Does fighting for nation brings karmic reactions

[tsaneladi 0]

From a philosophical perspective, I have to say violence is always bad-coming from me. Since i don't feel qualifed to be objective as to the righteousness of such activiites, I simply refrain from this choice.

 

As a practical matter, I think the situation that warrants kill or be killed might bring me to a different level of understanding, but I cant say I know until it happens

[ethos 0]

This is my understanding. Perhaps it's not so refined.

 

First of all, understand that nature or God is killing us all.

 

If you are in doubt as to a proper action, then caution or even inaction may suit you best.

 

It is also unphilosophical or rational to suggest that if you don't know, 'no one knows'. You have to have the knowledge to judge whether someone else knows about a particular subject or not. You can't judge whether someone is a charlatan or actually knows unless you have the knowledge already. Am absurd example of this is the material scientists who only know a tiny bit of reality and yet do not hesitate to make statements about the totality of reality, ie. there is no God.

 

You might have a very different perspective if (God forbid) you or your wife (if it applies) were violently attacked.

 

True empathy is a rare thing in an egocentric world.

[karthik_v 0]

I thought this question of Theist was very pertinent and deserved more discussion. Honestly, did anything there justify such a large scale war and the killings of millions? The Kauravas were unjust and they stole the kingdom of the Pandavas. The Pandavas were not without their share of blemish. They were so base that they could pledge their own wife while gambling. This is an episode that invloved only a 100 Kauravas and 5 Pandavas. Why was it necessary for such a large scale battle to be fought?

 

The answer that it was God's wish is always unsatisfactory. The Muslim terrorists who flew that Boeing into WTC also claimed that they were carrying out Allah's wish. The Muslim aggressors who raped and killed millions of Hindus in India [a number that would constitute the largest genocide ever, making the anti-Jewish pogroms pale in comparison], did so in the name of their God. The Christian evangelical criminals who decimated native cultures in South America, India and Philippines indulged in violence in the name of their God.

 

Their God? Yes, that wasn't a typo. When terror and violence can be justified with lame statements like "Oh, I did so to please my God", I guess those who were at the receiving end would just reply: "Indeed your God. Let me find mine. Let us get even then."

 

I am all for violence, when necessary. I am only against violence in the name of and for the sake of God. Let us have violence only for our own sake. Then we can define necessary moralality to govern it. How about God only for the sake of spiritualism?

[theist 1]

Actually I think that "it was God's will is the perfect reason.

 

Knowing God's will from our own perverted impulses and mental concoctions is the problem.

[ethos 0]

Good answer theist.

 

Well as far as the Pandavas pledging their own wife, it is well known that intense greed or anger or lust pollute the intelligence. When intelligence is lost, then memory, bewilderment etc.

 

But I can see your point. Draupadi certainly had alot to say about it in the assembly of elders.

 

But be mindful of who you are slandering. These are great souls who walked and talked with God in many intimate situations. Is that not the qualifications of pure devotees? In the Mahabharata they might easily be taken to be ordinary lusty kings and such, but in the Bhagavatam their true identity as pure devotees is revealed.

 

There are many instances in the Mahabharata where different individuals would describe the whole affair as simply fate or destiny or time or the play of the supreme. That it all happened the way it did by way of God's plan is the consenses among devotees by way of the parampara.

 

The answer that it was God's wish is always unsatisfactory. No. It depends on time and circumstances as anything does.

 

Now anything can be abused. People abused religion, politics, medicine, law - everything. I mean what don't people abuse. They abuse their bodies. The greatest attrocities in modern history have been commited by Hitler and Stalin. Actually, the genocide of the American Indians was pretty bad too. Now those were not religious wars. People just tend to exploit whatever power structures exists. But it is not religion at fault. Rather it is abuse of religion by unscrupulous persons who attempt to justify their own explotations.

 

And yes, there are people who really don't have such a good understanding of religion or God and yet don't hesitiate to propagate their blind faith on others. It is a problem.

