General/Non-Specific: The Central Teaching of Your Religion

[Aisling]

Treat all other living beings as your equals.

Can you elaborate on this a little bit?

On the surface, that sounds like a really difficult ideal to uphold.  I'm trying rather unsuccessfully to wrap my head around how this would work when the living being in question is a bacteria or fungus. 

[Altair]

Can you elaborate on this a little bit?

On the surface, that sounds like a really difficult ideal to uphold.  I'm trying rather unsuccessfully to wrap my head around how this would work when the living being in question is a bacteria or fungus.

I too would like to hear more about this from EDF, but I think possibly there's a distinction to be drawn between "Treat all other living beings as your equals" and "Treat all other living beings equally."

I don't believe human beings are in any objective sense superior to our fellow beings in this world; we're not some evolutionary apex, but just a branch of life's huge and complex tree that went in a particular (and I would say, rather interesting) direction.

One way to look at it: The cells of my brain are no more a part of me than my red blood cells. They are equally part of me...but I don't treat them equally, because of their different functions, their different replaceability, etc.

So if one were to view all species on this planet as part of one greater organism, we're all equal in that no one species is more a part of the organism than another; but that doesn't mean that you have to treat all species the same way.

Indeed, from a planetary perspective, humans are singularly unimportant. The Earth would get along just fine without us (actually, much better). Wipe out one particular brand of bacteria, however--mitochondria, the "bacteria" that live inside our cells--and every plant and animal on the face of the planet ceases to exist. So who's more important?

[Hariti]

Can you elaborate on this a little bit?

On the surface, that sounds like a really difficult ideal to uphold.  I'm trying rather unsuccessfully to wrap my head around how this would work when the living being in question is a bacteria or fungus.

Well, it *is* difficult to completely uphold, impossible even. The idea is that you should strive to minimize any harm you cause to other living things, to seek forgiveness when you do cause harm, and to never intentionally harm anything for material gain. Actually accomplishing this is not feasible, but striving to do so is.

The people who come closest to truly living the doctrine of Ahimsa, (which is found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism) are Jain monks. They quite literally do try to avoid accidentally killing microbes, by covering their mouths when they walk, in an effort to filter them out. They also try to avoid stepping on insects, or even stepping on plants too hard and injuring them. It's a rigorous, grueling, difficult goal to strive toward.

However, in all three of these religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Buddhism) there is a concept of reincarnation and rebirth after death, as well as a concept of Karma. This is part of the reason *for* the doctrine of Ahimsa, but it also affects the way it is put into practice:

Common people, who are not monks, priests, Brahmin, Yogis, or otherwise dedicated religious practitioners, do not expect to be able to avoid harming other life forms. Instead, they try their best to *minimize* the harm they do, without compromising their ability to lead normal lives within society. Common practices include the avoidance of eating meat, the avoidance of eating root plants and other vegetables which kill the plant when they are harvested, and acts of kindness to animals in need.

The idea is that, as normal people, we cannot become perfect in one lifetime. However, as long as we *try* to behave righteously, we will be slowly remove bad karma, and will be reborn into better spiritual circumstances. Eventually, after many lifetimes, a person will be spiritual enough to actually follow this moral proscription, as a monk or other devotee.

Of course, the exact details differ considerably between Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, as well as between the various schools of these religions. I personally follow Sri Vaishnavism, a branch of Hinduism dedicated to the worship of the Goddess and/in relationship with Vishnu;  I believe that  bad Karma can be removed quite easily, as long as you are sincerely sorry for your actions, and beg the Lord for forgiveness.

So, in my own life, I practice vegetarianism, I avoid killing plants unnecessarily, and I do not partake in violence against people or animals, except in self defense. I do these things, while assuming I still have bad Karma, and frequently pray for forgiveness for the harm I cause to other living beings.


NOW... you might be wondering *why* this doctrine and practice is so important to my religion anyway. It may seem silly, or even insane, to value the lives of all living beings equally. The reasons for this are actually rather complex:

*The nature of reality in Indian metaphysics is usually non-dualistic, or both dualistic and non-dualistic at the same time. The lack of strict, hard dualism, as found in many western religions, means that "people," "things," "gods," and "God" are sometimes hard to separate from one another in a spiritual sense. Everything is connected and it all comes back to one source; be it Atman, Brahmin, or Nirvana. So harming other living beings can be, and often is, seen as harming *all* living beings and even harming God.

