Vivekananda Mailing List-1/2/03

[Guest guest]

But what is it that makes an act a duty? If a Christian finds a piece

of beef before him and does not eat it to save his own life, or will

not give it to save the life of another man, he is sure to feel that he

has not done his duty. But if a Hindu dares to eat that piece of beef

or to give it to another Hindu, he is equally sure to feel that he too

has not done his duty; the Hindu's training and education make him feel

that way. In the last century there were notorious bands of robbers in

India called thugs; they thought it their duty to kill any man they

could and take away his money; the larger the number of men they

killed, the better they thought they were. Ordinarily if a man goes out

into the street and shoots down another man, he is apt to feel sorry

for it, thinking that he has done wrong. But if the very same man, as a

soldier in his regiment, kills not one but twenty, he is certain to

feel glad and think that he has done his duty remarkably well.

Therefore we see that it is not the thing done that defines a duty. To

give an objective definition of duty is thus entirely impossible.

[Guest guest]

I also had the same discussion with many peolpe.I will be grateful

if some enlighted person throws some light on this.Can you please

explain on this Please.

Sree.

 

 

 

Thu, 02 Jan 2003 Ananta wrote :

>But what is it that makes an act a duty? If a Christian finds a

>piece of beef before him and does not eat it to save his own

>life, or will not give it to save the life of another man, he is

>sure to feel that he has not done his duty. But if a Hindu dares

>to eat that piece of beef or to give it to another Hindu, he is

>equally sure to feel that he too has not done his duty; the

>Hindu's training and education make him feel that way. In the

>last century there were notorious bands of robbers in India

>called thugs; they thought it their duty to kill any man they

>could and take away his money; the larger the number of men they

>killed, the better they thought they were. Ordinarily if a man

>goes out into the street and shoots down another man, he is apt

>to feel sorry for it, thinking that he has done wrong. But if the

>very same man, as a soldier in his regiment, kills not one but

>twenty, he is certain to feel glad and think that he has done his

>duty remarkably well. Therefore we see that it is not the thing

>done that defines a duty. To give an objective definition of duty

>is thus entirely impossible.

 

 

 

Sreekanth Pulipati.

M-07985586294