a lot of what we discussed yesterday (tuesday) had to do with determinism vs. free will, i.e., the role of moksha as a form of getting out of the law of karma. at one level jainism seems to endorse that view. but at a deeper level, i think there is no "out." this is why i posted (below) a more detailed discussion about punyas and papas. please, read it to inform your comments for this thread. there, i address the paradox of radical libertarianism opposing determinism (only to let it in through the backdoor).
then there was the trimurti and the five basic ethical principles. the issue of intention (mens rea) and pleasure came up. we discussed that pleasure is a deep metaphor. i mentioned epicurus as a reference from the west (i like to cross-reference east with west). for epicurus, there are temporary and lasting pleasures, the latter are superior to the former, something jainism would agree with. you see, pleasure by itself is not a liability. pleasure is structural for homosapiens. the problem is when pleasure becomes exponential. the paradox of pleasure is to enjoy it to the point of letting sorrow through the back door.
Note: For this post, let's include our discussion on ahimsa, in light of gandhi's insights.
remember: i'm closing this post next monday at 11pm.
20 comments:
The more I learn about Jainism, the more I am attracted to it. The five basic ethical principles of non-violence (ahimsa), truth (satya), non-stealing (asteya), celibacy (brahmacarya), and non-possession (aparigraha) are all virtues I would like to possess to some degree. Of course, the degree to which these principles can be practiced are different for the layperson and the monk. That is to say that it would be impractical for the layperson to take ahimsa to the extreme where he would sweep the ground in front of him on his way to school each day just to be sure he didn't step on any small creatures. However, that is not to say that he would be able to justify meat-eating or even the consumption dairy products which came from inhumanely treated animals. Being the sincere believer in karma that I am, I find this level of consideration given to one’s actions highly attractive. I find great pleasure in knowing that by following these five basic ethical principles, and by practicing right knowledge, right faith, and right conduct I can call myself a Jaina.
Maria Beltran said..
The idea of salvation was always comforting to me, I thought that if we lived a "good" life we would find peace and live in eternal paradise. That is a pretty picture, however, the more I learn about different religions and practices, I become more skeptical and wonder if the ideas like moksha, heaven, samsara or nirvana, exist only to give us hope as well as to keep us from evil. This does not mean I do not believe in karma nor am I discouraged to do what it takes to be considered a good being.
Whether we achieve this by following the five principles of Jainism or by doing the good deeds Jesus laid out on the Beatitude. (Ex: Feeding the hungry,clothing the naked, healing the sick and burying the dead.) does not matter, at least not in my opinion. We should want to be good, and do good things in THIS life regardless of where that will take us in the next life or what our consequences will be once we are dead. I find it strange and a bit depressing that we need to be motivated by fear in order to do what is right.
I am torn,I can't make up my mind and I don't know what I believe. I question all these theories but simultaneously,I believe one SHOULD actually be rewarded or enlightened in a way if he does possess virtues of a more "evolved" being.
I would like to be able to explain myself better in this comment, but I find it very difficult since my mind is still filled with questions and doubts. I have a lot of thinking to do.
Maria, you’re right that the means by which salvation can be obtained are different between Jainism and Christianity. In Jainism, liberation (moksha) is obtained by burning off one’s karma through the practice of nonviolence (ahimsa) and self-control, rather than being granted eternal life by believing in and trusting in Jesus for the remission of one’s sins. Faith is necessary, however, for both of these philosophies to operate.
I agree with you that we should want to be good and do good things in this life regardless of the impact it makes on our afterlives. We are not all motivated by fear however. Some of us, like myself, are motivated by faith. I have faith that my positive influence on humanity will also have a positive affect on my life. That is to say that I have faith that the law of karma is real. Because of this, I am more inclined to adopt a philosophy that goes into greater depth about this law.
Janism, it seems to me, is another philosophy that was developed as another option for the poeple that did not want to agree or follow the ways or believes that were around that time.I think that many of us are Jainas; well, the way that I see it in modern times is that we are Jainas in search of: the right knowledge, the right faith and the right conduct. I say many of us are like this, because we are aware of our acts (at least most of the time) and we want to develop into the best version of ourselves. The trimurti and the 5 basic ethical principles are great guides towards the goal of developing ourselves (just like the 10 commandments). All this may work to achieve moshka or not, the bottom line is that we do not know until we get there if we do. So by following these principles even if we do not get moshka we live a great life regardless. Ahimsa is a great principle, with it we could get in agreement non-violently towards the best of humanity, there would be no wars, and it would be an Ethiopia. Unfortunatly, we were raised to always be competitive, if we don't fight we are weak, and this type of thinking is hurting OUR world.
