# Sikhism On Bugs?



## GurjitJ (May 16, 2011)

If our house has bugs in it, are we allowed to kill them or put them outside or just leave them be?


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 16, 2011)

GurjitJ ji the creator's job is to create you and the bug.  Post creation, creator expects all to flow in consonance per rules programmed in.  A bug out of place is a bug indeed.  Go ahead and fight as fighting is allowed in creation.  I think you will win if you stomp on it or squash it.  If it gives you happiness to let it fly or crawl out of the door so be it.  Both actions inconsequential in terms of creator's expectations of you..

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Ishna (May 16, 2011)

It depends if the bugs are dangerous, if they are swarming, if the are eating the wooden frame of your house, or if you can easily scoop it up and let it go.

I will ignore some little bugs in my home. I attacked the swarm coming through a hole in my ceiling with half a can of bug spray (and paid for it by coughing up my lungs shortly after) and patched up the hole. I will squash a poisonous spider in an instant, but I'll catch a big hairy harmless one and let it go outside. I squashed a spider on a table in a meeting yesterday and my colleagues gasped and said "but you're a vegetarian!" They had no trouble with me using a mouse trap on the mouse in the kitchen however (I've since been traumatised by the poor mouse in the mouse trap so I've purchased humane "catch and release" ones instead). 

Oh and a massive grasshopper came into the first floor of my office building the last week -- a Christian colleage said "kill it! anything less than a human is fit to be killed" which upset me. But not to worry, I caught it under a plastic bowl and let it go outside.

It's probably busy eating through some crops with its cousins now... *snicker *


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 16, 2011)

Ishna ji good examples just couple of comments,



> I squashed a spider on a table in a meeting yesterday and my colleagues gasped and said "but you're a vegetarian!"
> 
> 
> _Was your friend expecting you to eat it lollol_
> ...



Sat Sri Akal.peacesign


----------



## Ishna (May 16, 2011)

lollol


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 16, 2011)

Lol

Be happy while the bugs are still there and you will be happy when they leave.


----------



## spnadmin (May 16, 2011)

spnadmin note: This is an honest predicament for many people. I know people whose homes are invaded annually by lady bugs (little round red beetles with black spots). Their infestation can be so bad that entire walls of rooms are covered. Yet people hesitate to harm them and just wait for them to leave. They are part of the folk culture and are difficult to dislike. Their infestation is almost a moral dilemma.

Up to a point the teasing on the thread works. However, the question was serious. Do we want to discourage a new member by teetering on the brink of making fun? 

BTW I really liked Ishna's description of how she handles this predicament.


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 16, 2011)

> *LADYBUGS ON THE SPACE SHUTTLE*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ladybugs are an exception to squishing for me for sure.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 17, 2011)

Ishna ji,

Iâ€™m using your post only to express my own thoughts on this issue. Hope you donâ€™t mind.




> It depends if the bugs are dangerous, if they are swarming, if the are eating the wooden frame of your house, or if you can easily scoop it up and let it go.



And what about to the bugs, are we not dangerous given especially that we have the means to easily kill them and so much ignorance and attachment to drive us? But of course there are times when kindness and compassion arises and as in your example, we can scoop them up and let them go. 



> I will ignore some little bugs in my home. I attacked the swarm coming through a hole in my ceiling with half a can of bug spray (and paid for it by coughing up my lungs shortly after) and patched up the hole.



As far as Iâ€™m concerned, what you think you received is not the result of the particular immoral action. That will come in good time and can be either in the form of unpleasant experiences through the senses or rebirth in a lower realm of existence. The law that dictates this is however not for us to speculate about in terms of what, when and how.



> I will squash a poisonous spider in an instant, but I'll catch a big hairy harmless one and let it go outside.



I will likely kill when faced with a poisonous spider, but I would also accept that I will experience the results of the action some time down the road. More importantly though, I also know that in doing this, I am adding to the accumulated tendency to the same, such that one day I will kill even if the spider wasnâ€™t a poisonous one. And if I have moral restraint as in sweeping it out of the room or catching it in a jar, I know that this will result in some pleasant experience and add to the accumulated tendency to the same.



> I squashed a spider on a table in a meeting yesterday and my colleagues gasped and said "but you're a vegetarian!" They had no trouble with me using a mouse trap on the mouse in the kitchen however (I've since been traumatised by the poor mouse in the mouse trap so I've purchased humane "catch and release" ones instead).



Once we caught a small rat using one of those glue traps, I felt nothing, but like you, my wife was affected and didnâ€™t want me to do the same again. I tried other ways and it hasnâ€™t worked, and now I have a big problem with rats of all sizes in the false ceiling both downstairs and up. On top of this, the false ceiling of the â€˜prayer roomâ€™ has also become home to a great many pigeons and these make a lot of noise. 

I have very little compassion for any of these creatures, and I do not kill them mostly because I think about what will happen to dear â€˜meâ€™. This shows the strength of attachment to self, which I must accept. Sometimes Iâ€™m motivated by kindness which prevents me from hiring some pest controller to get rid of these creatures and I can only hope to be able to bear with the situation long enough.




> Oh and a massive grasshopper came into the first floor of my office building the last week -- a Christian colleage said "kill it! anything less than a human is fit to be killed" which upset me. But not to worry, I caught it under a plastic bowl and let it go outside.



Imagine you were motivated by the kind of belief / understanding your Christian colleague had. This is actually an example of why â€œwrong understandingâ€ is considered the worst of evils.



> It's probably busy eating through some crops with its cousins now... *snicker *



Iâ€™m happy for you more than the grasshopper. It wasnâ€™t involved in any moral good, but you were. ;-)


----------



## Seeker9 (May 17, 2011)

We all kill bugs all the time...who permanently looks down at their feet when walking?

What about bacteria?

Personally I have a low tolerance for bugs ... if I can pick up a spider and chuck it out the window, I will. If however it's a really annoying bluebottle buzzing around then  I will take a swipe at it

Yes it could be argued there may be Karmic consequences...but in the grand scheme of things...what are the more significant things you do in your life that also have Karmic consequences?

I think a sense of proportion is very important here

Back to spiders...I remember once I did my good deed and caught a spider and put it out the window...I watched it crawl away to freedom...only to be slaughtered seconds later by an even bigger spider...........

The wonders of nature!


----------



## Navdeep88 (May 17, 2011)

GurjitJ Ji,

I usually take a tissue, pick up the bug without trying to hurt it and put it outside. Its not too much of an inconvenience. Plus, maybe the spiders just making its journey thru the 84 lakh, God knows? If you kill it you'll have to clean it up and throw it away anyway, right? Plus you'll have marks all over the place. 

But it seems like you took time out of your day and asked the question because something presented itself as off putting about killing bugs. If it makes you feel bad after killing bugs, dont kill them. Release them.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (May 17, 2011)

For 50 years my best friend was a Jain who cried when I swatted a mosquito.  I tried not to do such things in front of her, but the darned thing wanted my blood!  Literally.

She did make me very aware, however, that bugs are living beings and I shouldn't kill them without a good reason.

Non poisonous spiders are welcome in our home.  They kill noxious insects - especially mosquitoes.  Some people are aghast that we leave spider webs in corners in our house, but no one complains about the absence of bugs and mosquitoes.

I have never been faced with the necessity of killing mammal or bird.  There is some mercy in this world.  Come to think of it, I did once kill a mammal without hesitation or guilt.  The fool had just murdered my son.  We do the needful.

I would say that wanton killing of anything - including plants - is wrong, but for reasons of hygiene or safety, that is a form of self-defence and there's nothing wrong with it - unless it bothers your individual conscience.  I am a vegetarian, but I would not hesitate - I hope - to kill and eat an animal if there were no other food available.  Sweet deer, if one of us has to go, it's you. 

As for my Jain friend, Lilly, she died of bacterial pneumonia because she refused antibiotics.  Not really, but it would make a great ending, wouldn't it?  She did once get pneumonia and nearly died because she refused antibiotics, though.  In actual fact, she died a couple years ago of cancer.  I miss her kind, gentle ways.  I learned a lot from her.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 18, 2011)

Seeker9 ji,




> We all kill bugs all the time...who permanently looks down at their feet when walking?



And that would be what the Jains do, isnâ€™t it? This is because they misunderstanding what â€˜killingâ€™ really is. There must be these five conditions for an act to be considered killing, these are:

1.	The object must be a living being.
2.	Knowing that it is a living being. 
3.	The intention to kill.
4.	An effort is made to kill.
5.	The being must be killed as a result.

It is good that they have some sense about the wrongness of causing death to another being. However it appears that not only do they not know that â€˜intentionâ€™ is the main factor, but also the idea of â€˜harmlessnessâ€™ has been proliferated upon to the point of leading them to engage in the perverted practice that they do. 

When you walk, you walk with an intention to get somewhere. If you know that you pass an area where there are so many insects that once you put your feet down, the probability is very high that some of them will be killed, then take another road. However, to think that this is going to be the case no matter where you go, this is your own misunderstanding and fear. Besides, most insects have adapted to their locality, such that most of them will not even get crushed when we step on them.

Besides when you do walk in an area where insects may be crossing your path, chances are that you will notice them and thereby avoid stepping on them.



> What about bacteria?



Like plant and plant cells, they have no consciousness, and therefore they are not living (sentient) beings.



> Personally I have a low tolerance for bugs ... if I can pick up a spider and chuck it out the window, I will. If however it's a really annoying bluebottle buzzing around then I will take a swipe at it
> 
> 
> Yes it could be argued there may be Karmic consequences...but in the grand scheme of things...what are the more significant things you do in your life that also have Karmic consequences?



