New posts

Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!

Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up Log in

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 146449" data-attributes="member: 586">Spnadmin ji,Thanks for your response. However, I can't really make out from your remarks how much we agree and what the disagreements are, if any. I am going to respond to some of your comments, but they are more like random thoughts.You remarked:Yes, it is not right to judge. But to point out what is right and what is wrong is what religion does.Eating is eating, and no harm is done to others when we eat what we like. If we steal, kill or lie in order to get what we wish to have, these are evil actions, but the eating itself isn't. However, there is also the question of wrong attitude towards one's choice of food which can lead to other kinds of wrong, including judging others and trying to convince them to believe similarly. So should we not point to such errors in thinking?But why the need to refer to the idea of freedom of choice?Indeed such an idea must include and mostly is, about following one's desire isn't it? And where would this lead to? Would not the ideal (of not imposing our values upon others) likely draw the attention away from seeing harm in desire and inadvertently encourage following its dictates? One may factor in the idea of not hurting others as way to control one's actions. But when desire and its harm is not acknowledge, what do you think wins in the end? Do the moral laws not exist in reality? Would desire not lead to more desire? Can we say that it depend on each individual to decide what is right and what is wrong? If so, what about the ideal of "not imposing" itself, is this not also up to the individual?And freedom to judge and impose?This is the problem isn't it, to tie morality with the idea of individual freedom? While a person of moral integrity will allow for others to develop at their own pace, hence no mind to force anything onto anyone, he will however take care not to encourage others to follow their desires, which as he knows, is the cause for immorality and can lead to many other problems.More importantly however, there is in fact no such thing as "freedom of choice". This is only an abstraction created by those who do not understand the truth. Keeping kesh and not keeping kesh, thinking this and thinking that, all this is conditioned. The imperative then is to develop understanding of one's own mind and in the process come to know that others are no different from us. So it is not like we have to allow them to do what they wish, but to understand that they can't help doing what they do and think what they think. In this way, wrong and right remains in focus and while one tries to help others, it does not end up catering to desire.And I could ask, "how can there be morality if one insists on the idea of individual freedom"?!And to keep all this in-topic, I'd like to suggest that Guru Nanak in pointing out to the brahmin priests, the wrongness of judging those who eat meat, was not making a statement about "individual freedom", but rather addressing the mistaken belief that becoming a vegetarian makes one morally pure and eating meat the opposite. In the end of course, we eat what we like, and no one should make a moral judgement in this regard. But the judgement happens, and this comes from those who believe that they have made a correct moral decision by their choice of food. After all the act of eating food is seen by them as a moral act, when in fact morality must be a reference to particular mental states from which actions flow and affect other beings. And in pointing out their mistake, this is not judging nor expecting that anyone change their choice of food, but only an attempt at correcting the mistaken belief.Perhaps we should take care not to bring social considerations in to interpret religious principles. The idea about "freedom of choice" should in my opinion, not come into the picture as it distorts the perception. Dharma / Dharam is aimed at the individual and not the group. No doubt it leads to and even gives some guidance with regard to living with other people. But the basis for this is each individual's own development in morality and wisdom, which can happen only when the reference point is his own mind and not ideas such as equal rights and freedom of choice etc. these being result of the perception of "self and the world out there". Rather it seems that those who fail at understanding the point of religion are in need of some outside governing principle to control the behaviour.And talking about freedom, who in fact is more free, the person who forever follows his desires or the person with moral integrity? Desire leads to anger, such as when we don't get what we want or we get what we don't want. On the other hand, a person who knows the value of moral restraint, friendliness, truthfulness, compassion etc, when he is faced with a difficult situation, what do you think his reaction will be like?So should we encourage freedom of choice or should we be talking about how morality and wisdom can be developed?Regarding the question about kesh, I wanted also to find out how far this ideal about "freedom of choice" is taken by those who have a strong belief in it.</blockquote>

Verification