I loved the foundation Ahimsa upholds that “man attains peace by injuring no living creature” (Anthology 235) because it is something which I truly believe. I do not think it is possible for someone who harms animals to complete in any way. If someone is capable and comfortable of consciously harming animals with no remorse, then they must view at least some people in a contemptuous manner. I don’t think someone can look an animal in the face, observe their way of life, and conclude that there is nothing there OR conclude that their life doesn’t matter in some way. To harm a sentient being, then, requires the same mindset at some level as harming a person. One leads to the other and multiplies the effects. I think it’s important, then, that the concept of ahimsa includes fair treatment of all living beings (although I wasn’t sure if this included plants...). When people are encouraged to love all beings, how can they not love all people? It is also necessary that we are kind to all beings in order to promote a sense of unity and peace (which can never be bad, can it?)
http://www.animalearthhuman.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/sentientbeings.jpg
Ahimsa encourages its followers to be kind to all sentient beings.
I liked the other ‘bits and pieces’ of Ahimsa too. Ahimsa does not solely concern bodily harm to other creatures but emotional harm as well and negative energy toward people and living beings. Those wishing to practice Ahimsa are suggested to begin by restraining from bodily harm and speaking harsh words first because it is “extremely difficult to control such thoughts from the very beginning without having recourse to control of the body and speech first.” (Anthology 237) The concepts of Ahimsa are only unusual in their extremity: it should be apparent that we need to treat people with respect, to not speak to people harshly or rudely. But it is radically more demanding than what we are used to; indeed it “is not possible without fearlessness.” (Anthology 236) I think it’s important that those who are aware of Ahimsa, us, for example, now that we are aware of it, should try to practice its concepts as often as we can. We can’t expect ourselves to all pick it up and begin to practice Ahimsa immediately, although some would say “Why not?” but we can practice. After all, “you may fail a hundred times. What does it matter?” (Anthology 237)
We talked about the problems of the Western form of compassion today in class, so I thought I’d say what I had been thinking some of those problems are. What Emily said in class made a lot of sense. I feel like a lot of the ways that Christianity “promotes” charity is by bribing in a sense—do this and you’ll get into heaven—or even by fear—don’t be good, and you’ll go to Hell. While I can see how that would inspire the masses to do good works, it ultimately does not provide the right mindset. In a way it’s similar to the “give a man a fish” idiom: Christianity may produce good works, but it may not entirely cause people to produce them continuously and on their own—of their own free will (which is, of course, a very important concept in Christianity!) An example of the lack of self-motivation which sometimes accompanies “Christians” is in Jude the Obscure: Jude stands where his clacking instrument is “echoing from the brand-new church tower just behind the mist, towards the building of which structure the farmer had largely subscribed, to testify his love for God and man.” (Anthology 227) The irony in that statement—that a man who had beaten Jude so terribly could “love” God—is surely intended. Furthermore, another problem I have with compassion is its inconsideration for other forms of life. The Slaughterer presents a very exaggerated example of the turmoil people can feel when they slaughter animals. When people are trained to live with compassion, I don’t honestly believe that they can overlook the trauma we cause animals. I think we’ve suppressed the feelings we truly feel when we harm animals in order to protect ourselves and that perhaps the absence of compassion for animals in Judeo-Christian faiths is evidence of that. It’s easier to live off of meat, and it’s much easier to live that way if animals are nothing more than food. These faiths are also largely absent of any consideration to the environment, and I thought that this statement was really good: “we have to understand that pollution in the environment has been caused because there had been psychological pollution within ourselves. If we want a clean environment, we have to adopt a lifestyle that springs from a moral and spiritual dimension.” (Anthology 295) To clean up our act, we literally need to do that—clean up our act. We need to change the way we think about the environment, and it seems like the Eastern mindset is more inclined to that.
I really liked reading about the Eastern beliefs. I feel like the two important concepts I get out of them which are unique are humility and interconnectedness. Maybe this is unfounded, but I feel like the Eastern religions are much more unassuming. Their beliefs cannot be “borrowed as a back-up prop,” (Anthology 253) as the Christian god often is to justify immoral actions. They don’t advertise as much. I believe that this means that more of those who profess to Eastern belief traditions follow them on their own accord. This ties to another idea I have that Eastern religions enforce humility. They don’t profess that their way is the only way as much as Western faiths do: for example, “Confucianism does not conflict with any religion.” (Anthology 254) I also think that the eastern religions promote interconnectedness, which as I’ve said before is essential to treating all things and people kindly.
Confucius' teachings do not conflict with religions.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g247/Gretchana/confucious.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment