Does fighting for nation brings karmic reactions

[Raksha]

Hare Krsna

Please can u clear one thing that on the one hand killing people in war also brings Karmic reactions which one has to suffer in next birth on the other hand Arjuna was instructed by lord himself to take part in war.if a person fights war with spirit on patriotism(not to kill people but to serve nation) then also reactions are same

 

 

[Pujar]

First of all, this war was foisted upon Pandavas by their cousions due to the greed for the Hastinapur Kingdom. In order to avert war, Pandavas had sent, Lord Krishna as their emmissary to Duryodhana, asking him to give just five villages to them and keep the rest of the kingdom. However, Duryodhana did not accept this demand. Apart from this gross injustice, Kauravas had been very cruel and hostile to Pandavas since the very beginning. Laying down the arms on the battlefield could mean total surrender to the evil forces, which Lord Krishna did not want to happen. Therefore, Lord was on the side of Pandavas during the war which was not initiated by them. Thus, Karmic reactions (fruits) would certainly not result in such an action which is actually a reaction to someone else's action.

This situation cannot be compared to the present day scenario seen in most parts of the world, where people from one faith are trying to disturb the people of another faith. Countries are engaged in wars in order to grab more territory. Wars are alos foisted on weaker countries by the stronger ones. This situation is entirely different that what had happened during Mahabharat war.

[Tarun]

Yes, y not? Unless transcendental nirguN, than must be: sa gunAn samatityaitAn brahma-bhUyAya kalpate

Nowadays, good karma-phalam & bad vikarma-viphalam reactions r coming mixed, not isolated.

Soldiers become crippled physically &/or mentally (bad) yet they receive some $pension (good).

Present day wars r fought over opium, cocaine, oil, rubber, nickel, cadmium, never ideology.

Ideology left battlefield centuries ago. Pound still controls Dollar & Euro.

Amerikan Civil War is still going on.

Texas ENRON attacked California, Florida 9/11 attacked New York

Crystal Clear: Slavery South hasn't surrendered yet.

Vedik Conquest Principle: Xatriyas rule by bodily strength & polygamy, not nickel-dime treachery & slavery

Fort Knox has never seen gold, nor will Fort Knox ever see gold; not in their wildest dreams.

These morons guised as statesmen r totally befooled, literally headless & armless. Only belly & legs remain.

[bhaktajoy]

"If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of conditional life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be lost."

 

If one works for Krsna then there is no karmic reaction.The thinking that we are Indians and Americans and that we should work for our nations is false.It is illusion.Serving one another is part of the higher purpose of serving God.

 

 

 

[Gauracandra]

Every action will have a reaction. Now if something is done for a higher purpose (like Arjuna killing) then the reaction will be there, but it will be positive. A warrior is meant for fighting, and if he fights to defend the weak then he will bring about positive results to the world, not negative.

[xxvvii]

Does fighting for nation brings karmic reactions? Certainly. Each one is responsible for his individual karma & the nation for the collective karma. Thereby it's reasonable to consider karma to be exact & strict.

[Guest guest]

Let's make one thing clear.

No longer are we in Dvapara Yuga, and warriors like Arjun don't exist anymore, and the laws of ksatriya dharma don't exist either. Also, the Mahabharata is one of Krishna's lilas. He does it for *fun*, and

all the main characters of the Mahabharata were very advanced souls selected by Krishna to participate in his lila.

 

 

These days war is petty, and there is absolutely no dharma in it. If anything, it's much closer to demoniac principles than it is to ksatriya principles, so, yes, it'll surely bring bad karma.

[Gauracandra]

I agree with Karna that most of the fighting done today (maybe all), is basically demoniac. Still, there are bad people, and REALLY bad people. So fighting is necessary if we are going to stop such individuals. Aggressive people can only be stopped by aggression I think. You can't talk nice with Osama Bin Laden and expect him to comply. You need to kill him. My two cents.

[gHari]

I was off work during the Gulf War and spent much time as an armchair General watching the tube. Like everyone else I had developed a dislike for the Iraqis who would not leave the poor Kuwaitis alone. I even supported to a point the march into Bhagdad. I was punished for that.

 

One night I dreamt that bombers were flying over my town as I cowered in my bed fearing the dropping bombs. Clearly the anguish I had sanctioned upon the innocent civilians of Bhagdad was now bouncing back to me so I could learn the lesson.

