_ astrology> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > //I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime the brother may have committed ?// > > Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to kill anyone. > > blessings, > > Renu > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@ > wrote: > > > > > > I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it > > fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime > > the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ? > > > > Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was his brother. > > > > In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna which developed in > > Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brother but only > > as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the time he > > realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana. > > > > I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not know Arjuna > > as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Dice and > > also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in the house of > > was when they were asleep. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2535 - Release 11/30/09 01:01:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 J yes, let such things be only in soap operas. Regards Santhosh On Behalf Of renunw Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:33 PM Subject: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Santhosh ji, Ha ha...you caught me here. Yet, fortunately I have seen such scenes only in movies/soap operas etc. Yes, I am a Buddhist and believe in karma. blessings, Renu , santhosh wrote: > > Dear renuji, > My utmost respects to your good upbringing and salute your parents responsible for that. > I guess you are a buddist. Are you? > Any lets speak on practical terms. > Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is approaching the baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dont get perturbed. > You are there with a live pistol in your hand. > Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill or are you going to shoot at the killer, to kill? > So you see every principle, even personal principles, could turn topsy turvey. > Being flexible in every way is name of life. > God bless you. > Santhosh > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel > > > " renunw " <renunw > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:46:36 > > Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > Dear Santosh ji, > > This is my personal view influenced by my upbringing. > > I understand your points. > > blessings, > > Renu > , santhosh@ wrote: > > > > Dear renuji, > > This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be some universal law which binds humanity? > > Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishing arjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing. > > Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging our soldiers, during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemies as they can? > > So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in a context and it is futile to make general and universal statements > > Best wishes > > Santhosh > > > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel > > > > > > " renunw " <renunw@> > > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:56 > > > > Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > > > //I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime the brother may have committed ?// > > > > Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to kill anyone. > > > > blessings, > > > > Renu > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without understanding it > > > fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great crime > > > the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ? > > > > > > Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was his brother. > > > > > > In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna which developed in > > > Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brother but only > > > as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the time he > > > realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana. > > > > > > I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not know Arjuna > > > as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Dice and > > > also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in the house of > > > was when they were asleep. > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2535 - Release 11/30/09 01:01:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Dear Girish ji, Gandhiji was a good man undoubetdly and I love him for many matters. But also despise him for matters such as the partition. But since we are now talking of violence, and Gandhiji is well known for his non-violence, let me also say that Violence is of many types. It does not only mean hitting any person physically. Gandhi ji was an expert of being " Violent' of the other type. He used to stay hungry and sort of go for self immolations till the time his demands were not met by even his own family members, lets leave the political movements aside. This hurt which was caused is worse than hitting a slap to someone. The pain of a slap goes away after sometime, but the hurt caused to someone who is close to you by hurting ones own self is a violence which is silent, but nevertheless present. best wishes, Bhaskar. , Girish menon <horamag wrote: > > Dear Friends > In Bhagwath geeta it is mentioned that END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS > But Mahatma Gandhi added to that . He said that END AND MEANS BOTH SHOULD JUSTIFY EACH OTHER > > Gandhi is a beautiful example that you can achieve your goals through non violence. > > In war, killing is justified, and specially in the olden days, for a > > warrior to die on the battle field it was knwn that he will attain the > > heavens. Why the olden days, today also those soldiers who die in battle > > are called as gone to " Veergati " . > Unfortunately the younger generations of terrorist are taking this seriously. When the cops interviewed The Mumbai blast terroist he said 2 reasons for doing this henious crime one is poverty and the other in Jihad and he beleives that he will go to heaven.So i feel Gandhi is right that means should also justify the end > tHANKS AND REGARDS > girish > > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > Sunday, November 29, 2009, 10:18 AM >  > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > Renu ji is right that killing is not right, and nobody has the right to > > kill anyone. > > > > But one has to be practical in Life. If the executioner has to kill a > > person condemned to death, what would you call it ? Surely one would > > nlot give lectures to the executioner and if he does listen to the > > lecture and not execute the condemned prisoner, then he will surely > > loose his job. And if nobody is there to execute the rapist, and after > > few years if he is scot free, he will again pose a danger to civilised > > society. > > > > In war, killing is justified, and specially in the olden days, for a > > warrior to die on the battle field it was knwn that he will attain the > > heavens. Why the olden days, today also those soldiers who die in battle > > are called as gone to " Veergati " . > > > > In defense also one is allowed to kill. > > > > In euthanasia also ? > > > > In rest matters killing is not right or justified. > > > > Bhaskar. > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Girish menon > > horamag@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Santosh > > > > > > Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is > > > approaching the baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dont > > get > > > perturbed. > > > > > > You are there with a live pistol in your hand. > > > > > > Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill or > > are you > > > going to shoot at the killer, to kill > > > > > >  > > > > > > I dont know but i feel renuji is correct > > > > > > Spirituality or non > > > spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to kill > > anyone. > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards > > > > > > Girish > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, santhosh@ santhosh@ wrote: > > > > > > santhosh@ santhosh@ > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a > > Brother ? > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > Sunday, November 29, 2009, 8:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear renuji, > > > My utmost respects to your good upbringing and salute your parents > > responsible for that. > > > I guess you are a buddist. Are you? > > > Any lets speak on practical terms. > > > Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is approaching the > > baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dont get perturbed. > > > You are there with a live pistol in your hand. > > > Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill or > > are you going to shoot at the killer, to kill? > > > So you see every principle, even personal principles, could turn topsy > > turvey. > > > Being flexible in every way is name of life. > > > God bless you. > > > Santhosh > > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel " renunw " renunw (AT) (DOT) co.uk> > > > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:46:36 -0000<ancient_indian_ astrology@ > > . com>[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to > > kill a Brother ? > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Santosh ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is my personal view influenced by my upbringing. > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand your points. > > > > > > > > > > > > blessings, > > > > > > > > > > > > Renu > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, santhosh@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear renuji, > > > > > > > This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be some > > universal law which binds humanity? > > > > > > > Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishing > > arjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing. > > > > > > > Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging our soldiers, > > during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemies as > > they can? > > > > > > > So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in a > > context and it is futile to make general and universal statements > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > Santhosh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " renunw " renunw@ > > > > > > > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:56 > > > > > > > <ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a > > Brother ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without > > understanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother > > whatever great crime the brother may have committed ?// > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely > > NO RIGHT to kill anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blessings, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Renu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Bhaskar " > > <bhaskar_jyotish@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without > > understanding it > > > > > > > > fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever great > > crime > > > > > > > > the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was his > > brother. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna which > > developed in > > > > > > > > Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brother but > > only > > > > > > > > as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the time he > > > > > > > > realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not know > > Arjuna > > > > > > > > as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Dice > > and > > > > > > > > also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in the house > > of > > > > > > > > was when they were asleep. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Dear BhaskarjiGandhi ji was an expert of being "Violent' of the other type. He used to stay hungry and sort of go for self immolations till the time his demands were not met by even his own family members, lets leave the political movements aside. This hurt which was caused is worse than hitting a slap to someone. The pain of a slap goes away after sometime, but the hurt caused to someone who is close to you by hurting ones own self is a violence which is silent, but nevertheless present. Your definition of this violence is a new understanding for me. When it comes to family members as you mentioned is self inflicting violence as well as emotional blackmail.Thanks and regardsGirish--- On Sun, 11/29/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 10:12 PM Dear Girish ji, Gandhiji was a good man undoubetdly and I love him for many matters. But also despise him for matters such as the partition. But since we are now talking of violence, and Gandhiji is well known for his non-violence, let me also say that Violence is of many types. It does not only mean hitting any person physically. Gandhi ji was an expert of being "Violent' of the other type. He used to stay hungry and sort of go for self immolations till the time his demands were not met by even his own family members, lets leave the political movements aside. This hurt which was caused is worse than hitting a slap to someone. The pain of a slap goes away after sometime, but the hurt caused to someone who is close to you by hurting ones own self is a violence which is silent, but nevertheless present. best wishes, Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Dear friends, End does not justify the means. 'Means' are the path we chose to carry out the job. It influences our caharacter on day to day basis. Hence means should be good ...otherwise we will face degradation of our values on gradual basis. And regarding "Means" -- it is decided by circumstances. When facing a rabid dog, we need to employ stick (Laathi). Non-violence will not be useful. All the Actions generated by us are to Influence the "other side" ......MEANS to be selected based on our capacity as well as what the 'Other party' understands. Thats all. regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of Girish menonMonday, November 30, 2009 11:27 AM Subject: Re: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear FriendsIn Bhagwath geeta it is mentioned that END JUSTIFIES THE MEANSBut Mahatma Gandhi added to that . He said that END AND MEANS BOTH SHOULD JUSTIFY EACH OTHERGandhi is a beautiful example that you can achieve your goals through non violence.In war, killing is justified, and specially in the olden days, for awarrior to die on the battle field it was knwn that he will attain theheavens. Why the olden days, today also those soldiers who die in battleare called as gone to "Veergati".Unfortunately the younger generations of terrorist are taking this seriously. When the cops interviewed The Mumbai blast terroist he said 2 reasons for doing this henious crime one is poverty and the other in Jihad and he beleives that he will go to heaven.So i feel Gandhi is right that means should also