 Are you thinking in terms of balancing the scales or something? If killing, lying, stealing, back biting, illicit sex, gossip, maliciousness, ill-will and so on are evil courses of conduct, why not face the fact? Citing â€˜the grand scheme of thingsâ€™ sounds almost like an excuse to avoid giving these their due consideration. And if you must point to the fact that some things canâ€™t be avoided, why not refer to karma; after all if a being is hurt or dies, karma is the cause for this? 

Indeed directly related to such an understanding about karma is kindness and compassion. 
Kindness is what all beings deserve; since we desire it as well. When they are suffering, we can have compassion towards them. But this is possible only if they are the object of our kindness as well, otherwise we only have pity, which in reality is a form of aversion. When nothing can be done to help them, understanding can lead us to reflect on the fact that all beings are heirs to their karma. Such understanding leads to detachment, but not without kindness, since even here it is an essential component. So we can see that there is a relationship between the different kinds of good and why each one of them should be encouraged.

On the other hand what is this appeal to the â€˜the grand scheme of thingsâ€™? I remember that when I was young, I too used to think in such terms, but in looking back this is what I now perceive:

There was no kindness involved, not to speak of compassion and understanding.
There was a sense of playing the role of a judge and this must have made me feel quite good.
There was no detachment, but cold indifference.

And what really was this whole idea about anyway? What all was taken into consideration before I arrived at the conclusion? Did I even perceive living beings as living beings or were they just one of the many objects with a label attached? Did I think that like me, all beings crave happiness and desire continued existence? And if my own life or that of some loved one was threatened, would I have referred to this idea about â€˜the grand scheme of thingsâ€™? Did I think in terms of what is morally right and wrong? Did I have a clue about the Truth at all? 
Absolutely not!

Today I use such a concept to explain away the fact that Iâ€™ve just killed some insect. Tomorrow I may use it as an excuse to kill, and not only insects, but also other animals and human beings as well. This latter may come under the guise of such ideas as â€˜the will of Allahâ€™ or â€˜social justiceâ€™. So we need to be very careful not to overlook even a small evil, and using some theory to explain away a wrong deed done. 



> I think a sense of proportion is very important here



Sounds like a dangerous idea to meâ€¦..



> Back to spiders...I remember once I did my good deed and caught a spider and put it out the window...I watched it crawl away to freedom...only to be slaughtered seconds later by an even bigger spider...........
> 
> The wonders of nature!



You did good (your part, if you like). It is easy for evil deeds to happen, given the accumulated tendency. Good requires effort and sometimes more than what we otherwise are willing to make.


----------



## Seeker9 (May 18, 2011)

Dear Confused Ji

Thanks for your reply

Re your first point about intent, yes I agree. If killing is technically the wrong word, my point was that we, regardless of direct intent or otherwise, are the cause of death of other forms of life on this planet

Re balance and grand scheme of things, I stand by my point. I appreciate what you are saying as well though about kindness and compassion. For my part, there are a number of things going on in my life and numerous interactions with other people. I place greater emphasis on those interactions

Perhaps it is easier for me to do so because those are with people and not bugs
But, kindness is kindness, compassion is compassion, why pick and choose?
Perhaps this is a weakness on my part in terms of how I relate to the world

You may choose to disagree but that's fine...we're allowed to do that here!

Thanks again


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 18, 2011)

What about "Software" bugs ?? Can we kill those and still remain vegetarian ?? Microsoft Windows has the most annoying bugs..trojan horses..and viruses...what to do when they strike ?? Anyway our "inside" is a Virtual Factory of bacteria viruses whatever...an entire ECOSYSTEM in our GUT. The Buffalo is an even bigger warehouse/Factory...it has no digestive juices etc...all its food is digested via bacteria in its seven stomachs...a walking Eco system that produces MILK enabling many among us to be vegetarians...
Actually MAN has become very greedy...a farmer plants just 7 KG seed and REAPS back 250 quintals ( 250 bags of 100 KG each)....and acheves that by KILLING all bugs and depriving them of their SHARE...birds of their share......????welcomekaur


----------



## Ishna (May 18, 2011)

I'm not sure about the statement that plants and bacteria don't count because they're not sentient.  Who says they're not sentient?  I see the willful destruction of plants for no good reason almost as bad as the willful destruction of bugs for no good reason (please hop over the ants in your path, after all, they clean up a lot of our rubbish!).  I dislike receiving flowers as gifts -- I would rather the plant that put in the effort to generate the flower to begin with gets to keep it.  It is selfish to want to take it away for oneself, I think.

We kill microbes and bacteria with every breath.  That is part of life -- can't help that.  That is hukam.

My mouse trap story is horrible... happened a couple of weeks ago and I cried like a baby when I got home to my husband.  When everyone else in the office was squealing like girls and complaining they saw a mouse, I was the only one to step up and set the trap.  What I expected was for poor little mouse to eat the peanut butter and BAM, dead mouse.  Instead, the mouse was HUGE and merely got it's head trapped in the trap... when I saw it I took it outside quickly and tried to let it go but it was badly injured and just flopped around on the ground.  I wished so badly for an axe or something to kill it with.  Like I said to the receptionist when I walked back in, "I only wanted to kill it quickly, not torture it to death."  I still feel aweful about that.  I think torturing something to death is worth more karma demerits than killing something in one swift blow.

I've killed lots of feral fish that way... near where I live we have a major river... it's infested with a foreign fish called carp.  Our state law says if you catch one you have to destroy it -- you can't put it back in the water.  And many years ago, in my Pagan days, I went camping with my buddies by the river and the aim of the game was to catch as many carp as you can.  I was really good at lining them up on the dirt and chopping their heads off with one blow of the tomahawk.  But what else can you do?  Leave a pest fish to destroy an entire ecosystem?  Are you not getting more karma demerits by allowing greater destruction?

Also, do you GET karma points for killing something in pain?  I took one of my pet rats to the vet last year because she had a giant tumour on her leg and it burst and started to bleed non-stop.  If someone ELSE had trapped the mouse at work, and I was able to kill it in it's injured state, would that be good karma points to the Ishna-saurus?

But that's on a bit bigger scale than bugs.  I like Confused summary about intention to kill.  I'll be quiet now.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 18, 2011)

when you split hairs..what do you get...split ends !! Gurmatt has no time for hair splitting..folks..get on with it...I mean Naam japping..KIRT Karring..and Waand Chhakking....most of us Today..DONT WAAND CHHAK..we CHHAK then "Wand" meaning we OVER STUFF our already overstuffed bulging bellies....and throw out surplus "food" into garbage bins /or beggars bowls..BAD Karma !!
HE CREATES..HE DESTROYS....we neither create ( although we do imagine we do after a night out and waiting period of 9 months !!)..and nor do we destroy (although we do feel that way when we attend a funeral )..its in HIS HUKM.period.


----------



## Adi Nanaki (May 18, 2011)

Beneficent bugs, like spiders and beetles, I cover in a little cup and place outside. Flies, I make the room dark and leave open a door to the light outside. If I feel compelled to kill a bug, like a black widow, I chant the mantra "Akal" a few times, which liberates its soul to a higher incarnation. I do not chant Akal for {censored}roaches, since learning they were once false spiritual teachers and thus earned being a {censored}roach.


----------



## Ishna (May 18, 2011)

So when there is a nuclear holocaust, the only living critters on earth will be false spiritual teachers, teehee.


----------



## spnadmin (May 18, 2011)

Adi Nanaki ji

Would you let me know how you learned that {censored}roaches were failed spiritual teachers in another life. I have read this but can't recollect where. You could either post here or send me  a private message if you prefer.  Thanks.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 19, 2011)

GurjitJ said:


> If our house has bugs in it, are we allowed to kill them or put them outside or just leave them be?


 
We are Sikhs not Jains, and we really should not concern ourselves with such triviality.

If you are really confused, Jhatka them!!


----------



## Randip Singh (May 19, 2011)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> For 50 years my best friend was a Jain who cried when I swatted a mosquito. I tried not to do such things in front of her, but the darned thing wanted my blood! Literally.
> 
> She did make me very aware, however, that bugs are living beings and I shouldn't kill them without a good reason.
> 
> ...


 
Shame about you friend dieing, but that Mosquito you killed maybe it could have spread Malaria to you and maybe another Human being?

No one knows. You did the just thing in that given situation, and I have to say I cannot reconcile myself with the Jain world view. They seem to place every form of life on this planet on the same plane as human life.

Bani is very specific in that it ONLY refers to Human life as precious. Not that we go around wantenly killing everything....but we take a perspective and keep things in balance.

With anything in Sikhism it is about your own conscience. I for example will kill flies and Mosquitos on the spot...dirty filthy creatures. Weras Ladybirds (Ladybugs), and Honeybee's I will never kill. The later are useful in killing aphids and pro-ducing Honey.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 19, 2011)

Ishna ji,




> I'm not sure about the statement that plants and bacteria don't count because they're not sentient. Who says they're not sentient?



You may want to consider the following.
To be sentient is to have consciousness. With consciousness there must be perception / memory, feeling, volition, attention, thinking, and sometimes greed, hatred, ignorance, moral shame, generosity, wisdom, kindness, envy, miserliness, faith etc. I see the manifestations of some of these characteristics in fishes, lizards, flies, man, dogs, {censored}roaches and many other things. I can see even maggots deliberately moving in some chosen direction or crawl to get food just as I can move away from the sun and try to find something cool to drink. 