 

Every time I hear how we are killing innocent Afghans again and again, I fear the same karma is soon to return - hopefully just in a dream, although that anguish is still very real. America unfortunately has received more than dreams of terror as a reaction to their disrespect for the innocent. Now the fear has returned home very real, waking and asleep.

 

IN GOD WE TRUST? I'm afraid not. That was our forefathers.

[Guest guest]

Good to see some intelligent ppl in the forums every now and then

[Gauracandra]

what is the best way to combat such evil. I remember a brilliant point that was made to some pacifists. These pacifists were saying "We shouldn't be at war, we shouldn't be fighting." So the reporter (I think it was O'Reilly from Fox News) asked a very specific question. "A man comes into your house and is going to rape your wife and kill her, do you try to talk him out of it, or do you fight with him to stop him." Literally the pacifist could not answer him. He was like "Thats hypothetical, that doesn't count, we should not have violence, this war is unjust..." and he couldn't answer this simple question. The answer is you kill/try to stop this person who is going to try to kill your wife. You don't try to understand him.

[Avinash]

We can't make a generic rule that violence is always bad. Depending on the situation, it can be good or bad.

[theist]

What made the battle at Kuruksetra justified?

 

 

[bhaktajoy]

God's plan?

[Gauracandra]

What made the war justified? When is war justified? I suppose when the weak need protecting. However, this brings up an interesting point - what are Vedic ethics. How do we know what is right and what is wrong? And how does this differ from a western perspective. I believe Socrates's view was something along the lines that there are always two extremes in any decision, and the goal is to achieve a balance between these too extremes. That is, the right decision is the one that balances both sides, is in the middle. I'm not sure I agree with this view. Others might say that "What is right is what benefits the most people in society" (utilitarianism)?

[atma]

You're right when you do something for the pleasure of the Lord and you're wrong when you do something for your own gratification.

[Gauracandra]

The problem is this becomes a very unprecise view of ethics. Unfortunately many devotees's view of ethics is "Whatever pleases God is good, and what pleases God just so happens to be what I want to do." The problem here is that then everyone has a different ethical standard and bad things occur. For instance, is disciple poaching ethical? Well what if God wants everyone to see that your guru is the best. Then yes disciple poaching would be ethical. Do I think this is right? No. But this is where the problem occurs. I see this happen alot, where as devotees we perhaps ignore common standards, and fall back on our own standards, convinced that what we want it surely what God wants.

[atma]

That's why you follow guru, shastra and sadhu to distinguish right from wrong. You don't let your mind guide you. It could be your worst enemy.

[theist]

How about the right to kill aggressors.Does that apply to all or only the most righteous?

 

 

[mahak]

I say kill the aggressors. But, in saying this, I remember Srila Prabhupada, during japa, admonished a devotee for slapping a mosquito, calling him the aggressor. Who makes the determination?

 

Kali Yuga nations are contaminated because no one is qualified to make life and death calls. Capital punishment may be okay, after all, should a child killer be spared? But the judge who hands out the sentence may be a greater demon, and may engage in even more demoniac behavior, like failing to make unpopular life and death decision when the evidence changes in favor of an unpopular (black) candidate for the chair, due to bureaucratic concerns and timeliness issues.

 

National defence is also contaminated to the point of uselessness. The US is no better, no worse, than Saddam's Iraq. It is the epitome of hypocracy that nations declare wars and engage their people to support such. But, the king takes the karma of whom he controls, so the soldiers are not to blame.

 

In fact, when the US goes to war, their own soldiers are also the enemy. Just witness the treatment of veterans who were attacked with agent orange, gulf war syndrome, etc. Nopw we have this war on terrorism, but who is the enemy? Mothers are forced to drink their own breast milk by airport security to prove it is not poison, our rights are all but gone. So, think about it. The karma for supporting kali yuga agents in the form of demoniac governments is quick, we all lose for such support.

 

What to do??? How do we stop terrorism? Well, refusal to address the underlying cause for terrorism and just killing those rats in the corner lashing out at everyone in futility is a super failure, and the failure will be clearer each day until we concern ourselves with the main issues. Killing a terrorist is like slapping a mosquito, there are many more to infect us, so the killing is futile. And, the only ones who really get killed are the innocent anyway, as there is no art of war demonstrated by anyone in political power. Body count does not make judgement on innocence or guilt, the numbers of bodies stacked is the only way we can count VICTORY. And the real terrorists are always spared to die from natural causes, like Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and other mass killers, these guys are never stopped.

 

As far as I am concerned, desert storm just helped Saddam kill his own people while sparing him and his republican guard.