justify the endtHANKS AND REGARDSgirish--- On Sun, 11/29/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish (AT) (DOT) co.in> Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 10:18 AM Dear friends,Renu ji is right that killing is not right, and nobody has the right tokill anyone.But one has to be practical in Life. If the executioner has to kill aperson condemned to death, what would you call it ? Surely one wouldnlot give lectures to the executioner and if he does listen to thelecture and not execute the condemned prisoner, then he will surelyloose his job. And if nobody is there to execute the rapist, and afterfew years if he is scot free, he will again pose a danger to civilisedsociety.In war, killing is justified, and specially in the olden days, for awarrior to die on the battle field it was knwn that he will attain theheavens. Why the olden days, today also those soldiers who die in battleare called as gone to "Veergati".In defense also one is allowed to kill.In euthanasia also ?In rest matters killing is not right or justified.Bhaskar.ancient_indian_ astrology, Girish menon<horamag > wrote:>>>>> Dear Santosh>> Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is> approaching the baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dontget> perturbed.>> You are there with a live pistol in your hand.>> Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill orare you> going to shoot at the killer, to kill>> Â>> I dont know but i feel renuji is correct>> Spirituality or non> spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to killanyone.>>> Thanks and regards>> Girish>>>> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, santhosh santhosh wrote:>> santhosh santhosh Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill aBrother ?> ancient_indian_ astrology> Sunday, November 29, 2009, 8:39 AM>>>>>>>> Â>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear renuji,> My utmost respects to your good upbringing and salute your parentsresponsible for that.> I guess you are a buddist. Are you?> Any lets speak on practical terms.> Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is approaching thebaby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dont get perturbed.> You are there with a live pistol in your hand.> Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill orare you going to shoot at the killer, to kill?> So you see every principle, even personal principles, could turn topsyturvey.> Being flexible in every way is name of life.> God bless you.> Santhosh> Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel"renunw" renunw (AT) (DOT) co.uk>> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:46:36 -0000<ancient_indian_ astrology >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right tokill a Brother ?>> Â>>>>>>> Dear Santosh ji,>>>> This is my personal view influenced by my upbringing.>>>> I understand your points.>>>> blessings,>>>> Renu>> ancient_indian_ astrology, santhosh@ wrote:>> >>> > Dear renuji,>> > This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be someuniversal law which binds humanity?>> > Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishingarjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing.>> > Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging our soldiers,during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemies asthey can?>> > So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in acontext and it is futile to make general and universal statements>> > Best wishes>> > Santhosh>> >>> > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel>> >>> > >> > "renunw" renunw@>> > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:56>> > <ancient_indian_ astrology>>> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill aBrother ?>> >>> > Dear Bhaskar ji,>> >>> > //I ask those who give lectures on spirituality withoutunderstanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brotherwhatever great crime the brother may have committed ?//>> >>> > Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we have absolutelyNO RIGHT to kill anyone.>> >>> > blessings,>> >>> > Renu>> >>> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"<bhaskar_jyotish@ > wrote:>> > >>> > >>> > > I ask those who give lectures on spirituality withoutunderstanding it>> > > fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever greatcrime>> > > the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ?>> > >>> > > Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was hisbrother.>> > >>> > > In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna whichdeveloped in>> > > Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brother butonly>> > > as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the time he>> > > realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana.>> > >>> > > I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not knowArjuna>> > > as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Diceand>> > > also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in the houseof>> > > was when they were asleep.>> > >>> > > Bhaskar.>> > >>> >>This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I will say AMEN to that aspect of Gandhiji's character. It prefer to call that sort of a thing emotional blackmail more than pursuation tactics. But none of us is perfect. Including Gandhiji. Regards, Anita--- On Mon, 30/11/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Date: Monday, 30 November, 2009, 6:12 AM Dear Girish ji,Gandhiji was a good man undoubetdly and I love him for many matters.But also despise him for matters such as the partition. But since we arenow talking of violence, and Gandhiji is well known for hisnon-violence, let me also say that Violence is of many types. It doesnot only mean hitting any person physically.Gandhi ji was an expert of being "Violent' of the other type. He used tostay hungry and sort of go for self immolations till the time hisdemands were not met by even his own family members, lets leave thepolitical movements aside. This hurt which was caused is worse thanhitting a slap to someone. The pain of a slap goes away after sometime,but the hurt caused to someone who is close to you by hurting ones ownself is a violence which is silent, but nevertheless present.best wishes,Bhaskar.ancient_indian_ astrology, Girish menon<horamag > wrote:>> Dear Friends> In Bhagwath geeta it is mentioned that END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS> But Mahatma Gandhi added to that . He said that END AND MEANS BOTHSHOULD JUSTIFY EACH OTHER>> Gandhi is a beautiful example that you can achieve your goals throughnon violence.>> In war, killing is justified, and specially in the olden days, for a>> warrior to die on the battle field it was knwn that he will attain the>> heavens. Why the olden days, today also those soldiers who die inbattle>> are called as gone to "Veergati".> Unfortunately the younger generations of terrorist are taking thisseriously. When the cops interviewed The Mumbai blast terroist he said 2reasons for doing this henious crime one is poverty and the other inJihad and he beleives that he will go to heaven.So i feel Gandhi isright that means should also justify the end> tHANKS AND REGARDS> girish>> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote:>> Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother?> ancient_indian_ astrology> Sunday, November 29, 2009, 10:18 AM>>>>>>>> Â>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear friends,>>>> Renu ji is right that killing is not right, and nobody has the rightto>> kill anyone.