Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:40:04 Roger Isaacs wrote: >Should the US have remained neutral in WW II? Well, they did for some time... as did some other countries. As I see it, wars are usually fought mainly with economic interests in mind, be it money or land. This often goes for defenders as well as attackers. The idea of the "just" war is a very tricky idea indeed. Something a bit akin to the "perfect murder" I suppose. The combined reasons for launching a war are usually never simple, yet they often can trace their origins to greed and / or lack. There are always the follies and desires of the human mind to consider when looking at the reasons for war. >"Do your natural duty to protect your loved >ones. If your body dies you will attain heaven & if you live you will have >heaven on earth. If you abstain from battle you will be called a coward & >more suffering will result". I see this to be equally relevant for the young men recruited for the war on both sides of any conflict. In fact, an oft repeated theme of the nazi war machine was the impending judgement as "coward" and "traitor" if one didn't agree to become a recruit and join to fight for the "right" cause, in this case, the Nazi cause. It was either that or "it is your true nature to fight". Through all times, state leaders have had an unfortunate tendency to exploit the energy, enthuiasm and sacrifical will of the youth for their own often violent means. It is easy to see this in the number of young ppl and child soldiers being used in conflicts all over the world. By coining one side is "evil", which by definition means that all that is done by these ppl is "bad", "wrong", "deplorable" etc etc is adding to the attitude of the propaganda machine of war, which intends to strip the socalled enemy of all his humanity and likeness of being to oneself and thus facilitate the ease of killing. In fact, it has been reported that on the battle field, the closer geographically the combatants are to each other and the closer in likeness their living conditions are (i.e. having to eat bad food, having little water, being fatigued and cold etc etc), the more respect will they have for each other. Both the war in the Bhagavad Gita and Jesus' cleansing of the temple in the Bible have been used as examples of righteous and right action, despite there being other and perhaps conflicting messages in these spiritual works. The choice between action and inaction in the matter of ahimsa is a very difficult indeed, especially when thinking about actions on a national or international scale. As I see it, the UN does a very admirable job in trying to curb the conflicts of the world, usually having to take pot shots from both sides of the conflict. The UN policy is often that of trying to avoid open active conflict, which in itself had led to conflict over when to act and where. One thing is certain though, a little ahimsa can go a very long way. One need not perhaps have to tackle the big issues, but rather try and find out what is the "right" action in the everyday environment where countless conflicts crop up. I didn't really want to say anything on the subject of WW2 or the Holocaust, as I've in the past talked about it too often, but here I go again. I'll let some other take the stage now and try not to squash you with my opinions in the future. Love, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 , "Roger Isaacs" <RIsaacs@c...> wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:00:44 Roger Isaacs wrote: > > > > >Vigorous even violent right-action might prevent > > >further violence. > > > > So vigorous violent action is ok as long as it > > is done for the right cause ? > > > > Amanda. > > Should the US have remained neutral in WW II? > > Krishna lectures Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita regarding these issues. Arjuna > says something perhaps remotely like: I'm going to lay down my bow, I can't > fight this civil war. I see my friends & relatives on the otherside. It's > better than they kill me unresisting than for me to kill them. If I kill > them this act will throw family & culture into disarray and only suffering > will result. > > Krishna responds, the dweller in the body is eternal, he is cannot be > burnt by fire or pierced by weapons or wet by water, the body dies but the > dweller in the body lives on. Do your natural duty to protect your loved > ones. If your body dies you will attain heaven & if you live you will have > heaven on earth. If you abstain from battle you will be called a coward & > more suffering will result. > > "What is right action?" seems like a worthwhile meditation. > > Roger The biography of Jean Jaures, a school friend of Henry Bergson, is very interesting to read. He got assassinated the day before war was declared between Germany and France. The next day his supposed speech, in front of german workers, to start a strike against the war is, and was, believed by many to put an end to what is known today as world war I. Yet asking oneself what one should not or should do, or have or have not done, or what consequence it will or will not have, is to my presence a very strange question in itself. IMHO, this very form of question or questioning of one in action, instead of simply being present to the Presence of the moment, is one of the major cause of the act of violence in itself. By this last statement such a statement is violence in itself. So back again I am to simple Presence... Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2000 Report Share Posted April 10, 2000 > > "What is right action?" seems like a worthwhile meditation. > > > > Roger > Yet asking oneself what one should not or should do, or have or have > not done, or what consequence it will or will not have, is to my > presence a very strange question in itself. IMHO, this very form of > question or questioning of one in action, instead of simply being > present to the Presence of the moment, is one of the major cause of > the act of violence in itself. By this last statement such a statement > is violence in itself. So back again I am to simple Presence... > > Antoine Certainly just "being present to the Presence of the moment" is ideal. But what if one is not still enough to effortlessly commune? If the illusion of a doer is one's reality, then considering the consequences of action are damned well appropriate, I say. Such consideration, of some sort, might very well be essential to dissolve illusion. You say considering the consequences of ones action are a "strange question". What planet do you live on? I acknowledge that at some point ordinary volition is an illusion. However, while one claims ownership of volition, aren't moral & ethical consideration appropriate? Where specifically is the boundary where moral & ethical consideration can be dropped? And what might the results be if a "doer" drops moral & ethical consideration before it's appropriate? Your comments might be interpreted as this: "Adolph, Go ahead follow your desire and invade Russia, invade France, invade England while yer at it. This would certainly be more appropriate than considering the consequences." The ultimate truth may very well be that there is no "doer", and volition maybe an illusion. However, if you claim licentious behavior is "the way", I beg to differ. Roger 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.