Bacteria behave more like chemicals in chemical reactions, same with plants, as in a sunflower automatically moving to face the sun. I had mentioned plant cells, but also animal cells are *not* sentient. Unlike plant cells which are conditioned only by the element of heat, animals cells while still in the body, may be conditioned by nutritive essence and also karma and consciousness. However even this is all just â€œphysical realitiesâ€ and nothing to do with sentience.




> I was really good at lining them up on the dirt and chopping their heads off with one blow of the tomahawk. But what else can you do? Leave a pest fish to destroy an entire ecosystem? Are you not getting more karma demerits by allowing greater destruction?



With growing confidence in good, you know what needs to be done. You will not lie, steal or kill no matter what. The good and wise way in dealing with a situation will not involve any evil deed. We proliferate into thoughts and ideas which have nothing to do with the reality of the moment or any idea about good, but they appear to be so and we then feel justified in doing what we do. But know that this is exactly because ignorance and attachment is doing all the talking.

No one is allowing greater destruction by letting a pest fish go. Freeing a fish is freeing a fish; it is an act of kindness. If you find yourself in a situation like the one you described, there are other ways to deal with it which no doubt requires much effort. If nothing can be done, donâ€™t involve yourself in the kind of activity. You donâ€™t know what happens tomorrow and to whom, but killing is what you are doing now, and this canâ€™t be good. Your fear with regard to what might happen to the environment is just that, fear. 

Every living being, their happiness and unhappiness is dependent on their own karma. Let us not try to play the part of â€˜world managersâ€™, conceiving what has happened in the past, what is going on in the present and what might happen in the future, and be lead to actions that are clearly not beneficial in terms of the only relevant cause and effect law, namely good leads to good results and bad to bad results.




> Also, do you GET karma points for killing something in pain? I took one of my pet rats to the vet last year because she had a giant tumour on her leg and it burst and started to bleed non-stop. If someone ELSE had trapped the mouse at work, and I was able to kill it in it's injured state, would that be good karma points to the Ishna-saurus?



;-)
As human beings with the ability to think and plan as we do, we can wish our own death when faced with pain and hardship. This is craving for non-existence which is actually a species of the craving for existence. Animals donâ€™t think like us so they only have craving for existence. No animal wishes to die no matter how much it is suffering. Besides again it is karma which decides what happens from moment to moment. The animal may not heal from a fatal wound, but who knows it may suddenly go on without feeling much pain and die peacefullyâ€¦.




> But that's on a bit bigger scale than bugs. I like Confused summary about intention to kill. I'll be quiet now.



Thanks for letting me know, Iâ€™d hate it if nothing what I said was useful.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 19, 2011)

Seeker9 ji,




> You may choose to disagree but that's fine...we're allowed to do that here!



Yes, and I would like to express myself a little more even though you may not agree with me. 




> Re your first point about intent, yes I agree. If killing is technically the wrong word, my point was that we, regardless of direct intent or otherwise, are the cause of death of other forms of life on this planet
> 
> Re balance and grand scheme of things, I stand by my point. I appreciate what you are saying as well though about kindness and compassion. For my part, there are a number of things going on in my life and numerous interactions with other people. I place greater emphasis on those interactions



But it does in fact happen one moment at a time does it not? 
My mention of kindness and compassion was made in context of the understanding about karma and it was this I wanted to highlight. I wrote also that pain and death is caused by oneâ€™s own karma. If I killed you, â€˜Iâ€™ am not the cause of your death. I will reap the fruits of my own actions which may include being killed prematurely many, many times in future existences. However, the actual cause of your own death would be your own past deeds. This is the only real law of cause and effect existing here.

We know of people surviving murder attempts and we heard about those receiving the bullet intended for someone else. In the conventional world, including where the law has needs to be exercised, we say, such person killed such a person, or he drove the car and killed him, or the tsunami killed 20,000 people. But we can also say, that â€œthings happenâ€, and with understanding see each and every phenomena that lead to the particular situation as involving a series of cause and effect, one in accordance with the way things truly are.

This is important because we are here talking about morality in order to understand what it really is and not just having a casual conversation. And the only way that this can be achieved is to focus on one reality at a time and not get caught up in some global idea about situations. To go by the latter is to risk moving further away from the possibility of the former ever happening. And we then end up going by ideals with no application of those ideals when the moment demands it. It gets worse when we then have to cover up our failures with yet more ideals. In the end it all becomes a game that we play with ourselves. We continue to tell ourselves that we are concerned about other people, but the truth is that it was about me, mine and I all the way through.

On the other hand if we take into consideration one moment at a time, it becomes obvious that good is good and should be encouraged and evil is evil and to be avoided. This way we do not have to talk ourselves into taking sides with anyone and build a situation in order to justify our preferences. This is not easy of course, since it canâ€™t be made to happen by sheer force of will. And it is not about replacing one set of ideals with a new one. It depends on the development of understanding which happens very, very gradually, such that faith and confidence in good grows while at the same time seeing the harm in its opposite, namely evil. This latter includes the attachments that we have to family and friends for whose happiness we are ready to â€œfightâ€ or even kill, but in the end it all comes down to the pleasant feelings that we derive from thinking about them.




> Perhaps it is easier for me to do so because those are with people and not bugs
> But, kindness is kindness, compassion is compassion, why pick and choose?
> Perhaps this is a weakness on my part in terms of how I relate to the world



Perhaps it is not about choosing to be kind to one and not to the other; it could be that the tendency to kindness exists but no real understanding of what it really is. It is in seeing the value of kindness that kindness arises regardless of whom and to what. The perception of other beings acts more as a reminder to develop the particular quality which one knows to be of value. Along with this is seeing harm in its opposite, namely ill-will, and this acts as a further motivation. Indeed one has to be wary of the near-enemy of kindness which is what we usually have towards those who are near and dear, and this is selfish-affection. Of the two, this latter is the more dangerous, since it comes across as good.


----------



## Adi Nanaki (May 19, 2011)

Yes, Yogi Bhajan, also known as the Siri Singh Sahib, referred to {censored}roaches this way many times over the years.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 19, 2011)

Adi Nanaki said:


> Yes, Yogi Bhajan, also known as the Siri Singh Sahib, referred to {censored}roaches this way many times over the years.



If he said eradicate them to help prevent disease being spread to humans, then I agree with him.peacesign

If he said leave them alone,then I do not.:motherlylove:


----------



## spnadmin (May 19, 2011)

Randip ji

Later I found a transcribed lecture by Yogi Bhajan on the net. In the back of my mind it seemed he had said something about {censored}roaches...but I could not be sure. There have been many times when parts of his lectures have simply cracked me up. Though I disagree with much of his thinking these are the times when his humor simply throws a lasso around a truth. Then I am helpless with laughter. This was a good one. It answers your question. 



> It's not within my power to change the environments and the circumstances. It is not within my power to tell a donkey to become a {censored}roach. But it is the hand of the power that when a teacher misses the style of the life bestowed on him, the path of being teacher, the next life for him is a {censored}roach. That I know. There's no bigger ego and insanity, and logic and reason, than a spiritual ego. A man with spiritual ego will put all the logic and reason to justify that which he already knows consciously is wrong. ....



I do not personally believe in transmigration of souls. It still cracks me up.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 19, 2011)

Ishna said:


> I'm not sure about the statement that plants and bacteria don't count because they're not sentient.  Who says they're not sentient?  I see the willful destruction of plants for no good reason almost as bad as the willful destruction of bugs for no good reason (please hop over the ants in your path, after all, they clean up a lot of our rubbish!).  I dislike receiving flowers as gifts -- I would rather the plant that put in the effort to generate the flower to begin with gets to keep it.  It is selfish to want to take it away for oneself, I think.
> 
> We kill microbes and bacteria with every breath.  That is part of life -- can't help that.  That is hukam.
> 
> ...



Ishna ji, with all due respect I do not understand this notion of Karma you are talking about.

In Sikhism our Guru's and other figures killed human beings. Surely in terms of Karma they would be condemened forever?

Also According to Bani, it places Mineral, Animal, Plants at the same level, so where has this hierarchy come from? Only Humans are seen as different:

Taken from Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh:



> Life  goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming  human. In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form,  then animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form  spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however,  spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth.
> 
> On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written:
> 
> ...


----------



## Adi Nanaki (May 19, 2011)

What he said is, it is okay to kill them, but unlike other creatures, if you do, not to chant Akal, for this will give them a human birth. It may be helpful to consider that all creatures have human souls. We work out karmas, and give blessings through many roles of our souls.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 19, 2011)

Adi Nanaki said:


> What he said is, it is okay to kill them, but unlike other creatures, if you do, not to chant Akal, for this will give them a human birth. It may be helpful to consider that all creatures have human souls. We work out karmas, and give blessings through many roles of our souls.




What?

Creatures have the same level of existence as a human being? Are you kidding me right?

I am sorry, I have never encountered anything like this in Sikhism.