Violence is an intrinsic attribute in man, serving as a self-defense mechanism. It helps us prepare for and/or avoid impending dangers. This leads to the belief, we fear that we do not understand. (example) We don't completely comprehend insects because we cannot properly communicate with them, their intentions are unknown to us, therefore when killing a spider we are only averting possible harm.
I did have a bit of an issues digesting part of the discussion we had in class in which it mentioned that we are responsible for everything that happens in our lives besides birth. The example of the brick and the earthquake were very valid examples, very much understandable, and to a point agreeable.
However, where do you guys stand when a person walks down an alley and gets assaulted as a cause of that. Or worse, if it becomes a matter of life and death, or perhaps rape?
To me this belief is very black and white. You chose to go through the alley and therefore you chose to get raped, or you chose to get assaulted. It's hard to put those circumstances in a nutshell as it is, at least to me, a grey area.
What do you guys think?
I have some confusion on how punya and papa play in terms of the "seven levels of heaven and hell"...are the heavens and hells actually spirit worlds, are they a state of mind or are they spiritual prisons/paradise your soul is entombed in while you're still on earth? Is punya and papa the same thing as karma? Who's to deem your actions right or wrong? And if there is no way to determine what is right or wrong how can our spirits be affected by the "good/bad" we do?
Jainism is the ally of determinism. Being that moksha is not a removal of samsara, more of an acceptance, it lends itself to futility. Moksha seems to me as the excuse the communist gives to the plebes, simply work harder because you are already in a state of salvation. The abusive husband whispers to the beaten wife that she cannot leave him because they have children and that they are her salvation. Moksha is a means of control and manipulation, an empty promise that is used to provide an unending reservoir of false hope. If moksha simply means a continuation of current life then there is, in my opinion, no point to seek it and no incentive to accept it.
on the other hand one cannot deny that the principle of causation (every effect has a cause that makes it happen) seems to hold in the macro-world. if so, moksha is not so easily dismissible.
don't mind me guys, go on.
I respect Jainism’s tenets of right mind, right faith, and right conduct, as well as the five ethical principles. Living a life of strict adherence to these tenets and beliefs is a noble pursuit to undertake. I believe that any individual who practices all of these things does a service to humanity, but whether he does a service to his own life seems to be a matter of faith—faith that one will achieve siddha or some other form of paradise. I personally am not interested in placing my faith in the idea that I should walk around, head down, trying to avoid ants. Maybe it seems too inhuman. Maybe someday I will change my mind on this. I won’t deny, however, the important impact that the practice of nonviolence has had over the past century in allowing oppressed people to overcome their oppression. It has proved to be immensely powerful.
I would have to agree with most of this actually. i remember you mentioned in class that people aren't aware they're jainism, but once we learn what it is a light bulb lights up, and we know how to define our believes. the one thing i strongly agree with is ahimsa, which means not to injure. without going too much into detail, i'm very big on nonviolence. i believe in either arguing calmly with words, or walking away and never looking back, but never any physical altercation. While i am a meat eater, i am a very big animal lover, so i especially agree with no violence towards anything alive.
But besides the violence one, i actually do agree with Satya, Asteya and Aparigraha. i don't agree with celibacy, only because as humans, sex is a natural thing, and some psychologist may say its actually a need, and not everyone is fortunate enough to meet a significant other, so they might as well get the need out of the way and do what they want. i do believe there are sex addicts, so in regards to that. im also not saying to go around having sex 4 times a day. there should be a limit in pleasure before it becomes an addiction.
regarding Jainism as a whole, and not just different sections, i would say i agree with majority, but of course not 100%.
Regarding Karma, I would agree that having bad thoughts, but not executing them, you're deciding whether to have negative or positive karma come your way.
As many others, I grew up with the concept of salvation and eternal peace. I like what Maria said in reference to the idea of being kind and good in our lives not for the sake of salvation in the afterlife but just simply being good and making this world a little less cruel. Over time, I grew to find the cycle of punya and papa far more appealing considering that pain gives value to pleasure. For example, the beginning of a new relationship with someone in which that pleasure is present for the first time but over time may fizzle out and conflicts may arise and pain may ensue as the relationship dwindles to an end. The problem is we have a tendency to long to feel the original pleasure again as it was felt the first time. In the determinism vs. free will discussion I feel like it really is just contingent up on the scenario and that it is possible for both to be present in a situation. I guess that makes me more of a compatibilist? However I feel like I lean a bit more towards the determinism side.
