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: 149730" data-attributes="member: 586">13800038 ji, Gyani ji and Ambarsaria ji,This is not going to make me popular, but I should not care about this.13800038 ji, I very much liked your message given especially that you state your point so succinctly. Yes, I do have the impression that people here keep side-tracking and confusing the issue. It is almost as if there is unwillingness to keep the real question in mind because we know at the back of our minds, that we do not really have a good answer for it.Ambarsaria ji, your conclusion in the end, namely:Although it is a valid one in a particular context, here however, it can be used to divert the attention from the real issue. Why I say this is because, what 13800038 ji is highlighting is the fact of the wrongness of killing being covered up by the idea that an animal corpse has its industrial uses, and here the same is happening when you bring in the idea of animals and plants being used for food.What I got from this discussion is that meat is meat and not a live animal, and so no one should feel guilty for ordering meat dish in a restaurant or buying raw meat from a supermarket to cook and eat. If we stop eating meat with the idea that it will reduce killing, this is not only being deluded, but is an action not aimed at helping the persons involved in the killing to realize their mistakes, and is in fact all about me and my own values and akin to sitting on a high horse.So while my aim is to encouraging people to discriminate between moral and immoral actions and to not be fooled by wrong thinking into adopting a false sense of morality, and thereby ending up being in fact immoral, yours Ambarsaria ji, does not seem to be pointing to the same direction.The idea that 13800038 ji brings is one which many would use to teach a child in order to encourage some idea about what is morally good and what is bad. If you don't wish your property to be stolen, do not take other people's property without permission. If you wish others to be honest with you, do not lie to them. If you do not want to be killed, do not kill any living being. If you do not wish other people to have sex with your spouse, you should take care not to do the same with others.Now the above are reminders that have positive effect on the social level. But they can also work to aid in developing morality for those who have begun to actually differentiate between a wholesome and unwholesome state of mind and good intentions from bad intentions. Your statement quote below, Ambarsaria ji, seem to be an encouragement to take what is *not* wholesome for wholesome and overlooking what must necessarily involve bad intentions.You can't swat a fly without some good deal of aversion and a degree of callousness. What amounts to less than a pinprick when a mosquito bites you, is reacted to with a taking of its life can only be the result of great attachment to me and my feelings. When food is available in so many forms, killing some animal in order to get the food must involve quite a perversion of perception and of consciousness, an attachment to one's own happiness and indifference to the feelings of that other living creature. What is good in any of this?!!13800038 ji, although I consider the Christian conception of God to be extremely silly and childish, however your post has given rise to the following thoughts:A personal God with very human attributes can allow for particular human values to remain in focus. "Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you" when stated by such a God is something that will be accepted and encouraged. If God destroys life, it is something he has to do but this does not translate as meaning that I can also do it too. This is because I am not God and God's intentions will never be of the same level as that of mine. Unlike me, his purpose is not aimed at personal interest, or to a group of people, or to particular range of beings, but to all of creation. Mine on the other hand, is focused on me and mine. Indeed if I were to do wrong such as killing some other of God's creation, I'd be doing what only He has the right basis for doing.Although like I said, I find the particular God concept to be silly, something which must in the long run be very harmful, on the other hand, the thoughts and behavior of many Christians have on many occasions been quite inspiring to me. I found them to be often much more scrupulous than I am when it comes to moral actions.Now I am not saying that the Sikh conception of God is bad when compared the Christian one. What I'd like to point out is that when interpreted a certain way as it appears to have been done here, this apparently has led to discouraging moral scrupulousness. A disinterested and impersonal God has given rise to indifference and lack of moral shame on the part of some people who have wrongly conceived, or perhaps forgotten to take into account certain other attributes.I don't think it follows that belief in a disinterested God will lead necessarily to becoming indifferent. However I do think given the level of ignorance and attachment to self, that this can and does happen.I remember that at one time many years ago, I too believed in some kind of impersonal force driving the cosmos. In looking back I remember also, to having ended up being somewhat indifferent to what goes on in the world and bending towards not accepting the idea of good vs. evil. There was associated with this, a sense not only of something directing the whole show, but also that *I had the power* to watch from a distance and not be moved by all that goes on. And I think that perhaps there is a similar motivation behind some of the ideas expressed here.Gyani ji, what have you observed about the behavior of viruses and bacteria which has led you to the conclusion that these are sentient beings? They have "form" and appear to move around and multiply, but do they have consciousness, perception, feeling, volition, attachment, aversion and do they think?And when you talk about humans being at the top of the evolutionary ladder, rather than think that all below him must then exist only to serve his purpose, has it not occurred to you that perhaps he could help them? I find what Uncle Ben said to Spiderman quite inspiring in this regard:"With great power comes great responsibility."Again, I apologize if this has offended anyone. There was no intention to show any disrespect, but I do take it that I am limited in my own capacity to wisdom and kindness to express myself in the best way.</blockquote>

Verification