On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written: 

_ga-orhee gu-aarayree mehlaa 5._
_ka-ee janam bha-ay keet patangaa._
_ka-ee janam gaj meen kurangaa._
_ka-ee janam pankhee sarap ho-i-o._
_ka-ee janam haivar barikh jo-i-o._
_mil jagdees milan kee baree-aa_. _chirankaal ih dayh sanjaree-aa._ rahaa-o. 
_ka-ee janam sail gir kari-aa._
_ka-ee janam garabh hir khari-aa._
_ka-ee janam saakh kar upaa-i-aa._
_lakh cha-oraaseeh jon bharmaa-i-aa._
_saaDhsang bha-i-o janam paraapat._
_kar sayvaa bhaj har har gurmat._
_ti-aag maan jhooth abhimaan._
_jeevat mareh dargeh parvaan._
_avar na doojaa karnai jog._
_taa milee-ai jaa laihi milaa-ay._
_kaho naanak har har gun gaa-ay._

_Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehl_: 
_In so many incarnations, you were a worm and an insect;_
_in so many incarnations, you were an elephant, a fish and a deer._
_In so many incarnations, you were a bird and a snake._
_In so many incarnations, you were yoked as an ox and a horse._
_Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him_.
_After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you._ Pause 
_In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;_
_in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;_
_in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;_
_you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations._
_Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life._
_Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har._
_Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance._
_Remain dead while yet alive, and you shall be welcomed in the Court of the Lord._
_Whatever has been, and whatever shall be, comes from You, Lord._
_No one else can do anything at all._
_We are united with You, when You unite us with Yourself._
_Says Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, Har, Har._
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji


----------



## Adi Nanaki (May 19, 2011)

Its funny, you read Guru's words and find disagreement with me. I read Guru's words and find he concurs with what I wrote--that YOU, a human soul, also incarnate as animals.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (May 19, 2011)

Randip Singh said:


> Shame about you friend dieing, but that Mosquito you killed maybe it could have spread Malaria to you and maybe another Human being?
> 
> No one knows. You did the just thing in that given situation, and I have to say I cannot reconcile myself with the Jain world view. They seem to place every form of life on this planet on the same plane as human life.
> 
> ...




An aside.  We don't have malaria here, so that wasn't an issue.  However, I am very allergic to mosquito bites and 3 or 4 bites would be me in hospital.

Lilly and I had a 50 year "discussion" about our respective religions.  She though I was just slightly barbaric and I thought she was downright silly.  Still, we had a lot in common, most obviously, backbones of steel about our ways of life.  I do respect all life, partly as a result of her influence, partly from my Dad and partly from my own inclination.  

I kill when necessary, "necessary" as defined by me.  I kill mosquitoes and {censored}roaches without a single qualm, I prefer to shoo flies outside, and kill them if they get annoying.  Bees are a special case;  they need our protection as a necessary part of our agriculture.  Wasps are noxious and deserve whatever they get.  

As I said I am a vegetarian, but I wouldn't hesitate to eat meat if it were a matter of health or survival.  I'm a Sikh. not a Jain.  

Actually, Lilly's death was very Jain.  When she realised she was terminal, she retired to their cabin in the woods and simply stopped eating.  I admit I do not understand, but I must respect her right to make her own decision.  I was with her when she died.  She died as she had lived, quietly, serenely.  

She taught me to learn and to love while still disagreeing.  A very valuable lesson.


----------



## Seeker9 (May 19, 2011)

Dear Confused Ji

Thanks for elaborating further

I would like to offer some observations in reply:



> I wrote also that pain and death is caused by oneâ€™s own karma. If I killed you, â€˜Iâ€™ am not the cause of your death. I will reap the fruits of my own actions which may include being killed prematurely many, many times in future existences. However, the actual cause of your own death would be your own past deeds. This is the only real law of cause and effect existing here.



I really don't know much about the workings of Karma but would hypothesise that in the unfortunate circumstance you were to put a double-barrel shot gun to my forehead and shoot, the chances of my survival would be slim indeed. This is on the basis of physiology and not Karma. I would 
therefore suggest that Karma could account for you being in that position in the first place, perhaps as repayment of a karmic debt whereby I had done you a grave injustice in a former life. Just another interpretation...




> the tsunami killed 20,000 people.


I am focussing on this in particular as I have never been able to understand the concept of collective Karma. I would appreciate your views on this



> We continue to tell ourselves that we are concerned about other people, but the truth is that it was about me, mine and I all the way through.



That is one way of interpreting it. I would say I consult a moral compass and try and do what I think is right so I can be content that I did the right thing. Which is similar to what you said but without the implication of being conceited I think...




> Perhaps it is not about choosing to be kind to one and not to the other; it could be that the tendency to kindness exists but no real understanding of what it really is.



One's upbringing and education will impact on their individual moral compass ....




> It is in seeing the value of kindness that kindness arises regardless of whom and to what. The perception of other beings acts more as a reminder to develop the particular quality which one knows to be of value. Along with this is seeing harm in its opposite, namely ill-will, and this acts as a further motivation.



Okay, fair enough




> Indeed one has to be wary of the near-enemy of kindness which is what we usually have towards those who are near and dear, and this is selfish-affection. Of the two, this latter is the more dangerous, since it comes across as good



Please elaborate as I do not understand this bit

Thanks


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 19, 2011)

Doesnt the guru say.."jeeaan ka ahaar jee..........what scientists refer to as the food chain..........and also "is dhartee mehn teri sikdaree.....what the scientists say as ...human supreme head of the food chain. Man is at the top of the food chain....he can eat any and all other jees down the line and does.


----------



## Ishna (May 19, 2011)

Randip Singh ji, I was going with the notion of karma described by Confused as part of my discussion with them.  I don't know much about karma, myself.  I don't get into the mystical stuff too much -- I'm too much of a skeptic.  I prefer logic and garden-variety good deeds.  Whatever else happens is not up to me, I figure.

Confused ji, thanks for taking the time to respond.  I can't give a good reply right now, except to say that, in the case of the river and the pest fish, the fish was introduced by humans 100-odd years ago so they could eat it.  It is decimating the ecosystem of the river, making it impossible for the native fish to breed and survive.  Personally, I think non-action is as detrimental to the soul as killing innocent critters.  I'm not sure I agree with the idea regarding animals and death.  They might only be able to conceive that they are in pain and they want to survive, but the human is able to conceive they are in pain and are going to die anyway so why not spare them further pain?  That is called mercy and I value mercy very highly, personally.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (May 19, 2011)

Perhaps this is a good time to get a slightly different perspective on things. 

This is not original, unfortunately.  It is my remake of my favourite cartoon.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 20, 2011)

Adi Nanaki said:


> Its funny, you read Guru's words and find disagreement with me. I read Guru's words and find he concurs with what I wrote--that YOU, a human soul, also incarnate as animals.



Please explain what you mean then in relation to this? No point making a statem,ent without an explanation.



> Life   goes through many incarnations (up to 84 million) before becoming   human. In other words, life takes the form of incarnation in plant form,   then animal, and then human. The idea being that animal form   spiritually is closer to man. Biologically this maybe true, however,   spiritually within Sikhism, this could not be further from the truth.
> 
> On page 176 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the following is written:
> 
> ...


----------



## Signey (May 20, 2011)

This question of the morality and consequences of killing bugs has been on my mind also.  As a rule, I am a live and let live kind of person.  I have always protected spiders and other small beings from those who would want to harm them.  My family knows this and we have jars with covers at hand in the summer when there are so many more of these ones in our home.  I would even catch every mosquito that flew in and let it out the door.  Then I would pray that it would quickly become an enlightened being in a future life.  I did this for a number of years but then I became sick and I just wasn't able to chase down mosquitoes anymore.  I don't feel comfortable allowing them to bite me so I started swatting at the ones that were trying to bite me.  This was and is so difficult for me because they also belong to God.  I do still catch them and let them go when I can manage it, but as "evolved beings" go, I'm not even close.  I am fortunate that I live in Alaska where the mosquitoes (at this time) do not carry any diseases.  I can't even imagine how this is handled in areas where a mosquito bite can mean serious illness or even death.  I hope that I can do a seva for these small ones I do kill sometime in the future because it hurts me to hurt them.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 21, 2011)

Signey said:


> This question of the morality and consequences of killing bugs has been on my mind also.  As a rule, I am a live and let live kind of person.  I have always protected spiders and other small beings from those who would want to harm them.  My family knows this and we have jars with covers at hand in the summer when there are so many more of these ones in our home.  I would even catch every mosquito that flew in and let it out the door.  Then I would pray that it would quickly become an enlightened being in a future life.  I did this for a number of years but then I became sick and I just wasn't able to chase down mosquitoes anymore.  I don't feel comfortable allowing them to bite me so I started swatting at the ones that were trying to bite me.  This was and is so difficult for me because they also belong to God.  I do still catch them and let them go when I can manage it, but as "evolved beings" go, I'm not even close.  I am fortunate that I live in Alaska where the mosquitoes (at this time) do not carry any diseases.  I can't even imagine how this is handled in areas where a mosquito bite can mean serious illness or even death.  I hope that I can do a seva for these small ones I do kill sometime in the future because it hurts me to hurt them.



The Sikh view on Bugs is very simple.

It's not about Karma....because if we start going down that route we start going down the realms of the caste system.

It's not about insects having human souls.

It's not about guilt.

It's about at any given moment doing the Just thing. For the Mosquito, it is doing what it is programmed to do. It tries to bite you or enter your protective space and you kill it, it is of no consequence to a Sikh.

Sikhi places animals, minerals and plants all on the same level and humans on one level above. We think nothing of destroying bacteria and killing plants yet we seem to have this dilema over insects and animals.

People need to start studing Sikhism instead of mixing it up with Jainism and Hinduism and other faiths.gingerteakaur


----------



## Signey (May 21, 2011)

Randip Singh said:


> The Sikh view on Bugs is very simple.
> 
> It's not about Karma....because if we start going down that route we start going down the realms of the caste system.
> 
> ...



