Guest guest Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 93 It is as if my unconscious were aware that every act is a sacrament and that the most repulsive rituals might be in some ways the most effective. The only adequate way of overcoming evil was to utilize it fully as a means of grace. [The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, chapter 17] That what according to Vedas is a source of sin, according to our doctrine of Left leads directly to Liberation. In fact all the knowledge of Vedas is a subject to delusion. [Tantra-aloka, ahnika 32] Through the pure bhAva of a sadhaka enjoyment becomes Yoga, an obvious sin turns to a good deed and samsara becomes Liberation for him. [Kaulavali-nirnaya 10.131] Sin for the sake of sin is a sin, sin for the sake of God is holyness. [reb Yaakov Leib hakKohein] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 > Sin for the sake of sin is a sin, sin for the sake of God is holyness. > [reb Yaakov Leib hakKohein] A kind of pedestrian view here, but is this kind of a thing that if say you had the fore knowledge to have killed Hitler or Stalin before they did as much as they did, then would that act have been a good or bad thing? Secondly, would that have eliminated a lot of ones own karma or created more? Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 OM Eric Otto The rabbi has a self-serving doctrine and therefore as the doctrine is contaminated with ego it is false. Not only is it false but the current Israeli government is using that same doctrine to kill those who it labels "terrorist" and well as any others unfortunate enough to be in the immediate vicinity of the missiles. Of course, the Israeli government is the original terrorist in that it invades the lands of another people, kills and deports hundreds of thousands of them and usurps the land and resources to its own use. The invaded people who fight against this terror are not terrorists themselves but freedom fighters. With regard to your question about the virtuousness of killing Hitler given foreknowledge of the events that he set in motion,it seems to me that only more karma would have been created and none overcome. Those who were fated to suffer and be killed under Hitler would only have met their same karma under other circumstances. Nothing would have been avoided. But now the killer of Hitler incurs karma upon himself. Group karma occurs for a reason. If not under Hitler, then under someone or something else. Attachment to life is one of the five kleshas that keep one bound to wheel of samsara, reincarnating until the lessons that lead to moksha are learned. Killing to prevent the person killed from killing assumes that corporeal existence is real and significant and a valued goal. But the purpose of all spiritual activity is to transcend space and time, to be One without an other. The physical body only provides a vehicle to work out one's karma. When moksha is attained the body is no longer needed. Action taken to preserve a body or life solely for the sake of preserving it is erroneous. Action taken to preserve a body by destroying another body is erroneous. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem , "Eric Otto" <mkultra@f...> wrote: > > > Sin for the sake of sin is a sin, sin for the sake of God is > holyness. > > [reb Yaakov Leib hakKohein] > > > A kind of pedestrian view here, but is this kind of a thing that if > say you had the fore knowledge to have killed Hitler or Stalin before > they did as much as they did, then would that act have been a good or > bad thing? Secondly, would that have eliminated a lot of ones own > karma or created more? > > Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 Dear Arjuna Taradasa: Here are my thoughts based on your post, and those who responded. What kind of "sins" and "evil" are being spoken of here? Sexuality based on loving pleasure, not domination, and the inherent power of women, have been considered evil. Hierarchical power structures such as the traditional family model and government model (including caste systems) are supported by doctrines like "honor thy father and thy mother" when father and mother do not know how to honor the child - the one borne to them, and the one within, comprised of both female and male in wholeness. In this case, if the child honors the self and Self, s/he can be perceived as not honoring the father and mother, called a sin in Christian terms. In this way, I can see how it is possible that "sin" leads to god -- not to the dominating, controlling god, but to The Sacred Which Is Within And Without. In truth, the act of such a child DOES honor the father and mother, and the female and male within and without, but those caught up in a power dynamic of right and wrong before being true to self/Self cannot understand. The word "sin" is problematic because it imposes wrongness on acts that in and of themselves are simply within the realm of human being and action. When it comes to violence, if it is used as a means of control and domination of others by those who are not able to accept something within themselves, it is unconsciousness and possibly not a "sin," though needing to be dealt with in strong measures to prevent it from continuing to injure. Can you give more context for the Aleister Crowley quote? -- Mary Ann , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 93 > > It is as if my unconscious were aware that every act is a sacrament > and that the most repulsive rituals might be in some ways the most > effective. The only adequate way of overcoming evil was to utilize it > fully as a means of grace. [The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, > chapter 17] > > That what according to Vedas is a source of sin, according to our > doctrine of Left leads directly to Liberation. In fact all the > knowledge of Vedas is a subject to delusion. [Tantra-aloka, ahnika 32] > > Through the pure bhAva of a sadhaka enjoyment becomes Yoga, an obvious > sin turns to a good deed and samsara becomes Liberation for him. > [Kaulavali-nirnaya 10.131] > > Sin for the sake of sin is a sin, sin for the sake of God is holyness. > [reb Yaakov Leib hakKohein] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 > The rabbi has a self-serving doctrine and therefore as the > doctrine is contaminated with ego it is false. Smacks of prejudice to me - for this statement is not based on observable facts. Perhaps it's your own ego that got tickled? > Not only is it false but the current Israeli government is > using that same doctrine to kill those who it labels > "terrorist" And what do you call senior officers of an organization that sends its members to kill civilians en mass? How far can prejudice go (a rhethoric question - no answer is needed)? > and well as any others unfortunate enough > to be in the immediate vicinity of the missiles. Unfortunate indeed. Though unlike their opponents, the intention clearly is to minimize the "collateral damage". The terrorists strive to maximize the death and injuries to those "unfortunate enough to be in vicinity". > Of course, the Israeli government is the original terrorist > in that it invades the lands of another people......... This statement alone would suffice to describe the views of the person making it. No discussion is possible with such people, unfortunately. As has been proven through millenia. I'll finish this response on the slim chance that others might find it useful. Won't go beyond this. [before sending this e-mail, I saw another posting of the same individual: > It is well documented that the newly arrived Jews killed > tens of thousands and deported hundreds of thousands of > indigenous Palestinians.......... It is about as well documented as the "Protocols of Elders of Sion". Probably comes from the same source.] > With regard to your question about the virtuousness of killing > Hitler given foreknowledge of the events that he set in motion, > it seems to me that only more karma would have been created and > none overcome. It seems ignorant to lay such claims on karma. If one sees a person drowning, is it better to pass by because "it's his karma to drown, and interfering with it you just create more karma"? The main difference between an action that creates karma, and the one that doesn't - is the attitude of the person who acts. Hindu epic work "Mahabharata" is about war. In Bhagavad Gita - which is part of this work and considered "fifth Veda" - Krishna instructs Arjuna to fight and kill his opponents. Why can he do it, and why doesn't Arjuna incur sin in that killing? Because of his attitude - he doesn't want to kill his adversaries, in fact he loves them (and not by tongue as most of us do today, but by heart - no hypocricy). And because of his dharma: to fight on the side of Pandavas is the appropriate thing for a kshatria to do in that war. > Those who were fated to suffer and be killed under Hitler would > only have met their same karma under other circumstances. Nothing > would have been avoided. Not necessarily so. Karmic laws aren't that primitive. Blind talking about them is pointless. > But now the killer of Hitler incurs karma upon himself. Highly depends on the attitude of the killer in question. > Attachment to life is one of the five kleshas that keep one > bound to wheel of samsara, reincarnating until the lessons > that lead to moksha are learned. While the above is certainly true, may you have a chance to stand by your words and perhaps see how strong your abhinivesha is. > Killing to prevent the person killed from killing assumes that > corporeal existence is real and significant and a valued goal. Yes