Is Euthanasia “good or bad”?
Isn’t that killing?
There is a big debate on that. Different laws in different countries will say different things. In Nature, to kill is neutral.
A falcon will kill to eat. The intention is to feed himself, to survive. It is not a business “for profit.” It is not to keep carcasses for another day and sell it or to teach that animal a “lesson.” On the other hand, humans have cynical reasons when it is about killing.
For instance, humans will kill deer (The nice label used is “hunting”) to manage the growing population of deer. Humans have killed the natural predators of deer as well.
Humans believe that human lives are above any other species.
Nevertheless, Humans will suffer the effects of those actions, as Nature requires a balance of species, which happens naturally without the thinking “help” from humans.
For Nature, there is no difference between a human life and an ant’s life, for those species are not seen as separated but are interdependent.
It is the belief of human beings to be “superior.” Thus, the intention behind the activities of humans will be tinted with that “superiority.”
That “Superiority” complex is depicted in human thought and belief systems.
As the intention behind human killing is hiding behind “economical reasons” or to preserve their own species overlooking others, then Nature will respond to balance those issues with a Natural disaster or humans themselves will kill each other as in a war.
Paradoxically, the “economical progress” and all perceived benefits in killing other species will be, washed away once Nature does its “cleaning job.”
It is called “zero balance.”
Of what help is human morality in “real life” (Nature)?
Not much. But yet, as a society we have selected a particular view of the world. We have created the “Office World.” That point of view is not an absolute by any means.
One last item: An intention is not a “whishy washy” thought. Something like: “I had the intention to help you, but something happened.”
That is not what I am referring to as “intention” although the dictionary may say so.
An intention is a feeling. It is what some will define as “inner voice.” That feeling which is the real drive to perform an action could be dressed up with thoughts and rationalization.
That is what thinking humans are good at. Rationalization is to come up with reasons to justify as to why we are acting in a particular way even though that inner feeling, feels otherwise.
For instance, John may voice how much he likes cows. Although his real intention is not to keep the cow alive but to kill it so he can gain profit. That greed is his real intention which could be rationalized in different ways to “look good and proper.”
Once we observe how tricky it could be for a society to pinpoint the real intention in an individual, then it becomes easier to come up with a line between “good actions” and “bad actions,” and to make a story as to why something is “good or bad” and thus “karma.”
When we understand that our human tendency is to “dress ourselves up” to look good, then spirituality is no longer a “practice” or something “to do to groom ourselves” but rather it becomes an issue of stripping down every belief, every learned story, every point of view, every thing that we could hold on to as a “savior” for the sake of being completely naked… then we could see that Nature is not separated from us, but us.
Robert was meditating in a group meditation. This particular type of meditation is about stillness of the body. To avoid making any movement and to become aware of our own breathing.
After meditation was over, Robert shared with his teacher that he felt bliss.
“It was a sensation of fulfillment;” Robert mentioned.
Then, Robert explained that he felt physical pain after a while during the meditation, but in this occasion, it was the first time that he fully accepted it, and the pain stopped being that bothersome.
His teacher said that it is good to feel those things, but equanimity is the teaching. Don’t take pleasure neither pain. Remain in equanimity.
The students agreed with the teacher.
Isn’t that a good teaching? 🙂
It depends. Some will teach: “Do what is pleasurable. Avoid what is painful. It is good as long as it feels good.”
Another teaching will say: “Sacrifice your pleasure now. Renounce pleasure now for it is just tempting you. You will indulge in it and you will forget about greater things in life.”
Yet, Robert’s teacher mentioned to remain in equanimity by not taking pleasure nor pain.
Which one is the right teaching? For sure, one of them has to be the right one, for those 3 teachings contradict themselves.
That is how 3 different “religions,” 3 different belief systems emerged.
As we grow in awareness, we could see that the first teaching “Do what is pleasurable and avoid what is painful,” makes sense. Most people will follow this. It is for the masses. Nevertheless, it is forgotten that duality does not work like that. Pleasure comes with pain. The more pleasure we pursue; equal amount of pain will be experienced in one way or another. The anticipation of pleasure is emotional pain until pleasure comes. Once pleasure is experienced, comes the pain of not being in pleasure. 😦
The above is the cycle of addiction.
The second teaching is about becoming acquainted with pain, so it is not that “painful” anymore and to avoid the other side of duality, that is pleasure as much as possible. This spiritual teachings was made popular when the understanding about the flesh, the body; as the culprit for not experiencing our spiritual side. That is bring the spirit up, the soul forward by denying the body. The masses could understand this teaching very well. “Don’t do this. Do that instead.” The issue is that pain could become the pursuit. It could become the “pleasure.” More pain experienced means a greater state of sainthood.
Masochists are those who find pleasure in pain.
The third teaching is to remain in equanimity by rejecting both, pleasure and pain; seems logical; it seems “good”… However, in Spirituality to make an “effort” to reject duality means not to experience life but to become a machine. Duality is not “bad.”
All of the above teachings have shortcomings. The issue resides in the type of consciousness we are in.
According to that consciousness, there will be a type of follower for those teachings.
A “normal” person has an addictive personality. If it feels good, you want more of it, always more. That is why the teaching of denying things is thought to be the answer to reform the person. But then, too much denial becomes an “abnormal” behavior. The question is, what is “too much”?
Thus, to deny both sides of duality; takes away the experience of life.
When our consciousness accepts pain with the same equanimity as pleasure, then there is equanimity in acceptance. That means, there is equanimity in experiencing life. When pain is not taken as pain neither pleasure as pleasure, when we abandon those ideas, there is freedom from pursuing something. It is just an experience.
Until our minds are not-self absorbed in the experience of one side or the denial of both sides of duality, then we will no experience balance, we will not enjoy life with gratitude.
It is pain bad? No. It is pleasure bad? No. It is pain good? No. It is pleasure good? No. They are neither bad nor good.
What are they?
Pain and Pleasure.
Please realize that it is our clinging mind, our mind full of attachments to liking something or even rejecting something (we become attached to that idea) that state is taking us out of balance and harmony.
The above teachings are not concerned about individuals, so they discover the state of their minds through experience and observation. Those teachings are more into putting a paragraph of “do “ and “don’t do” in a basic law, in a book to worship, so it fits all.
A “Fit all sizes” type of deal, will not fit all very well. It never has.