Dear RandipJi,
Thank you for replying to my post.  I know that I am a product of too many Paths.  I have studied so many religions at this point that they all seem to run into each other.  That is truly the problem.  I've studied religion to the point of weariness.  Spiritual weariness.  If I am to be a Sikh then I do need to study this more closely as I am ignorant.  
Thank you again Randip SinghJi


----------



## Randip Singh (May 22, 2011)

Signey said:


> Dear RandipJi,
> Thank you for replying to my post.  I know that I am a product of too many Paths.  I have studied so many religions at this point that they all seem to run into each other.  That is truly the problem.  I've studied religion to the point of weariness.  Spiritual weariness.  If I am to be a Sikh then I do need to study this more closely as I am ignorant.
> Thank you again Randip SinghJi



My dear Signey, I hope you find what you are looking for.

If it is of any consequence, after 20 years of studying Sikhism only in the last 3 to 4 years have I realised that Sikh concepts are radically different from those of Hinduiam and other faiths.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 22, 2011)

Seeker9 ji,




> I would like to offer some observations in reply:
> 
> Quote: I wrote also that pain and death is caused by oneâ€™s own karma. If I killed you, â€˜Iâ€™ am not the cause of your death. I will reap the fruits of my own actions which may include being killed prematurely many, many times in future existences. However, the actual cause of your own death would be your own past deeds. This is the only real law of cause and effect existing here.
> 
> ...



I would think so too. It is highly unlikely that anyone would survive being shot by a double-barrel gun on the head. 

The workings of karma is considered one of the unthinkables and can drive us to madness if we try to figure out how it works and which action a particular experience must have been a result of. However we *can* develop an understanding with regard to the different kinds of experiences, beginning with distinguishing ones that are of the nature of result from those of the nature of cause. Death canâ€™t be known directly in the same way that other kinds of mental phenomena which arise in a day can. However, based on the understanding of experiences in general, we can understand that it must be a mental reality and is resultant.     

My killing you, as I said, is only a conventional idea. In reality, it is the intention rooted in strong aversion which caused me to pull the trigger; and this is actually karma which will bring its appropriate results. Having pulled the trigger, no one can say if youâ€™d actually die, and at which instance. You may be critically wounded and not die, or even if you did, the gap between the moment that the bullet hit your brain and the actual death-consciousness arising, there must be countless instances of consciousness of both the nature of cause and that of result. 

As humans we are in a plane of existence where consciousness cannot arise without a physical base. We canâ€™t deny also, that the brain is a vital organ of the human body. If it is damaged, it causes many problems, and when enough, this body becomes unsustainable. This is within the realm of material phenomena, one which is related to a particular set of mental phenomena. We can therefore say that the physical is â€œsupport conditionâ€ for the mental phenomena. And these physical bases have other material realities as further support and somewhere there is the role of this concept we call â€˜brainâ€™. However, we should not mix these different phenomena together in a way that we then confuse causes / resultants with conditionality and come up with wrong ideas. 

If death is a mental phenomenon and is result of some cause in the past, we canâ€™t at the same time then say that the damage in the brain is the â€œcauseâ€ of the death? Again just to remind, we need to distinguish between conventional ideas about cause and effect from that which takes place at the level of ultimate reality. And in this case we can say that the conditions within this particular body for the arising of consciousness constituting â€œlifeâ€ ceases, which include experiences through all the senses as well as the mind, but this is not because of the damage in the brain, but because of death.  

This is probably not very convincing to you, since it requires a change of perspective at very basic levels of perception and thinking about oneâ€™s experiences.



> I would therefore suggest that Karma could account for you being in that position in the first place, perhaps as repayment of a karmic debt whereby I had done you a grave injustice in a former life. Just another interpretation...



Yes and no. Yes in the sense of my experiences must no doubt constitute moments of causes as well as those that are resultant. No, because my being in any particular place must include my having decided to get there and the efforts to do so, and although this is conditioned, it is not pre-determined. Actually, nothing is pre-determined, not even the results of karma. Theses arise by a complex set of conditions, and those that are from the past are only a part of it. 

And I wouldnâ€™t tie my present actions with yours in the past; otherwise there will be no end to this â€˜revenge-likeâ€™ phenomenon. My aversion could in a way be said to have simply found its object, in other words killing you was not because you killed me in the past, but because I have so much strong aversion and instead of you, it could have found an object in anyone else. Your receiving the result likewise, could have been via someone elseâ€™s action and not mine.



> Quote: the tsunami killed 20,000 people.
> 
> I am focussing on this in particular as I have never been able to understand the concept of collective Karma. I would appreciate your views on this



Of course you will not understand and why should you? This idea about â€˜collective karmaâ€™ can only be a case of misperception and wrong understanding.

Things happen, and in this case the tsunami. And just as in my explanation about the brain, we can understand that a great many people were deprived of the â€˜support conditionsâ€™ for the continuation of life. There is nothing predetermined about this and neither is it random and without cause. And it is the same had it been just one individual who died from the incident.  And in the end the phenomena is the same whether it is a tsunami, earthquake, car accident or slipping in the bathroom.

The falling back on the idea of â€˜collective karmaâ€™ is probably due to the individualâ€™s tendency to think in terms of determinism, if so, this is understandable if the only other option is belief in chaos and denial of causality. However there is also this idea about karma and that of conditionality that could be taken into consideration!...?



> Quote: We continue to tell ourselves that we are concerned about other people, but the truth is that it was about me, mine and I all the way through.
> 
> That is one way of interpreting it. I would say I consult a moral compass and try and do what I think is right so I can be content that I did the right thing. Which is similar to what you said but without the implication of being conceited I think...



The point Iâ€™m trying to make is that if genuine kindness was behind our dealings with other people and we did understand its value, then there should be no doubt as to what the right course of action is, when faced with the question about pests. Moral actions can arise due to accumulated habit; however we may need to also encourage more kindness which will then act as a stronger basis for more moral actions to arise. Better still, if there is direct understanding into the nature of moral restraint, since here the motivation would then be good for its own sake without a need to be convinced by any kind of reasoning.




> Quote: Perhaps it is not about choosing to be kind to one and not to the other; it could be that the tendency to kindness exists but no real understanding of what it really is.
> 
> Seeker9:
> One's upbringing and education will impact on their individual moral compass ....



But one can always do better and should do. We may need to be aware of the overwhelming ignorance that is still there and be motivated to understand better all our experiences. 



> Quote: It is in seeing the value of kindness that kindness arises regardless of whom and to what. The perception of other beings acts more as a reminder to develop the particular quality which one knows to be of value. Along with this is seeing harm in its opposite, namely ill-will, and this acts as a further motivation.
> 
> Seeker9:
> Okay, fair enough
> ...



The far enemy of kindness is cruelty and ill-will, whereas its near enemy is attachment or selfish-affection. The former is seen as undesirable even to those under the influence of the latter. However when attachment is what defines our relationship with family and friends, this comes across as a good thing. This is so especially when hatred has been judged as undesirable and seen as standing opposite to the attachment. While hatred is accompanied by unpleasant feelings, attachment, the same as kindness, is with neutral or pleasant feelings. This is what makes these two â€˜nearâ€™, although enemies. Also attachment has many forms and intensities and therefore quite easily appears as good to those of us who know only the grosser forms of it. Besides, aversion arises because we do not get what we are attached to or get what we do not like.  All these factors combine in making attachment then, much more dangerous than aversion or hatred.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 22, 2011)

Ishna ji,




> I was going with the notion of karma described by Confused as part of my discussion with them. I don't know much about karma, myself. I don't get into the mystical stuff too much -- I'm too much of a skeptic. I prefer logic and garden-variety good deeds. Whatever else happens is not up to me, I figure.



If you read the message to Seeker9 ji that Iâ€™ve just sent, you may now get a different impression about Karma. Actually you are closer to appreciating it than you realize, since in another message you have expressed appreciation about the role of â€˜intentionâ€™ in moral deeds. The reason I say this is because, intention or volition is that which performs the function of â€œwillingâ€ and this is exactly the reality of Karma. Intention to kill, intention to mislead, intention to steal and intention to hurt all are karma. Although it is only when the intensity is great enough and the action completed, that it gives rise to results in the future.

I am guessing that the reason you had reservations with regard to karma in the past is because of the way it has been presented to you. Of course it is not about believing or not believing, but I hope that what Iâ€™ve said will encourage you to investigate your experiences, including those â€˜garden-variety good deedsâ€™ with this new understanding about the concept. 



> Confused ji, thanks for taking the time to respond. I can't give a good reply right now, except to say that, in the case of the river and the pest fish, the fish was introduced by humans 100-odd years ago so they could eat it. It is decimating the ecosystem of the river, making it impossible for the native fish to breed and survive.



It does not matter Ishna ji. This and all such explanations come across more like justifications to act out the inherent aversion. You will probably disagree with me and even be put off by my sense of values, but let me state this. This whole concern about the ecosystem and the environment is â€˜worldlinessâ€™ to the max. It is fine that we have an interest in the particular field of study, but being influenced by the values set by others based on what has been judged as more appropriate for the environment etc., is to be taken in by man-made values set at a particular point in time. If we are not firm in our understanding about morality and other kinds of good, which are in fact universal and timeless, we are easily influenced then by the value system of the times. 