>>>> But one has to be practical in Life. If the executioner has to kill a>> person condemned to death, what would you call it ? Surely one would>> nlot give lectures to the executioner and if he does listen to the>> lecture and not execute the condemned prisoner, then he will surely>> loose his job. And if nobody is there to execute the rapist, and after>> few years if he is scot free, he will again pose a danger to civilised>> society.>>>> In war, killing is justified, and specially in the olden days, for a>> warrior to die on the battle field it was knwn that he will attain the>> heavens. Why the olden days, today also those soldiers who die inbattle>> are called as gone to "Veergati".>>>> In defense also one is allowed to kill.>>>> In euthanasia also ?>>>> In rest matters killing is not right or justified.>>>> Bhaskar.>> ancient_indian_ astrology, Girish menon>> horamag@ > wrote:>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Dear Santosh>> >>> > Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is>> > approaching the baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so pleasedont>> get>> > perturbed.>> >>> > You are there with a live pistol in your hand.>> >>> > Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to killor>> are you>> > going to shoot at the killer, to kill>> >>> > Â>> >>> > I dont know but i feel renuji is correct>> >>> > Spirituality or non>> > spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to kill>> anyone.>> >>> >>> > Thanks and regards>> >>> > Girish>> >>> >>> >>> > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, santhosh@ santhosh@ wrote:>> >>> > santhosh@ santhosh@>> > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a>> Brother ?>> > ancient_indian_ astrology>> > Sunday, November 29, 2009, 8:39 AM>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Â>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Dear renuji,>> > My utmost respects to your good upbringing and salute your parents>> responsible for that.>> > I guess you are a buddist. Are you?>> > Any lets speak on practical terms.>> > Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is approaching the>> baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dont get perturbed.>> > You are there with a live pistol in your hand.>> > Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to killor>> are you going to shoot at the killer, to kill?>> > So you see every principle, even personal principles, could turntopsy>> turvey.>> > Being flexible in every way is name of life.>> > God bless you.>> > Santhosh>> > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel"renunw" renunw (AT) (DOT) co.uk>>> > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:46:36 -0000<ancient_indian_ astrology@>> . com>Subject: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it rightto>> kill a Brother ?>> >>> > Â>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Dear Santosh ji,>> >>> >>> >>> > This is my personal view influenced by my upbringing.>> >>> >>> >>> > I understand your points.>> >>> >>> >>> > blessings,>> >>> >>> >>> > Renu>> >>> > ancient_indian_ astrology, santhosh@ wrote:>> >>> > >>> >>> > > Dear renuji,>> >>> > > This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be some>> universal law which binds humanity?>> >>> > > Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishing>> arjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing.>> >>> > > Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging oursoldiers,>> during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemiesas>> they can?>> >>> > > So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in a>> context and it is futile to make general and universal statements>> >>> > > Best wishes>> >>> > > Santhosh>> >>> > >>> >>> > > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel>> >>> > >>> >>> > > >> >>> > > "renunw" renunw@>> >>> > > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:56>> >>> > > <ancient_indian_ astrology>>> >>> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a>> Brother ?>> >>> > >>> >>> > > Dear Bhaskar ji,>> >>> > >>> >>> > > //I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without>> understanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother>> whatever great crime the brother may have committed ?//>> >>> > >>> >>> > > Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we haveabsolutely>> NO RIGHT to kill anyone.>> >>> > >>> >>> > > blessings,>> >>> > >>> >>> > > Renu>> >>> > >>> >>> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar">> <bhaskar_jyotish@ > wrote:>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > > I ask those who give lectures on spirituality without>> understanding it>> >>> > > > fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatevergreat>> crime>> >>> > > > the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ?>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > > Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was his>> brother.>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > > In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna which>> developed in>> >>> > > > Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brotherbut>> only>> >>> > > > as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the timehe>> >>> > > > realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana.>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > > I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not know>> Arjuna>> >>> > > > as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Dice>> and>> >>> > > > also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in thehouse>> of>> >>> > > > was when they were asleep.>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > > Bhaskar.>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >>> >> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Respected Chakravarthiji, I fully agree with you that 'Ends do not justify the means". I also believe, the intention behind our good actions also matter a lot. I am talking about karma yoga theory here." regards, Anita--- On Mon, 30/11/09, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote: Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?"' '" Monday, 30 November, 2009, 6:33 AM Dear friends, End does not justify the means. 'Means' are the path we chose to carry out the job. It influences our caharacter on day to day basis. Hence means should be good ...otherwise we will face degradation of our values on gradual basis. And regarding "Means" -- it is decided by circumstances. When facing a rabid dog, we need to employ stick (Laathi). Non-violence will not be useful. All the Actions generated by us are to Influence the "other side" ......MEANS to be selected based on our capacity as well as what the 'Other party' understands. Thats all. regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of Girish menonMonday, November 30, 2009 11:27 AMancient_indian_ astrologyRe: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear FriendsIn Bhagwath geeta it is mentioned that END JUSTIFIES THE MEANSBut Mahatma Gandhi added to that . He said that END AND MEANS BOTH SHOULD JUSTIFY EACH OTHERGandhi is a beautiful example that you can achieve your goals through non violence.In war, killing is justified, and specially in the olden days, for awarrior to die on the battle field it was knwn that he will attain theheavens. Why the olden days, today also those soldiers who die in battleare called as gone to "Veergati".Unfortunately the younger generations of terrorist are taking this seriously. When the cops interviewed The Mumbai blast terroist he said 2 reasons for doing this henious crime one is poverty and the other in Jihad and he beleives that he will go to heaven.So i feel Gandhi is right that means should also justify