-
devaPriya’s original is in bold. Mine is in normal font.
~~~~~~~
You're saying that in your last life as a samari you became absolutely indifferent to murder?
MiBeloved:
I used Samuri as a comparison not to state that it was my experience in a past life but I can understand how a reader would imply that.
I don't understand how this paragraph works in:
This is evidence that one’s moral stance in relation to anything, will, more than likely, be disrupted if the yogi takes another embryo. He will again do unwanted acts because his basis for resisting such acts is to an extent based on memory, something which may not be accessible in an infant body, something which may not form into a strong enough instinct in his subtle form.
I'm confused. Does this mean that in your last life you were compassionate toward the suffering of beings or that you were not? It seems like it implies you were and then as a new child in Guyana you did not maintain the compassion.
Could you clarify?
MiBeloved:
Yes, in the past life there was that compassion, and then assuming the new body, that was absent from the moral parameters in the way the subtle body was adjusted.
The sufferings of beings, as you term it, really means the awareness of the sufferings of particular beings. It is not a universally applied meter towards all sufferings. First one has to be aware of a suffering of a particular being, then one has to apply empathy or dispassion or some other feelings.
Lord Mahavir, a Jain guru, establish radical compassion on a universal level, such that even today some Jains wear a cloth mask over their faces so as to not breathe microscopic creatures (virus and macrobacteria). Before modern times with microfilters, some Jains used to strain all water through cotton before using it.
Where does that end? What is the limit?
Am I aware of the insects under my foot or shoe whom I crush when I make every step? Rishabha (Ri-shab-ha) used to be wary about walking and also his son Bharata who later took a body as a fawn.
What about our affinity toward Lord Krishna and his affinity toward the wonder of the cow? That doesn't stand up in this day and age? It does for some of us though.
MiBeloved:
To answer about Krishna, one would have to first explain his instrumentality directly and indirectly through others in killing human beings and even in engineering assassinations. He caused the death of many people during his life on earth. Even a seasoned warrior like Arjuna was scared of Krishna’s lack of empathy towards the Kauravas.
His affinity for cows? Even that had a limit because he killed Vatsasura, a bull which was a nuisance animal, and he detachedly left Vrindaban and never went back to see the cows there whom he protected in his juvenile days.
-
I also don't understand, if you don't care about murder and the horrors of this dimension, why leave? Why work so hard to leave a place that doesn't bother you? Even witnessing the murder of our Lord's favorite animal and a favorite of many of us?
I do mind the horrors of this dimension, that's what motivates me to leave.
What motivates you then?
MiBeloved:
Motivation to leave this dimension?
That is important if for no other reason that the motivation acts as the engine of enthusiasm for the yogi/yogini. However as each of the selves are different. Each may have a different motivation.
Mine is simply that I know of other better places to be.
Even physically we see that people leave one country and go to another on the basis of some description which they learn about from others. That is natural.
For me, nature runs this place and it is really none of business how nature arranged this. If nature arranged this to be a dog-eat-dog situation, then that is just fine with me. But if nature has another bettter place, and if it is possible to qualify to transit there, I will endeavor to buy a ticket out of here.
My question about this place is not about the circumstances here but rather about if there are other arrangements of nature which are available. If such places exist, then I am ready to abandon this place. I do not see that anyone can change the way this place is set up, except superficially. I do not want to waste my time endeavoring to change something which cannot be adjusted ever in a permanent way. So it is best for me to find more suitable accomodations elsewhere.
Unlike the oneness philosophers, I am interested in a compatible environment rather than in no environment. I want to be with other compatible people, rather than to be in a people-less absolute energy. But certainly I respect the way this place is set up even though many of its aspects are not to my liking.
To perceive the anguish of a dying animal, one which was brutally murdered, one has to have certain perceiving equipment. As a coreSelf (atma) only one cannot perceive the death of anything. One has to have adjuncts and that psychic equipment must be configured and linked in a specific way.
This is called exposure. If I am exposed to cow slaughter and my adjuncts are configured in a certain way, then I will not be able to bear it. If it is configured in another way, I may be indifferent to it.
From that perspective, it is the combination of coreSelf and adjuncts which causes one person to react in this way and another person in that way.
Recently a medical professional took blood from my arm. He used a hypodermic needle. Because of the configuration of the adjuncts and how they were linked to the coreSelf, I could not bear to even look at the needle. I had to turn my head away. Once I could not see it, it did not cause anguish except for the expectation of pain when the needle was to be inserted.
This means that somehow, I have the sensitivity now which I did not have as a juvenile looking at a cow being slaughtered. That is what is meant by exposure.
-
Comment to Indifference in a New Body