This is the path of ignorance which leads to much mischief. Ignorance is ignorant of the reality of the moment, in this case, not seeing the wrongness of killing a group of animals, while appealing to a set of values conceived of to justify an urge to a particular course of action.



> Personally, I think non-action is as detrimental to the soul as killing innocent critters.



You mean one must be proactive with regard to good deeds? What of restraint from killing, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct and so on? Are they not very positive actions that do not require being observed by other people? And what if they in fact arise at the very instance when you are killing for the sake of greater good? And what about wisdom, is this not the highest good? What if wisdom arose and saw the ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit, and wrong understanding involved in the whole activity of being proactive and trying to save humanity or whatever?

This is all a game we play Ishna ji. It is not enough that our aversion finds an object to act upon, but we feel the need to go on and make it all appear as a good thing. There is no end to the ignorance and there is no end to the number of objects on which our attachment will attach and the wrong understanding making it all appear as good and right.  

One flash of understanding I had a few years ago, is that all these teachings about morality and other kinds of good is not meant to be proliferated upon such that I then seek to apply them. It would be missing the point to go by a self-created situation in which some people are judged as good while others are bad, or even that some group of people out there are in need of my assistance, and then going out and trying to do good. This is actually ambition, only in this case is aimed at merit, but in fact canâ€™t be good at all.



> I'm not sure I agree with the idea regarding animals and death. They might only be able to conceive that they are in pain and they want to survive, but the human is able to conceive they are in pain and are going to die anyway so why not spare them further pain? That is called mercy and I value mercy very highly, personally.



So if someone wants to commit suicide, why not sympathize with him and believe his reasons and help by pushing him to his death quickly? But we shouldnâ€™t of course, and why?

The person who wants to die is reacting to the unpleasantness he is experiencing and is in fact craving for pleasant experiences. He imagines that things wonâ€™t get better, but the truth is that he canâ€™t really be certain, so at the back of his mind there will still be doubts. And of course he is totally ignorant about karma and its workings. He doesnâ€™t understand first of all, the harm in aversion and that his acting it out is going to result in some unpleasant experience no different from what he is experiencing now. And if he places himself in a position where someone else will have to do the dirty job for him, he is acting as a catalyst for the other personâ€™s wrong deed. What he doesnâ€™t know also, is that he *will* be reborn after his death and most likely in a lower realm, which then amounts to giving up this precious birth as a human being in exchange for one which is quite hopeless.  

I believe the problem is that those who think this way are motivated by a nihilistic outlook. This in itself is encouraging rejection of morality. A person may have other basis for good moral conduct, but if he allows himself to be influenced over and again by this kind of outlook, he will end up being very self-centred and immoral. And Iâ€™m sure youâ€™d not want that to happen.

If you canâ€™t yet believe in life beyond this one, at least you can see that this concept about karma makes this present life itself better both for you as well as those around you, right? If you agree, then I urge you, please donâ€™t dismiss it. Donâ€™t allow yourself to be influenced by arguments which have no basis in any kind of truth, but values set by individuals who have absolutely no wisdom.


----------



## Ishna (May 22, 2011)

Confused ji

Thank you again for taking the time to reply.  I am not so good with deep philosophical conversation but I'll try my best to reply.  I'm also aware of the thread topic and will try not to take the discussion further away from it.



Confused said:


> ...intention or volition is that which performs the function of â€œwillingâ€ and this is exactly the reality of Karma. Intention to kill, intention to mislead, intention to steal and intention to hurt all are karma. Although it is only when the intensity is great enough and the action completed, that it gives rise to results in the future.



Yes, I agree with your description.




Confused said:


> I am guessing that the reason you had reservations with regard to karma in the past is because of the way it has been presented to you. Of course it is not about believing or not believing, but I hope that what Iâ€™ve said will encourage you to investigate your experiences, including those â€˜garden-variety good deedsâ€™ with this new understanding about the concept.



My reservations about karma come from concurrance with your earlier statement to Seeker9 that we can drive ourselves mad thinking about the workings of karma.  Karma itself doesn't seem to feature prominently in Gurbani which is where I try to get my spiritual understanding from (slowly).  The impression I get from Gurbani is that karma is a mechanism which exists, but we should not preoccupy ourselves with it.  My understanding is that if we assimilate the spiritual wisdom, mental attitude and way of life taught by Gurbani and the example of our Gurus, we're on the right track.  Whatever happens, happens, and I try to accept that.



Confused said:


> It does not matter Ishna ji. This and all such explanations come across more like justifications to act out the inherent aversion. You will probably disagree with me and even be put off by my sense of values, but let me state this. This whole concern about the ecosystem and the environment is â€˜worldlinessâ€™ to the max. It is fine that we have an interest in the particular field of study, but being influenced by the values set by others based on what has been judged as more appropriate for the environment etc., is to be taken in by man-made values set at a particular point in time. If we are not firm in our understanding about morality and other kinds of good, which are in fact universal and timeless, we are easily influenced then by the value system of the times.
> 
> This is the path of ignorance which leads to much mischief. Ignorance is ignorant of the reality of the moment, in this case, not seeing the wrongness of killing a group of animals, while appealing to a set of values conceived of to justify an urge to a particular course of action.



The impression I get from my learning about Sikhi so far, is that we are not supposed to withdraw from the world.  We are to keep our attachment to the world in check.  We are in fact encouraged to engage with the world.  All of creation is an emanation of the Divine, why should we hold an aversion to it?  It will all pass away, and so we shouldn't become attached with it.

As humans with our perceived higher intelligence compared with other sentient life forms on our planet, and our opposable thumbs which enable us to use tools to interact with our planet in a more complex way than other critters, coupled with our sense of morals, most people will find a sense of responsibility for our environment.

I feel great aversion when people mess with the natural order of things, injecting their man-made ideas into naturalness.  For example, taking the horns off of elephants for the ivory and deforestation.  If us pesky humans would leave it all alone, it would run beautifully.  Humans come along, stick our greedly fingers in and everything falls out of balance.  So when I see that humans have messed with the natural order of a river by bringing in fish from another hemisphere, and the fish is causing widespread environmental damage, killing trees, other fish, polluting the waterway, I feel the correct thing to do is to remove the introduced pest.

If someone sticks an arrow into the side of a deer, and the deer is limping around in pain, is it not logical that the right thing to do is to remove the arrow and restore the deer to health?  I feel that should be the only consideration, not wondering "is this some expression of karma" or "what will happen to my karma if I remove the arrow?" or "I will generate good karma by removing the arrow, yay!".  You do what is right and good then and there.

Another example would be if there is a grasshopper in your office and your co-worker is about to kill it, do you sit by and allow it to happen, fully conscious that you could get up and preserve it's life with no problems?  By consciously choosing to stay on your chair and watch when you are fully capable of interceding, is that not wrong?  You could rationalise it by saying "my co-worker is interacting with karma, it's his problem not mine".  I would disagree.



Confused said:


> You mean one must be proactive with regard to good deeds? What of restraint from killing, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct and so on? Are they not very positive actions that do not require being observed by other people? And what if they in fact arise at the very instance when you are killing for the sake of greater good? And what about wisdom, is this not the highest good? What if wisdom arose and saw the ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit, and wrong understanding involved in the whole activity of being proactive and trying to save humanity or whatever?



I'm sorry but I don't understand this paragraph.  I will say it's not about saving humanity though.  Humanity will do it's own thing and does a good job of screwing itself and everything else up.  I'm only interested in trying to see the way to good and going for it for the sake of good.



Confused said:


> This is all a game we play Ishna ji. It is not enough that our aversion finds an object to act upon, but we feel the need to go on and make it all appear as a good thing. There is no end to the ignorance and there is no end to the number of objects on which our attachment will attach and the wrong understanding making it all appear as good and right.
> 
> One flash of understanding I had a few years ago, is that all these teachings about morality and other kinds of good is not meant to be proliferated upon such that I then seek to apply them. It would be missing the point to go by a self-created situation in which some people are judged as good while others are bad, or even that some group of people out there are in need of my assistance, and then going out and trying to do good. This is actually ambition, only in this case is aimed at merit, but in fact canâ€™t be good at all.



A very good point, Confused ji.  It is hard to know what is good and right, and our personal greed, attachment and ego will always get in the way and could very well confuse your mind to think "do this... it's the good thing to do..." when in fact you've been fooled into doing what might not actually be good to gain something, or for your own personal satisfaction.  That's why we have to keep coming back to Gurbani and drumming the message into our mind to bring ourselves in harmony to be able to figure out what is truly good.  I will conceed, I'm sure that sometimes the greater good would be to not do anything at all.  We can only pray for the wisdom to know the difference!



Confused said:


> So if someone wants to commit suicide, why not sympathize with him and believe his reasons and help by pushing him to his death quickly? But we shouldnâ€™t of course, and why?
> 
> The person who wants to die is reacting to the unpleasantness he is experiencing and is in fact craving for pleasant experiences. He imagines that things wonâ€™t get better, but the truth is that he canâ€™t really be certain, so at the back of his mind there will still be doubts. And of course he is totally ignorant about karma and its workings. He doesnâ€™t understand first of all, the harm in aversion and that his acting it out is going to result in some unpleasant experience no different from what he is experiencing now. And if he places himself in a position where someone else will have to do the dirty job for him, he is acting as a catalyst for the other personâ€™s wrong deed. What he doesnâ€™t know also, is that he *will* be reborn after his death and most likely in a lower realm, which then amounts to giving up this precious birth as a human being in exchange for one which is quite hopeless.