the endtHANKS AND REGARDSgirish--- On Sun, 11/29/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in>[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?ancient_indian_ astrologySunday, November 29, 2009, 10:18 AM Dear friends,Renu ji is right that killing is not right, and nobody has the right tokill anyone.But one has to be practical in Life. If the executioner has to kill aperson condemned to death, what would you call it ? Surely one wouldnlot give lectures to the executioner and if he does listen to thelecture and not execute the condemned prisoner, then he will surelyloose his job. And if nobody is there to execute the rapist, and afterfew years if he is scot free, he will again pose a danger to civilisedsociety.In war, killing is justified, and specially in the olden days, for awarrior to die on the battle field it was knwn that he will attain theheavens. Why the olden days, today also those soldiers who die in battleare called as gone to "Veergati".In defense also one is allowed to kill.In euthanasia also ?In rest matters killing is not right or justified.Bhaskar.ancient_indian_ astrology, Girish menon<horamag > wrote:>>>>> Dear Santosh>> Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is> approaching the baby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dontget> perturbed.>> You are there with a live pistol in your hand.>> Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill orare you> going to shoot at the killer, to kill>> Â>> I dont know but i feel renuji is correct>> Spirituality or non> spirituality, I believe that we have absolutely NO RIGHT to killanyone.>>> Thanks and regards>> Girish>>>> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, santhosh santhosh wrote:>> santhosh santhosh Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill aBrother ?> ancient_indian_ astrology> Sunday, November 29, 2009, 8:39 AM>>>>>>>> Â>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear renuji,> My utmost respects to your good upbringing and salute your parentsresponsible for that.> I guess you are a buddist. Are you?> Any lets speak on practical terms.> Imagine your child is in front of a killer, who is approaching thebaby with a knife-all pure imagination, so please dont get perturbed.> You are there with a live pistol in your hand.> Are you going to tell the killer that you dont have a right to kill orare you going to shoot at the killer, to kill?> So you see every principle, even personal principles, could turn topsyturvey.> Being flexible in every way is name of life.> God bless you.> Santhosh> Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel"renunw" renunw (AT) (DOT) co.uk>> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:46:36 -0000<ancient_indian_ astrology >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right tokill a Brother ?>> Â>>>>>>> Dear Santosh ji,>>>> This is my personal view influenced by my upbringing.>>>> I understand your points.>>>> blessings,>>>> Renu>> ancient_indian_ astrology, santhosh@ wrote:>> >>> > Dear renuji,>> > This is your personal view or are you claiming it to be someuniversal law which binds humanity?>> > Thoughts went to holy gita, wherein lord krishna was admonishingarjuna for not fighting, which will invariably lead to killing.>> > Thoughts went to speeches by indira gandhi encouraging our soldiers,during the time of indo-pak war, to go on and destroy as many enemies asthey can?>> > So you see, everything is relative and has to be understood in acontext and it is futile to make general and universal statements>> > Best wishes>> > Santhosh>> >>> > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel>> >>> > >> > "renunw" renunw@>> > Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:56>> > <ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com>>> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill aBrother ?>> >>> > Dear Bhaskar ji,>> >>> > //I ask those who give lectures on spirituality withoutunderstanding it fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brotherwhatever great crime the brother may have committed ?//>> >>> > Spirituality or non spirituality, I believe that we have absolutelyNO RIGHT to kill anyone.>> >>> > blessings,>> >>> > Renu>> >>> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"<bhaskar_jyotish@ > wrote:>> > >>> > >>> > > I ask those who give lectures on spirituality withoutunderstanding it>> > > fully, whether is it right to kill an elder brother whatever greatcrime>> > > the brother may have committed ? Did Arjuna not kill Karna ?>> > >>> > > Some will argue that Arjuna did not know that Karna was hisbrother.>> > >>> > > In same way I will argue that the hatred for Arjuna whichdeveloped in>> > > Karna was during the years he did not know Arjuna as a brother butonly>> > > as an archer and his friend Duryodhanas enemy. And by the time he>> > > realised it was to late to break the allegiance with Duryodhana.>> > >>> > > I have also given a previous message wherein Karna did not knowArjuna>> > > as a brother yet he chided Duryodhana on the unfair game of Diceand>> > > also on their evil intentions of burning the brothers in the houseof>> > > was when they were asleep.>> > >>> > > Bhaskar.>> > >>> >>This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It could be individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) or emergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first, ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this. Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are. Shankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Sir ji, With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wish to talk practical as well as ethical. // Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. // Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his chest would not be adharmic. // Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. // True. // Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. // Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. //Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. // true. Love n regards, bhaskar. , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote: > > Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It could be individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) or emergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first, ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this. > > Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are. > > Shankar > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his chest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. ShankarBhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Sir ji, With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wish to talk practical as well as ethical. // Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. // Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his chest would not be adharmic. // Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. // True. // Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. // Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. //Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. // true. Love n regards, bhaskar. ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote: > > Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It could be individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) or emergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first, ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this. > > Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are. > > Shankar > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 "If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him."Here the defending is not for what he did, but for the person himself. This of course, when I am correcting him after saving him. Otherwise I am guilty of his wrongs. ShankarShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 11:52:31 AMRe: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his chest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. ShankarBhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Sir ji, With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wish to talk practical as well as ethical. // Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. // Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his chest would not be adharmic. // Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. // True. // Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. // Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. //Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. // true. Love n regards, bhaskar. ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote: > > Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It could be individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) or emergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first, ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this. > > Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are. > > Shankar > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji, I am agreeing to very word of your mail now. But the problem is that you are much like Ram " The Maryada Purshottam " . For you are too virtous and do not like a single strand of unethical behaviour in a virtous person, or else you would pronounce him " unvirtous " . I co-relate better to Shri Krishna who does not take permission to enter Kansas fort but will kick those who prevent him, unlike Ramchandraji who will take permission from the gardener first to enter the garden where He first met Sita ji. You talk like a man of a big heart who looks for universal good and application of truth considering both individual as well as Collective good, wherein the latter takes a better position in your view overriding the former. In my case, I feel bit differently that if a man cannot help himself the rest will come later. I am more of a proposer for Vyakti Dharma than Raj Dharma which would come later in my line of duties after the former has been conditioned in place. Your example of Ramchandraji killing Bali was a perfect one of Raj Dharma overtaking Vyakti Dharma. You have actually now confused me completely of what should come first. regards/Bhaskar. , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > " Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. > there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army > and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his > chest would not be adharmic. " > > I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of " harming " , but of " reciprocating " or " retaliating " or even " defending " as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. > > " > Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be > fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. " > > That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. > > Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. > > Shankar > > > > ________________________________ > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > > Mon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM > Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > > Sir ji, > > With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wish > to talk practical as well as ethical. > > // Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. // > > Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. > there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army > and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his > chest would not be adharmic. > > // Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. // > > True. > > // Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. // > > Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be > fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. > > //Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to > protect the righteous, is unrighteous. // > > true. > > Love n regards, > > bhaskar. > > ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj > Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It could > be individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) or > emergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first, > ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this. > > > > Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing the > unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteous > to get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gaining > power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is > unrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are. > > > > Shankar > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Yes agreed. Bhaskar. , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote: > > " If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. " > > Here the defending is not for what he did, but for the person himself. This of course, when I am correcting him after saving him. Otherwise I am guilty of his wrongs. > > Shankar > > > > ________________________________ > ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli shankarabharadwaj > > Tue, December 1, 2009 11:52:31 AM > Re: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > " Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. > there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army > and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his > chest would not be adharmic. " > > I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of " harming " , but of " reciprocating " or " retaliating " or even " defending " as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. > > " > Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be > fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. " > > That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. > > Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. > > Shankar > > > > ________________________________ > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > > Mon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM > Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > > Sir ji, > > With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wish > to talk practical as well as ethical. > > // Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. // > > Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. > there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army > and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his > chest would not be adharmic. > > // Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. // > > True. > > // Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. // > > Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be > fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. > > //Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to > protect the righteous, is unrighteous. // > > true. > > Love n regards, > > bhaskar. > > ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj > Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It could > be individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) or > emergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first, > ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this. > > > > Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing the > unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteous > to get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gaining > power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is > unrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are. > > > > Shankar > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya)....