planthelper - 2007-09-09 2:07 AM

Yes, yes i get your drift but the question at hand is o you kill insects around the house...ant cockroach's etc?

kulkarnn - 2007-09-08 3:56 PM

If the presence of the animal is a threat to my life, I shall first try to find a way to come out of this threat by not killing. If there is no other option, I shall be killing that person. However, before such killing I shall do a small prayer like the Japanese did before bombing Peal Harbour, although not with the same intention!!!

If I see a person raping a woman, and if I find that the only option for me to save that woman is to kill the man, I shall gladly immediately kill him if possible for me.

planthelper - 2007-09-09 4:16 AM

I find the fact that you are willing to kill another human being so readily quite astonishing after hearing you feelings on eating meat and the karma it entails. I would think that someone who believed that the effect of killing a human being under the law of karma and who was on the path of union or truth would not commit such an act. The reasons being that this act would create an effect detrimental to the goal of truth and union.

===> Eating meat by killing an animal when there are other options is different from killing someone who is threatening your life and you have no other options tosave your Body/Mind life.

===> It is the intention of action which creates Karma, not the action. For example, killing a person who is raping a woman creates a different karma than killing the woman after raping her to eradicate her telling others that she was raped.

===> If one is realized to the extent that one is NOT a body, but is only spirit, one shall automatically have sufficient Siddhis to avoid such killing. And, that is what I wrote above.

ahimsaapratishthaayaam tatsannidhau vairatyaagaH. I mean a need to kill shall not arise in the presence of a real compassionate person.

===> If one is NOT realized sufficiently, then one thinks he is body/mind and shall try to save his life. Even eating vegetarian or non vegetarian is meant for saving one's body/mind life. If one is spirit, one does not need to eat at all. And, when one wants to save the body/mind life for whatever reason, and finds there is no other option but to kill, they shall.


One would think that you would (if your life was threatened by another human being) accept death as in truth
===> Death is truth as much as life and as much as wanting to live for whatever purpose personal, social, or otherwise. And, what they accept out of these shall depend on that person. The way that they accept shall determine the karma, not the actual apparent act to others. When the Tibetans existence was threatened due to Chinese invasion, some accepted death, some accepted fighting back, and some accepted escaping to a Hindu Territory provided by Hindus. (BTW: I would like the readers to note that in the Bangladesh Independence, Muslims of Bangladesh asked for help for their survival from Militant Pakistanis, and ONLY Hindus of India offered that help, bringing the victory and independence. At that time, any rich nation could have easily obtainted the independence in less time and effort, but that is the law of (ecornomic) karma!!!)

are we not all dead already?
===> No. We are never dead. We are always alive. Either in body/mind or in spirit.


Is not the clinging on to life a vain attempt from the ego to reject the natural cycle?===> Are you saying that 'threatening of a life of one by another species' is natural cycle and the 'trying to survive' is not natural? Please ask BipinJoshi or search on this board for the story of a mad Elephant.

As to killing a man raping a woman, could it not be that it is her karma that is the reason for her being raped? Your act of killing does nothing but create more effect that you must endure before reaching union i would think.

===> Yes. A woman getting raped by a man is a part of her karma, the raper getting killed by me is part of his karma, and then my killing him for the cause of saving a woman from getting raped shall create an appropriate karma. This karma shall be different from one killing an animal for their own eating while other options are available.

Cyndi - 2007-09-10 8:38 PM


Then the other day while I was a way on vacation, the Wolf spider decided he was going to move in. DD found him in the bathtub drinking water. He was ousted right away out the front door.

Bruce - 2007-09-09 2:10 PM

I'm with Sister Cyndi and ZB and most of all Beloved Brother Neel. I do my ****dest to protect all living things--insects and animals until they mess with me...as it's instinctual, I'll try to relocate/escort them away.
However, humans with their free will and their too often innate evil--some just need killing to stop current or a predisposition to committing more evil-- wih karma at the bottom of my concerns.

purnayoga - 2007-09-09 3:03 PM

However, no thing too extreme. For example Jains do not harm at all. And for them they wear masks so as not to breathe in any microbees and kill them. Some I am told actually train themselves to sweep their sleeping space as they roll in the night so as not to crush anything. I would not do this as it seems over the top.
===> Actually, they do that as a part of mental practice. That means good attitude and good karma. It is IMPOSSIBLE to NOT harm any microbe because they do escape the cover on the nose. And, also it is impossible to NOT drink any water. ETC. But, I like what they do and I support them.

===> For those who may want this: Jainism and Buddhisms are two sisters who were born almost as twins from Indian Philosophy, the mother. Thus, Indian Philosophy as three daughters, one the elder one called Hinduism now. And, then two twins, Jainism and Buddhism.


As Tourist points out, the Gita illustrates that haarming, when it is part of svadharma, is appropriate. For some, their dharma is to eaat meat, protect others, defend from those intending harm, etcetera.
===> NOT that they should eat meat. But, those who are Kshatriyas already eat meat, and are born with rajas (which is automatic property of meat diet. Oh, to add to comments on Soul's previous questions/etc. Meat Diet is NOT Sattvic, it is Rajasik when it is good meat and Tamasika when it is bad meat, I mean rotten one.) So, the kshatriyas are automatically born out of their karma which leads to their current dharma. Their karma gives the properties of rajas which include activity, ruling, etc. Now, they are supposed to divert this property to protect others so that they become good kshatriyas and later they become Brahmins. After that they do not eat meat. And, they might even take to monastic life.