My example was about an animal for a reason.  Humans are more complicated and takes the discussion away from the topic I think.  Animals are closer to bugs, I figure.



Confused said:


> If you canâ€™t yet believe in life beyond this one, at least you can see that this concept about karma makes this present life itself better both for you as well as those around you, right? If you agree, then I urge you, please donâ€™t dismiss it. Donâ€™t allow yourself to be influenced by arguments which have no basis in any kind of truth, but values set by individuals who have absolutely no wisdom.



I believe that whatever happens after I die is whatever will happen.  I am trying not to concern myself with that.  I read Gurbani, I try to assimilate it's principles.  Why should I concern myself with anything else?

Give me a couple more years of reading and learning, I might change my outlook.  I only know what I currently know and act accordingly.  If I worry about things I don't understand at this point, like karma, I'd retreat into a corner and not do anything for fear of damning myself, I think.  gingerteakaur


----------



## Ishna (May 22, 2011)

Having said all that, I realise the misconception of my own logic.

1) If it wasn't for human greed and interference with the natural world, I wouldn't be sitting here with my coal-powered laptop, television and heater.  Therefore, to walk my own talk I need to join an eco-commune.

2) If I stop my friend from squashing a poisonous spider, and instead I catch it and let it go outside, and that spider goes on the bite my next-door neighbour, where does THAT put my pompus sense of morals?  Would it not be better to kill the poisonous spider so it can't bite anyone?  But the spider is created by (or if you prefer, evolved according to) God just like that.  Who am I to judge such a creature?

Gee, this spiritual stuff sure is complicated!


----------



## kds1980 (May 23, 2011)

Ishna said:


> Having said all that, I realise the misconception of my own logic.
> 
> 1) If it wasn't for human greed and interference with the natural world, I wouldn't be sitting here with my coal-powered laptop, television and heater.  Therefore, to walk my own talk I need to join an eco-commune.
> 
> ...



I don't think spiritual stuff is complicated in Sikhism on this matter.Sikhs from Guru hargobind ji's time have been hunting animals for foods,war practice and also animals which were harmful to humans.If somebody believe that killing bugs or pests is wrong then He/she don't agree with sikh philosophy.

What is complicated is human mind which don't agree with many things and then he/she start injecting his/her personal theories in Sikhism


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 24, 2011)

Ishna ji,




> My reservations about karma come from concurrance with your earlier statement to Seeker9 that we can drive ourselves mad thinking about the workings of karma. Karma itself doesn't seem to feature prominently in Gurbani which is where I try to get my spiritual understanding from (slowly). The impression I get from Gurbani is that karma is a mechanism which exists, but we should not preoccupy ourselves with it. My understanding is that if we assimilate the spiritual wisdom, mental attitude and way of life taught by Gurbani and the example of our Gurus, we're on the right track. Whatever happens, happens, and I try to accept that.



Perhaps the advice is against speculating, after all that would be due to ignorance, craving and most likely also wrong understanding?

If I experience physical pain, I can understand this to be a result of karma. But to wonder about which deed in the past must have been the cause for it, this can only be due to attachment to oneself and is therefore not only futile, but in fact detrimental. When I kill a fly, I can understand that this is an unwholesome activity which will bring its appropriate result in the future. But to speculate what those results might be, must again be due to attachment and ignorance and is therefore not only useless, but in fact the stuff of bad karma. 



> The impression I get from my learning about Sikhi so far, is that we are not supposed to withdraw from the world. We are to keep our attachment to the world in check. We are in fact encouraged to engage with the world. All of creation is an emanation of the Divine, why should we hold an aversion to it? It will all pass away, and so we shouldn't become attached with it.



There is the â€˜worldâ€™ of convention, one which is populated with people, animals and things and where there are events happening in place and in time. There is however also the â€˜worldâ€™ in the real and ultimate sense. This is the world of one moment of consciousness at a time through one of the five senses or the mind, without which that other world wouldnâ€™t have been conceived of in the first place. 

Within that first world, some people choose to live alone and some in the company of other people. In the second one, the understanding is that in fact, â€œwe are all alone with our consciousness and thinkingâ€. From the standpoint of the latter therefore, which is what the reality is, we canâ€™t ever get away from the world, and yet at the same time we are always alone. Therefore in the conventional world, if we decide to withdraw from society or to engage in it and in either case there is the lack of understanding about the â€œrealâ€ world, then one choice is not better than the other. Both are the product of ignorance and craving.  

With this understanding, we can then come to see that the whole point is to understand who we are from moment to moment, so no need to â€œdoâ€ or change anything. If it is in your nature to live alone, fine, if not, also fine. 

With regard to â€˜attachmentâ€™, it is never good. No doubt, this may be all that we have in our relationships and will not go away so easily. But instead of trying to justifying, we can understand it for what it is and accept the fact, while at the same time, gradually developing good qualities such as kindness, compassion, morality, generosity, respect, patience, renunciation, truthfulness and most of all, wisdom, to counter the attachment aversion, conceit and so on. And why, because undoubtedly these are the better option when it comes to dealing with other people. 

The point about worldliness was not an encouragement to not engage with other people, but to not be moved by values set by them, ones that are not grounded in basic principles of morality. If our confidence in good is weak and we lack understanding about the Truth, we become involved in worldliness to the point of being moved one moment this and another that, by values based on wrong perceptions. And what in fact all this comes down to, is desire for gain, pleasure, honour and praise.



> As humans with our perceived higher intelligence compared with other sentient life forms on our planet, and our opposable thumbs which enable us to use tools to interact with our planet in a more complex way than other critters, coupled with our sense of morals, most people will find a sense of responsibility for our environment.



The â€œopposable thumbâ€.  Have you seen the short film titled â€œIsle of Flowersâ€, if not try to see it; you can get it on YouTube.

When it comes down to it, the only real responsibility that we have is to develop wisdom. And this wisdom will have it that alongside, we develop all good qualities, including morality. It is exactly because we donâ€™t realize this that we are moved by other value systems, and whatever we do is ultimately, aimed at glorifying the â€˜selfâ€™. This is due to the overwhelming tendency to ignorance and craving. Indeed realizing this to any extent is one motivation for us to guard our own minds. 

And this is in no way a passive thing. The difference is that while this activity does not involve the need for validation from others, those other value systems requires other people to agree. And while the one sees that it is worthless to aim for gain, pleasure, praise and honour, the other is likely being motivated by one or more of these all the time. 

This of course is not saying that we should not be involved in say, trying to improve the environment, what is being suggested is that we not be moved to act wrongly while doing what we do. But then in the case of the suggestion such as â€œa sense of responsibility for our environmentâ€, this comes across as carrying more weight than that of developing wisdom and morality. And here I see a problem, because it easily leads to justifying taking certain actions where weâ€™d be forced to overlook morality. It should be the other way round, that wisdom and morality comes first, then whatever follows will take care of itself.  



> I feel great aversion when people mess with the natural order of things, injecting their man-made ideas into naturalness. For example, taking the horns off of elephants for the ivory and deforestation. If us pesky humans would leave it all alone, it would run beautifully. Humans come along, stick our greedly fingers in and everything falls out of balance.




Hence the virtue of minding our own minds, developing wisdom and other good qualities. ;-)




> So when I see that humans have messed with the natural order of a river by bringing in fish from another hemisphere, and the fish is causing widespread environmental damage, killing trees, other fish, polluting the waterway, I feel the correct thing to do is to remove the introduced pest.




Have you not in effect allowed other peopleâ€™s actions decide your own? Is it not apparent that their actions were motivated by ignorance and craving and now yours is no different in this regard? From where I stand, both of you have not taken into account the fact that receiving pleasant and unpleasant experiences is the result of good and bad deeds and no one knows what is in store for whom. Those other people thought wrongly that money is going to bring them happiness and you are thinking that in fixing the problems they have created, this is going to cause other living things to be happy. In other words, they were involved in their own projections and now you are in yours.




> If someone sticks an arrow into the side of a deer, and the deer is limping around in pain, is it not logical that the right thing to do is to remove the arrow and restore the deer to health?


 

Of course it is. And although no one can say if the deer is going to survive or not, still it is what is happening now and your decision is based on kindness and compassion with not aversion towards any other being which may cause you to then do something bad. 




> I feel that should be the only consideration, not wondering "is this some expression of karma" or "what will happen to my karma if I remove the arrow?" or "I will generate good karma by removing the arrow, yay!". You do what is right and good then and there.



Sure, karma is "now" and not just a theory to indulge in thought proliferation about.




> Another example would be if there is a grasshopper in your office and your co-worker is about to kill it, do you sit by and allow it to happen, fully conscious that you could get up and preserve it's life with no problems? By consciously choosing to stay on your chair and watch when you are fully capable of interceding, is that not wrong? You could rationalise it by saying "my co-worker is interacting with karma, it's his problem not mine". I would disagree.




You have misunderstood what I have been saying. Kindness is the deciding factor. It would not be an act of kindness to allow someone else to kill, but to point out the harm of killing is. Also towards the grasshopper, it would be kindness not to want it be killed. So indeed you can go ahead and teach your co-worker at the same time, about karma. ;-)   




> A very good point, Confused ji. It is hard to know what is good and right, and our personal greed, attachment and ego will always get in the way and could very well confuse your mind to think "do this... it's the good thing to do..." when in fact you've been fooled into doing what might not actually be good to gain something, or for your own personal satisfaction. That's why we have to keep coming back to Gurbani and drumming the message into our mind to bring ourselves in harmony to be able to figure out what is truly good.