corporeal existence is a valued goal on the way to achieve a greater goal. If for you your corporeal existence isn't significant or valued, please prove your words. > Action taken to preserve a body by destroying another body > is erroneous. Lord Krishna apparently disagreed with you. See first chapters of Bhagavad Gita. Feel free to respond or not to - I will not participate in the debate. Oh, and to Eric: Whether an action creates more karma (i.e. binds the act-or to the Wheel), depends on his attachment to the fruits of his actions. Yudhishthira became a king after winning a bloody war in which both armies (his and Kauravas') were massacred (3 survived on one side, and 5 on the other). Yet he did not acquire karma for that, because he was following his dharma - his path, whithout being attached to the kingdom etc. In the very same corcumstances it is easy to imagine a king who'd do exactly the same as Yudhishthira did, and incur an unbelievable amount of karma. And in most of the cultures (Hindu as well) the guidance is - if somebody is attempting to kill you, you are allowed to kill him. As for the foreknowledge of Stalin and Hitler - probably not, as the future is not THAT predefined. It changes dynamically... , "Eric Otto" <mkultra@f...> wrote: > > > Sin for the sake of sin is a sin, sin for the sake of God is > holyness. > > [reb Yaakov Leib hakKohein] > > > A kind of pedestrian view here, but is this kind of a thing that if > say you had the fore knowledge to have killed Hitler or Stalin before > they did as much as they did, then would that act have been a good or > bad thing? Secondly, would that have eliminated a lot of ones own > karma or created more? > > Eric Sponsor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> to > > [....] > Can you give more context for the Aleister Crowley quote? > > -- Mary Ann I hope we can herd this conversation back to a spiritual basis. Crowley liked sex and drugs, and used both in what was for him a spiritual context. His writings, teaching, and, uh, activities earned him a rather sulphurous reputation; for England and for that time (Crowley lived from 1875-1947) this wasn't conventional or acceptable behavior, spiritually or otherwise. The use of entheogens or sexual energies in a spiritual context isn't all that unusual. I do believe Hinduism has examples of both. With regards to "sin", or simply unacceptable behavior, many religions have stories or traditions of mystics or teachers whose behavior went well outside the bounds of the conventional in the service of the divine. And I believe it's that sort of "sin" that Crowley alludes to in his quote. In Christianity, we have the story of Jesus clearing the money- changers from the temple, a dramatic example of what must have been a very uncomfortable experience for everyone involved (except Jesus, I suppose.) Truly "unacceptable" behavior at the time! I think that at various times, Jesus violated most every taboo and purity rule in Jewish society at the time, all very "unacceptable" actions. In some of the fourteenth century poems of Radha and Krishna, Radha is mortal, human, MARRIED, and older than Krishna. Driven by her longing for union with the divine, she certainly moves out of the realm of conventional or accepted behavior. (In later poetry, she is a goddess, not a mortal, and not married to a human husband.) j. My reference for the Radha/Krishna story is the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Hi Mouse - I have wondered about that. You see similar things with King David who in Hebrew tradition was loved by God but sure killed many people. In Bushido, their fighting is suppose to be absolutely egolist. I wondered if that got them off the hook. The Stalin and Hitler thing strikes me as true what you say. (Sacastically he emotes) What if Hitler had been accepted into art school and Stalin had being been in business? Eric > > Oh, and to Eric: > > Whether an action creates more karma (i.e. binds the act-or to the Wheel), > depends on his attachment to the fruits of his actions. Yudhishthira became > a king after winning a bloody war in which both armies (his and Kauravas') > were massacred (3 survived on one side, and 5 on the other). Yet he did > not acquire karma for that, because he was following his dharma - his > path, whithout being attached to the kingdom etc. In the very same > corcumstances it is easy to imagine a king who'd do exactly the > same as Yudhishthira did, and incur an unbelievable amount of > karma. > > And in most of the cultures (Hindu as well) the guidance is - if somebody > is attempting to kill you, you are allowed to kill him. > > As for the foreknowledge of Stalin and Hitler - probably not, as the future is > not THAT predefined. It changes dynamically... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.