This is called raja - king, rajarishi - after raja takes up to monastic life, not eating meat anymore.


And, lastly, also when they are already warriers, they are NOT recommended to eat meat. Such as Rama who did not eat meat.

planthelper - 2007-09-09 8:02 PM

As i understand the bhagavad gita Krisha is telling the prince that he must kill his family indeed, but i believe this is purely symbolic of the prince detaching from his family and all worldly things not the actually physical act of killing. The war in the bhagavad gita is not an actual war out side of the prince but a war inside between his mind and consciousness.
===> As for me, whether one takes the bhagavadgitaa war as a symbolic or historic, both of them shall yield the same result as far the message of Bhagavadgita is concerned. ShrimadBhagavadgita appears as a small culminating philosophical part of a historical epic Mahabharat. If one does not want to accept the historic war in the Bhagavadgita, they can not accept the historical aspect of Mahabharat as well. What one should accept or not is their own business. But, if I do not accept an intergral part of some text, I do not generally read that text (not always, but generally). Anyway, Shrimad Bhagavadgita whether in Historical Aspect or Symbolic Aspcet is NOT a text book on War, but is a Philosophical summary of Upanishads. And, all further religious texts including the Holy Bible, The Torah, The Kuran, and the Buddhistic Literature has borrowed from it. Whether the war is historic or symbolic, the philosophical message applies exactly same, for me.




I honestly believe most people misunderstand this and use it as an excuse to kill.
===> I know at least 1000 (actually more than that, possibly 5000 distinct persons know to me well, not vaguely) who study ShrimadBhagavadgita and none of them fall into this category.


By killing another human being in righteousness , it is like playing god, no killing can truly be done in righteousness.
===> That is a philosophy one should follow if that is what they hold on to. But, that can not be forced universally. I believe women and men are equal. But, I do not see that happening even in the modern society.


All evil and good deeds arise from the same point, consciousness; this is the only truth.
===> I can accept that.


A man who rapes a woman has as much chance as reaching enlightenment in that life as anyone here, who here truly has the right to deny him that chance threw a righteous act of murder?
===> But, his chances of enlightenment are not increased by raping. Otherwise, raping should be a part of his spiritual practice. This can be interesting. To call righteous act as murder is like calling a barren mother. If one does not know the words righteousness and murder, no wonder they can equate rape with spiritual practice.


Kulkarn: not only are we dead in truth, but we are double dead in truth. Mind and body are but products of perception and are no more real than any other imagining of the mind.
===> If I accept that, the problem is that I have to accept that "Dead Persons are communicating on the yoga.com to other dead persons" A very interesting bulletin board. We should calling DeadPersonsYoga.com.


In truth we are only pure consciousness that is all that is life and the source there of.
===> Yes we are pure consciousness. But, we can not type the posts on the bulletin board with only pure consciousness, we need fingers, computer, hands, eyes, etc. And, therefore, as long as we are on yoga.com, we are more than pure consciousness.

tourist - 2007-09-08 12:50 AM

PlantHelper - sometimes it is our duty to protect others (or ourselves) by any means possible. The Bhagavad Gita explains this quite well.

planthelper - 2007-09-10 2:10 AM




Kulkarn :this comment is what my comments on the bhagavad gita are in response to, i "think" from your response's we are in agreement (As i find it hard to follow you) on the matter that it is not a text on justification of for killing people. The prince is not killing anyone to protect anyone, he is in fact ask to kill his own family! the lesson being that we are not the body.

It is the view on many scholars that the story of the bhadavad gita is a allegory of the eternal struggle between the human soul and worldly temptations. Even Gandhi read the text daily and saw the Mahabharata war in this allegorical sense. "For him, there was nothing in the text that contradicted his principles of non-violence and his politics of passive resistance. On the contrary ,he saw his principles and politics as derived from the text."-quote from the forward of the Bhagavad gita as translated by Juan Mascaro.

"The Gita is the universal mother. She turns away nobody. Her door is wide open to anyone who knocks. A true votary of Gita does not know what disappointment is. He ever dwells in perennial joy and peace that passeth understanding. But that peace and joy come not to skeptic or to him who is proud of his intellect or learning. It is reserved only for the humble in spirit who brings to her worship a fullness of faith and an undivided singleness of mind. There never was a man who worshipped her in that spirit and went disappointed. I find a solace in the Bhagavad-Gita that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount. When disappointment stares me in the face and all alone I see not one ray of light, I go back to the Bhagavad-Gita. I find a verse here and a verse there , and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming tragedies -- and my life has been full of external tragedies -- and if they have left no visible or indelible scar on me, I owe it all to the teaching of Bhagavad-Gita. "
-Mahatma Ghandi



(Kulkarn the reason i find it hard to follow you is i feel that when you cut up my and others posts like you do and comment on only parts at a time... not only does my post make no sense but neither do your comments on it. The post is meant to be commented on as one, chopping it up is like quoting out of context. As in some instances you comment separately on sentences that are in direct correlation to each other, meaning that without one sentence the other can be understood in a way not portrayed by the original posters meaning. I know this is not the first time someone has said this to you but maybe you'll eventually get the message. )