 

But philosophically, it is because God is there that 'anything' can be justified absolutely because that absolute point is the standard by which all things are measured.

 

One reason people deny God is so that they can promote themselves and their own standards. If there is no God, if there is no ultimately authority then everything is relative. That means my idea is just as valid as yours even if it is in opposition. From here it quickly degenerates to might makes right and law of the jungle.

 

Now you try to justify morality without God as you mentioned. Governments can't do it, neither can scientists or philosophers. All they can do is make some social contract. And all that comes down to is that we shall all agree to collectively act this way. So what? These floating ethics are always bending and changing and we can practically see they work for the Americans, Hitlers and Stalins who themselves put strict moral standards on the hoards while they themselves do anything. These double standards are practically killing the world.

 

Hare Bol!

[karthik_v 0]

Ethos,

 

First of all, I am not even disputing the fact that the Pandavas were very elevated. I just said that they had their own share of blemishes too. Every one, except Krishna Himself, is faulty in some regard. So, I am not slandering. Please note. I am also not disputing that everything happens due to the plan of Krishna. Nothing moves unless He wants it to. I am only questioning justifying violence in the name of God's wish.

 

"But philosophically, it is because God is there that 'anything' can be justified absolutely because that absolute point is the standard by which all things are measured."

 

That is also debatable. We silently dislodged the vedas as the numero uno text and instead conferred that honour upon the smritis. We also said that many rituals are "useless" in this yuga. We also said that Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva propounded only "temporary" philosophies which we should ultimately dislodge, within centuries of their disappearence. Are we not making it sound as if God's own writ isn't absolute? If something is absolute, can it mutate and change? Shoudl not not be constant across the yugas?

[ethos 0]

karthik_y,

 

Hare Krsna!

 

You did call the Pandavas 'so base' which they simply were not. And you can judge Krsna too!

 

I think I have already answered you.

 

If you are not disputing that everything happens due to the plan of Krsna, then don't dispute violence in the name of religion 'cause that happens too. Krsna was telling Arjuna to fight because I desire these men be killed. If that's not violence in the name of God's wish I can't image what would be.

 

I don't think your short scriptural history says much of anything except that men tend to advocate whatever they're into. Like the Americans first pushed Christianity on everyone and now that they're into science and it is the new religion.

 

How quick the BTG was disregard Prabhupada's wishes in favor of their own!

[karthik_v 0]

Hari Bol Ethos,

 

You are indeed correct and I was wrong. Krishna indeed urges Arjuna to fight the battle as a sacrifice to Him. So, the Pandavas were definitely fighting for the Lord. Thanks for correcting.

 

I was only skeptical of justifying every violent, as we can often see in the material world, as a service to Lord or as carrying out His wishes.

 

I don't understand your last line on BTG. What is that?

[Guest guest]

Of course I am skeptical of most claims of religious violence as you are, but still the logic and precedent are there.

 

My little crack about the BTG was in support to what has been mentioned here in this thread many times. I think Gauracandra says it best…

 

Unfortunately many devotees's view of ethics is "Whatever pleases God is good, and what pleases God just so happens to be what I want to do."

 

Unfortunately, I am guilty of this dovetailing myself… the same thing many of us are criticizing here. Such is the hypocrisy of Kali-yuga.

 

All glories to Prabhupada who was without closet skeletons or a secret life!

 

This 20 page essay called Srila Prabhupada's Perfect Plan will clarify my inuendo.

 

http://www.harekrsna.com/vada/nugas/manage.htm

 

It is also found under 'Spiritual Discussions'.

[tsaneladi 0]

If one accepts the premise that all war is bad then the next logical conclusion is that the the United States, being the offender in a large number of such wars these days and killing millions through sanctions and warfare, is an evil empire.

 

That accepted, is it bad Karma to pay taxes knowing they support a war machine that perpetuates genocide on millions on an ongoing basis?