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish (AT) (DOT) co.in> Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Sir ji,With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wishto talk practical as well as ethical.// Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. //Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic.// Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. //True.// Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. //Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so.//Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able toprotect the righteous, is unrighteous. //true.Love n regards,bhaskar.ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwajKhandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:>> Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It couldbe individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) oremergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first,ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this.>> Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing theunrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteousto get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gainingpower when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, isunrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are.>> Shankar> This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear all, After Arjuna and Karma, now people are after Rama’s skin I guess. Love Santhosh On Behalf Of Chakraborty, PL Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:54 PM ' ' RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya)....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported " nasika chedan " of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give " explanation " for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AM Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji, " Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his chest would not be adharmic. " I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of " harming " , but of " reciprocating " or " retaliating " or even " defending " as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. " That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish (AT) (DOT) co.in> Mon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Sir ji, With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wish to talk practical as well as ethical. // Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. // Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his chest would not be adharmic. // Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. // True. // Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. // Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. //Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. // true. Love n regards, bhaskar. ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote: > > Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It could be individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) or emergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first, ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this. > > Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is unrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are. > > Shankar > This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2536 - Release 12/01/09 02:35:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Yes.... we should end this discussion right here. This is an astrology forum... regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of SanthoshTuesday, December 01, 2009 1:00 PM Subject: RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear all, After Arjuna and Karma, now people are after Rama’s skin I guess. Love Santhosh On Behalf Of Chakraborty, PLTuesday, December 01, 2009 12:54 PM' 'RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya)....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish (AT) (DOT) co.in> Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Sir ji,With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wishto talk practical as well as ethical.// Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. //Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic.// Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. //True.// Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. //Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so.//Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able toprotect the righteous, is unrighteous. //true.Love n regards,bhaskar.ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwajKhandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:>> Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It couldbe individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) oremergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first,ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this.>> Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing theunrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteousto get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gainingpower when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, isunrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are.>> Shankar> This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2536 - Release 12/01/09 02:35:00 This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Bhaskar ji," For you are too virtous and do not like a single strand of unethical behaviour in a virtous person, or else you would pronounce him "unvirtous". "NO, it is not about how many steaks of virtue a person has. This is the crux in the difference of our opinions While good or bad qualities could be many in a person, dharma does not come in multiples or sets. Dharma nistha is one single thing. Either the person has it or not. Of course, there is always the question of "to what extent" and when does one avail apaddharma, but when the question is whether a person is dharmic or not, then it boils down to - whether he puts dharma above desire or desire above dharma - whether he puts basic needs above dharma or vice versa if in these two cases one puts dharma higher, then he is a dharmic being. If he does not in the second case, he is a normal being. If he does not in the first case, then he is a positively adharmic character. But the evaluation of dharma does not happen on how many virtues or vices a person has. This was what I was trying to explain all the while. Thus, a virtuous person may not always be dharmic, and a dharmic man may not always be glorious. Coming to Rama and Krishna, they are epitomes of Dharma, examples of Dharma nistha to the hilt. It is just that Krishna is a far more complex personality to understand. Things might appear at our level ambivalent in the case of Krishna, but there is no question of Him being Adharmic. After all, He is the one who taught us what Dharma is, in what situation of dilemma. "I am more of a proposer for Vyakti Dharma than Raj Dharma which would come later in my line of duties after the former has been conditioned in place."That is why you and I are not raja-s A person who puts raja dharma above vyakti dharma, is the one entitled to be a raja. We are better off as vyaktis trying to find our way in the world. " Your example of Ramchandraji killing Bali was a perfect one of Raj Dharma overtaking Vyakti Dharma."Yes, absolutely. ShankarBhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 12:38:07 