I understand how punyas and papas should effect your life and operate … These are almost like the rocks that you put in your Karma scale. Hopefully this metaphor makes sense… The more good I do the more punya I bring to world as opposed to papa which would do the opposite .. And my papa/ punya follows me from one this reincarnated state to the next …
I do have several theories/questions that I want to point out so If I go off on a tangent please excuse me …
First off what if reincarnation only means us coming to new stages of our lives as in we don’t neccesarily have to die to reincarnate. How many stages in your life have you have how many times have there been events that have happened in your life where you felt as if you have had something change you to either something better or worse .. one example can be when you moved away from your parents homes … did you leave on good terms…? Were you a good son or daughter these papas and punyas follow you to this new stage in your life once youre moved out .. another could be once you get married then your relationship with your child … so on and so forth ..
What if another version of papas and punyas is a way of spiritual and political leaders finding an excuse as to why there is so much poverty in the world … a way that they wouldn’t feel responsible and almost be able to excuse themselves and just say “nah, those poor people… they are just bad people”…..
Jainism religion teaches salvation by perfection through successive lives, and non-injury to living creatures. I essentially believe that a human should use its self-awareness, and conscience as their manual for making decisions. Self-control is a gatekeeper towards liberation. You cant follow Jainism’s ethical principles such as non-violence, living a life true to the golden rule, not stealing, celibacy, and non possession if you don’t have self-control. These are virtues that I would love to see the human race habituate. So much so that our culture sees them as honorable and cool, and recognizes it. As Derek was saying, “In Jainism – Liberation or (moksha) is obtained by burning off one’s karma through practice of nonviolence and self-control”. This means that If our reason is pure, and our awareness is sound, our will power will determine who we will become. I agree with Derek, in that trusting in Jesus for the remission of one’s sins isn’t enough. Being the change we want to see in the world is key. Because it allows us to feel good about ourselves as we influence the social environment around us. Its easy to forget that “Your beliefs become your thoughts, Your thoughts become your words, Your words become your actions, Your actions become your habits, Your habits become your values, Your values become your destiny.” And that when our actions, words, and thoughts are in harmony, we find inner peace.
Pedro Sabarots is the Anonymous Comment about ^
Sonicah, you pose many good questions – some of which I can answer. In regards to punya (merit) and papa (demerit), good karmas are punya and bad karmas are papa. As I understand it, your actions are deemed either punya or papa based on their consequences – punya result in pleasure and papa in pain. Punya leads to the path of moksha (liberation) ultimately and papa leads to the path of bondage. It should not go unnoted that both punya and papa are derogatory to the path of moksha. It may, however, not be so easy to see why in the case of punya. This is because punya leads to pleasure, and pleasure is not beneficial because a mundane soul indulging in sense pleasures remains withdrawn from the path of spiritual purity.
Anton, I do believe there is some confusion as to what moksha is in the Jainism philosophy. Moksha does not simply mean a continuation of current life. One who attains moksha in Jainism attains infinite bliss, infinite knowledge, and infinite perception. This is what Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara, experienced.
Gabriela Gallardo said…
I feel very enlightened learning about the practice of ahimsa. Points that Gandhi mentioned that stuck out to me in particular were when he says that there is no defeat in ahimsa and I think that is something very powerful to say just because we learn the most about ourselves and life when we fail so it is not something that should be looked upon as a failure in any way shape or form. Another point I found quite intresting that Gandhi say's is "A satyagrahi is dead to his body even before his enemy attempts to kill him, i.e. he is free from attachment to his body and only lives in the victory of his soul." I think what this comment is saying is that when we die our soul is then freed because while we are alive we experience things like fear and pain that our soul does not feel so once our body is dead our soul is let free to no longer be a slave to the human body and what comes along with it.
Peace is the inner nature of human kind. If you find it within yourself, you will find it everywhere. And you will take it with you when you die
Even as proponent of freewill, I find arguing in its favor useless. I enjoy the illusion of freewill even if my actions are determined. What I will analyze is the quality of malleability (a quality that is both good and bad) the Jainism enjoys. It is when we observe this flexibility, we realize these guidelines are not far different from the morals we abide to today. And we see this clearly in the 5 ethical principles of Jainism.
As Gandhi describes Ahimisa was see many exceptions and even some contradictions. By saying “A-himsa presupposes the ability to strike” we adopt a ‘peace through strength’ mentality. When our enemies do not adopt our same principles of non-violence, defending ourselves through violence is both justified and necessary. So we CAN be violent when need be. However Gandhi says by carrying our sticks we are fearful. This is considering the fact that in Jainism we detach ourselves from any sort of worldly possession, even our own body. But quite frankly, I’d rather be fearful then dead.
When we look at the principle of celibacy, the same code of ethics applies. We can have sex, if our end goal isn’t pursue to pleasure. We can be gluttonous, if our end goal wasn’t to indulge in pleasure.
Post a Comment