 

haribol.mahak

[Gauracandra]

 

That's why you follow guru, shastra and sadhu to distinguish right from wrong. You don't let your mind guide you. It could be your worst enemy.

 

 

Yes, but which guru, sadhu, and shastra? This is a major problem with the structure of ethics in "Indian" society so to speak. I spoke on this point in another posting, but basically Indian society is atomistic. There is so much diversity, and ultimately it comes down to following your own path. From a Western view of ethics, you and I don't get to decide what is ethical or not ethical. The individual is irrelevant. It is everyone else (society) who gets to decide if what we have done was ethical or not. This is why Socrates believes that the best decision to make is that one which splits the difference between two extremes. It brings about the most harmonious action within society. The problem with this world view is that absolutes are missing. If society today says abortion is acceptable, and we have to choose a middle ground, then we may side with an abortion policy to get along. But we end up as former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan says of defining deviancy downward. On the other hand, the Eastern [for want of a better term] view is to follow your own path, which in a sense is a form of selfishness. I get to decide what is best for me, you decide what is best for you. And in the end, we have no common basis for determining whether what you are doing is right or not, or what I am doing is right or not. For instance, in the example I gave of disciple poaching. A person will say "My guru has told me to engage in disciple poaching." Test 1 complete. Then he will say "My sadhus [the people he associates with] have said to engage in disciple poaching." Test 2 complete. Finally, he will say "Sastra says everyone should come to my guru to get love of God" so Test 3 is complete. This is the problem with the cultification of society. What is right or wrong is not based on society, but simply what we decide upon within our own little group. This is why small religious groups can be very dangerous, because their ethical reference point often is based purely on their own selfish, self-referential group. Dennis Prager once made an interesting point, giving a very simple means to determine if something is right or wrong. I'm not sure it works every time, but it is useful. Essentially one simply needs to ask what would happen to society if everyone decided to engage in a particular activity. Not simply you, or your group, in a particular circumstance. But everyone. It helps if nothing else to atleast separate our own self-interests. Again, it puts society's interests first and not our own.

[atma]

OK, I got it now.

[atma]

Got me thinking.... Kripalu told me to do this.., Guruji told me to do this, Vishnupada told me this,,,etc, etc. If we feel good everything is fine.

[xxvvii]

Notice that I didn't say karma is always negtive & I didn't thoroughly forbid violence. Meanwhile, you should see that the scriptures can be taken adv. of easily.

*********

Sirach

15:14 He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel;

15:15 If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to perform acceptable faithfulness.

15:16 He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt.

15:17 Before man is life and death; and whether him liketh shall be given him.

15:18 For the wisdom of the Lord is great, and he is mighty in power, and beholdeth all things:

15:19 And his eyes are upon them that fear him, and he knoweth every work of man.

15:20 He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, neither hath he given any man licence to sin.

-------------

40:5 Wrath, and envy, trouble, and unquietness, fear of death, and anger, and strife, and in the time of rest upon his bed his night sleep, do change his knowledge.

40:6 A little or nothing is his rest, and afterward he is in his sleep, as in a day of keeping watch, troubled in the vision of his heart, as if he were escaped out of a battle.

40:7 When all is safe, he awaketh, and marvelleth that the fear was nothing.

40:8 [such things happen] unto all flesh, both man and beast, and that is sevenfold more upon sinners.

40:9 Death, and bloodshed, strife, and sword, calamities, famine, tribulation, and the scourge;

40:10 These things are created for the wicked, and for their sakes came the flood.

40:11 All things that are of the earth shall turn to the earth again: and that which is of the waters doth return into the sea.

[ethos]

Yes, this concerned me before too.

 

What I have understood from authorities is that violence is a valid spiritual principle. Force is necessary where good arguments fail and opposing elements must be dealt with. Isn't it a natural law that one is to be punished for crimes or sins - even on the material plane? How and where violence is applied lies with the person in knowledge.

 

A king or government is supposed to know what the Lord's desire is. If a soldier is serving a gov't who is carrying out the Lord's order, there is no karmic reaction because after all one is acting on the highest authority.

 

However, if the gov't is unqualified or otherwise sectarian and engages in death and distruction for personal or extended gain, then the participants - individual or collective - are liable for karmic reactions.

 

On a very basic level, it is the individual responsibility of every soul to find out and understand what is to be accepted and rejected, what moral codes are and what is to be done. And it is religion which ultimately deals with this field and expands man's capacity to ultimately know the quality and purpose of everything. In this way we are the same as God. Where we differ is in quantity.