PM Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji, I am agreeing to very word of your mail now. But the problem is that you are much like Ram "The Maryada Purshottam". For you are too virtous and do not like a single strand of unethical behaviour in a virtous person, or else you would pronounce him "unvirtous". I co-relate better to Shri Krishna who does not take permission to enter Kansas fort but will kick those who prevent him, unlike Ramchandraji who will take permission from the gardener first to enter the garden where He first met Sita ji. You talk like a man of a big heart who looks for universal good and application of truth considering both individual as well as Collective good, wherein the latter takes a better position in your view overriding the former. In my case, I feel bit differently that if a man cannot help himself the rest will come later. I am more of a proposer for Vyakti Dharma than Raj Dharma which would come later in my line of duties after the former has been conditioned in place. Your example of Ramchandraji killing Bali was a perfect one of Raj Dharma overtaking Vyakti Dharma. You have actually now confused me completely of what should come first. regards/Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar"Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 No problem, but don't worry if it is out of concern about a heated debate - it will not happen. Shankar"Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 Tue, December 1, 2009 2:05:17 PMRE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Yes.... we should end this discussion right here. This is an astrology forum... regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of SanthoshTuesday, December 01, 2009 1:00 PMancient_indian_ astrologyRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear all, After Arjuna and Karma, now people are after Rama’s skin I guess. Love Santhosh ancient_indian_ astrology [ ancient_indian_ astrology ] On Behalf Of Chakraborty, PLTuesday, December 01, 2009 12:54 PM' ancient_indian_ astrology 'RE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in>ancient_indian_ astrologyMon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Sir ji,With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wishto talk practical as well as ethical.// Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. //Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic.// Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. //True.// Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. //Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so.//Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able toprotect the righteous, is unrighteous. //true.Love n regards,bhaskar.ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwajKhandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:>> Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It couldbe individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) oremergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first,ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this.>> Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing theunrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteousto get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gainingpower when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, isunrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are.>> Shankar> This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi , India . The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2536 - Release 12/01/09 02:35:00 This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization'. He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in> Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Shri Shankara Bharadwaj ji, A very good mail clearing all doubts. thank You. I initially mentioned that you have a lofty thinking, proved from the continous contents of your mails. Things are becoming clearer now. Dharma must overtake ones personal desires for one to be known as " Dharmic " . Perfect. Love n regards, Bhaskar. , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > " For you are too virtous and > do not like a single strand of unethical behaviour in a virtous person, > or else you would pronounce him " unvirtous " . " > > NO, it is not about how many steaks of virtue a person has. This is the crux in the difference of our opinions > > While good or bad qualities could be many in a person, dharma does not come in multiples or sets. Dharma nistha is one single thing. Either the person has it or not. Of course, there is always the question of " to what extent " and when does one avail apaddharma, but when the question is whether a person is dharmic or not, then it boils down to > - whether he puts dharma above desire or desire above dharma > - whether he puts basic needs above dharma or vice versa > > if in these two cases one puts dharma higher, then he is a dharmic being. If he does not in the second case, he is a normal being. If he does not in the first case, then he is a positively adharmic character. But the evaluation of dharma does not happen on how many virtues or vices a person has. This was what I was trying to explain all the while. Thus, a virtuous person may not always be dharmic, and a dharmic man may not always be glorious. > > Coming to Rama and Krishna, they are epitomes of Dharma, examples of Dharma nistha to the hilt. It is just that Krishna is a far more complex personality to understand. Things might appear at our level ambivalent in the case of Krishna, but there is no question of Him being Adharmic. After all, He is the one who taught us what Dharma is, in what situation of dilemma. > > " I am more of a proposer for Vyakti > Dharma than Raj Dharma which would come later in my line of duties after > the former has been conditioned in place. " > > That is why you and I are not raja-s A person who puts raja dharma above vyakti dharma, is the one entitled to be a raja. We are better off as vyaktis trying to find our way in the world. > > " > Your example of Ramchandraji killing Bali was a perfect one of Raj > Dharma overtaking Vyakti Dharma. " > > Yes, absolutely. > > Shankar > > > > ________________________________ > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > > Tue, December 1, 2009 12:38:07 PM > Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > > Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji, > > I am agreeing to very word of your mail now. But the problem is that you > are much like Ram " The Maryada Purshottam " . For you are too virtous and > do not like a single strand of unethical behaviour in a virtous person, > or else you would pronounce him " unvirtous " . I co-relate better to Shri > Krishna who does not take permission to enter Kansas fort but will kick > those who prevent him, unlike Ramchandraji who will take permission from > the gardener first to enter the garden where He first met Sita ji. > > You talk like a man of a big heart who looks for universal good and > application of truth considering both individual as well as Collective > good, wherein the latter takes a better position in your view overriding > the former. In my case, I feel bit differently that if a man cannot help > himself the rest will come later. I am more of a proposer for Vyakti > Dharma than Raj Dharma which would come later in my line of duties after > the former has been conditioned in place. > > Your example of Ramchandraji killing Bali was a perfect one of Raj > Dharma overtaking Vyakti Dharma. > > You have actually now confused me completely of what should come first. > > regards/Bhaskar. > 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.