I am glad that you appreciate this point. 




> I will conceed, I'm sure that sometimes the greater good would be to not do anything at all. We can only pray for the wisdom to know the difference!




But I think the problem is in the very perception of â€œgreater goodâ€. That of turning â€˜goodâ€™ into an â€œidealâ€ and then trying to act upon it with ambition all starts with the kind of misperception, namely that a situation exists waiting for me to do something. But really, there is only what is now for any right or wrong action to take place, and here there is no idea of greater or lesser, just what is. (Although even this can easily be misunderstood, since in reality the problem starts with the perception of â€˜selfâ€™, and one canâ€™t decide to have or not have any kind of perception. But this is another topic.) So it appears that we need to nip the bud at this stage, namely at the level of perception itself.




> I believe that whatever happens after I die is whatever will happen. I am trying not to concern myself with that. I read Gurbani, I try to assimilate it's principles. Why should I concern myself with anything else?
> 
> Give me a couple more years of reading and learning, I might change my outlook. I only know what I currently know and act accordingly. If I worry about things I don't understand at this point, like karma, I'd retreat into a corner and not do anything for fear of damning myself, I think.




No you are right not to concern yourself with the result. What Iâ€™m urging you to understand and accept is that the mechanism exists. And the only we that you can be sure that it does, is not by trying to do your best to do good and leave it at that, but to develop the understanding of the good itself and everything else that make up your life. Without understanding karma for what it is, then you are left only with either believing in it or not believing. And this does nothing to arouse confidence, in fact in another life you will not believe in the idea at all. 




> Having said all that, I realise the misconception of my own logic.
> 
> 1) If it wasn't for human greed and interference with the natural world, I wouldn't be sitting here with my coal-powered laptop, television and heater. Therefore, to walk my own talk I need to join an eco-commune.



And whether there is a laptop or not, and you are living in the Middle Ages or the Age of the Internet, good being always good and evil always evil, the knowledge about the distinction can be shared with all those who you come across.



> 2) If I stop my friend from squashing a poisonous spider, and instead I catch it and let it go outside, and that spider goes on the bite my next-door neighbour, where does THAT put my pompus sense of morals?



Regardless of what you think later on, the deed has been done and it will bring its appropriate result. What you will always be required to come back to, is what the state of mind is â€œnowâ€. If there is doubt and regret, know that this too is wrong and hence not to be encouraged. To speculate what could happen and be moved to act accordingly may be yet another example of going by a wrong perception, and which has nothing to do with reality.



> Would it not be better to kill the poisonous spider so it can't bite anyone? But the spider is created by (or if you prefer, evolved according to) God just like that. Who am I to judge such a creature?




But is it really about judging or not judging? Or is it about knowing what the present state of mind is?




> Gee, this spiritual stuff sure is complicated!



It is actually very simple, but only hard to see. And this is due to the three mental proliferations coming in again and again whenever we think about such things, namely, attachment, conceit and wrong understanding.   

Sorry for the lengthy response.


----------



## Seeker9 (May 24, 2011)

Dear Confused Ji

Thanks again; I am enjoying this exchange

I have some further comments as well and hope they are not too difficult to read against yours:




> Death can‘t be known directly in the same way that other kinds of mental phenomena which arise in a day can. However, based on the understanding of experiences in general, we can understand that it must be a mental reality and is resultant.


 

Sorry – I do not understand what you have said here and I prefer to think of death of the physical body as being a physical experience and end as opposed to a mental one



> My killing you, as I said, is only a conventional idea. In reality, it is the intention rooted in strong aversion which caused me to pull the trigger; and this is actually karma which will bring its appropriate results.


 

Yes



> Having pulled the trigger, no one can say if you’d actually die, and at which instance. You may be critically wounded and not die, or even if you did, the gap between the moment that the bullet hit your brain and the actual death-consciousness arising, there must be countless instances of consciousness of both the nature of cause and that of result.


 

I guess we could look at this in terms of probable outcomes and Quantum physics but as a whole, I think your view of the death process is somewhat different from mine. But it is interesting nonetheless!




> As humans we are in a plane of existence where consciousness cannot arise without a physical base. We can’t deny also, that the brain is a vital organ of the human body. If it is damaged, it causes many problems, and when enough, this body becomes unsustainable. This is within the realm of material phenomena, one which is related to a particular set of mental phenomena. We can therefore say that the physical is â€œsupport conditionâ€ for the mental phenomena


. 


Ok I can follow that….




> And these physical bases have other material realities as further support and somewhere there is the role of this concept we call â€˜brain’. However, we should not mix these different phenomena together in a way that we then confuse causes / resultants with conditionality and come up with wrong ideas.


 

Less sure about that bit though…



> If death is a mental phenomenon and is result of some cause in the past, we can’t at the same time then say that the damage in the brain is the â€œcauseâ€ of the death? Again just to remind, we need to distinguish between conventional ideas about cause and effect from that which takes place at the level of ultimate reality. And in this case we can say that the conditions within this particular body for the arising of consciousness constituting â€œlifeâ€ ceases, which include experiences through all the senses as well as the mind, but this is not because of the damage in the brain, but because of death.
> This is probably not very convincing to you, since it requires a change of perspective at very basic levels of perception and thinking about one’s experiences.


 
You are right, it isn't. As I said earlier your interpretations are different from mine and I will think about them further



> Quote:
> I would therefore suggest that Karma could account for you being in that position in the first place, perhaps as repayment of a karmic debt whereby I had done you a grave injustice in a former life. Just another interpretation...
> Yes and no. Yes in the sense of my experiences must no doubt constitute moments of causes as well as those that are resultant. No, because my being in any particular place must include my having decided to get there and the efforts to do so, and although this is conditioned, it is not pre-determined. Actually, nothing is pre-determined, not even the results of karma. Theses arise by a complex set of conditions, and those that are from the past are only a part of it.
> And I wouldn’t tie my present actions with yours in the past; otherwise there will be no end to this â€˜revenge-like’ phenomenon. My aversion could in a way be said to have simply found its object, in other words killing you was not because you killed me in the past, but because I have so much strong aversion and instead of you, it could have found an object in anyone else. Your receiving the result likewise, could have been via someone else’s action and not mine.


 

Yes, that is your interpretation but I have heard others suggest the “unfinished business” theory as well. As I noted in a previous post, I am not well versed in the details of how Karma works. Too be honest..can anyone be? We can all theorise but that’s all…




> Quote:
> Quote: the tsunami killed 20,000 people.
> I am focussing on this in particular as I have never been able to understand the concept of collective Karma. I would appreciate your views on this
> Of course you will not understand and why should you? This idea about â€˜collective karma’ can only be a case of misperception and wrong understanding.
> ...


 

I think there is a contradiction here…when we talk about individual death, we can talk about Karma but when we talk about collective death, then the Karma concepts are less easy to fit. This is why I have problems with the Hindu concept of Karma




> Quote:
> Quote: We continue to tell ourselves that we are concerned about other people, but the truth is that it was about me, mine and I all the way through.
> That is one way of interpreting it. I would say I consult a moral compass and try and do what I think is right so I can be content that I did the right thing. Which is similar to what you said but without the implication of being conceited I think...
> The point I’m trying to make is that if genuine kindness was behind our dealings with other people and we did understand its value, then there should be no doubt as to what the right course of action is, when faced with the question about pests. Moral actions can arise due to accumulated habit; however we may need to also encourage more kindness which will then act as a stronger basis for more moral actions to arise. Better still, if there is direct understanding into the nature of moral restraint, since here the motivation would then be good for its own sake without a need to be convinced by any kind of reasoning.


 

Ok..that is certainly a worthy ideal for an enlightened individual. But as I said before, for someone less enlightened like myself, it is easier for to me relate my actions to people than bugs




> Quote:
> Quote: Perhaps it is not about choosing to be kind to one and not to the other; it could be that the tendency to kindness exists but no real understanding of what it really is.
> Seeker9:
> One's upbringing and education will impact on their individual moral compass ....
> But one can always do better and should do. We may need to be aware of the overwhelming ignorance that is still there and be motivated to understand better all our experiences.


 

I can’t argue with that!



> Quote:
> Quote: It is in seeing the value of kindness that kindness arises regardless of whom and to what. The perception of other beings acts more as a reminder to develop the particular quality which one knows to be of value. Along with this is seeing harm in its opposite, namely ill-will, and this acts as a further motivation.
> Seeker9:
> Okay, fair enough
> ...


 

Unpleasant feelings and kind feelings are near? I fear I have not grasped your point



> Also attachment has many forms and intensities and therefore quite easily appears as good to those of us who know only the grosser forms of it. Besides, aversion arises because we do not get what we are attached to or get what we do not like. All these factors combine in making attachment then, much more dangerous than aversion or hatred.


 
Thanks for the explanation but I fear I still do not understand. Not to worry…you’ve obviously looked into this much deeper than I have so I have some catching up to do


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 27, 2011)

Seeker9 ji,




> Thanks again; I am enjoying this exchange



Although I wouldnâ€™t say that Iâ€™m enjoying it, it is however a challenge, since this is the first time Iâ€™ve gotten into the kind of discussion with anyone and never seen it discussed by others before. In fact Iâ€™ve had to revise this a few times, perhaps because I have not until now given the topic much thought. 

I am moving this discussion however to a new topic; this is  â€˜Karma - Birth, Life and Deathâ€™ and is under General Discussion.


----------