*Karma; the law of cosmic reality, sometimes personified as a deity, which dictates that every action, good or bad, will be paid in kind. In this life, or in a latter one, everything you do to another being will be done to you later. This doctrine means that harming others only harms yourself, and so is avoided for reasons of self interest and self preservation.

*Reincarnation; All living things are reborn as other living things when they die. When you die, you will be reborn, and it might not be as a human. You could be a cow, a tiger, a mosquito, a tree, a dog, or even a microbe. The specific rules  for what life you are reborn into vary across the different philosophic schools of Indian religion, but the basic idea is this: any life form you meet could have been a person in a past life, perhaps even someone you know. Likewise, everyone around you, including yourself, might someday be a different type of living being. You don't know if that deer in the woods is your ancestor, so it's not considered polite to kill it and eat it for dinner!

*Scriptural proscription; In Hinduism specifically, there are also places in the holy texts where (a)God commands people not to harm animals, or to avoid eating meat. For many people, this alone is enough reason; you don't *need* to know why; you just do what (a)God says and don't question his/her wisdom. This is especially true for Vaishnavism, as there are several instances where Krishna warns against killing animals, but there are other passages in other schools of Hinduism which emphasize similar themes. 


... all of these doctrines and beliefs, as well as MANY more, influence the emphasis placed on the value of all life in my religious tradition. I hope you found this informative!

[Hariti]

I too would like to hear more about this from EDF, but I think possibly there's a distinction to be drawn between "Treat all other living beings as your equals" and "Treat all other living beings equally."

This is a rather good point. Hinduism does not command treating all beings equally, it actually gives clear directions about which beings should be given preference, in scenarios where one must choose one being's well-fare over another. The duty of humans to humanity isn't particularly emphasized, but the duty of people to their family, their country, and their Gods is emphasized. One's duty to protect oneself is also important; you aren't supposed to harm other lifeforms, but God doesn't expect you to allow other lifeforms to push you around, either.

Realizing that, in the grand scheme of thing, you are not any more important than anyone else, does not mean that you aren't going to put yourself first. Hinduism emphasizes three modes of existence; Sattva, Rajas and Tamas; selflessness/spirituality, worldliness/comfort, and savagery/wickedness. No mortal being is expected to completely lack any of these traits, and a good person is expected to balance them all.

Only the most dedicated spiritual seekers are expected to be totally selfless and spiritual. Normal people are allowed to behave like the people, and animals, that they are, so long as they don't let their Rajas or Tamas completely dominate their actions.

[Aisling]

I too would like to hear more about this from EDF, but I think possibly there's a distinction to be drawn between "Treat all other living beings as your equals" and "Treat all other living beings equally."

Excellent point! After a few hours sleep and a massive amount of coffee, I realize that I was reading a different meaning into it that what EDF had intended. 

[Aisling]

Well, it *is* difficult to completely uphold, impossible even. The idea is that you should strive to minimize any harm you cause to other living things, to seek forgiveness when you do cause harm, and to never intentionally harm anything for material gain. Actually accomplishing this is not feasible, but striving to do so is.
/snip/
... all of these doctrines and beliefs, as well as MANY more, influence the emphasis placed on the value of all life in my religious tradition. I hope you found this informative!

Thank you for elaborating!

[Jainarayan]

If you had to identify the most important idea that animates your religion or spiritual path--the first, foremost, and forever lesson it offers--what would it be?

Doing one's dharma. Dharma actually has several meanings and uses: duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues and "right way of living" (Wiki definition). Hinduism is properly called Sanātana Dharma, the Eternal Way (of the universe). A subset of dharma is ahimsā, non-violence, non-injury. Worship of the gods takes a back seat to doing our dharma and practicing ahimsā. Ahimsā is one of the bases of vegetarianism in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism... to not harm living beings for food or any other reason.

[ehbowen]

Ahimsā is one of the bases of vegetarianism in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism... to not harm living beings for food or any other reason.

So plants are not living?

[Redfaery]

So plants are not living?

They are not considered "sentient" in the same way as animals, at least not in Buddhism. Also, many Jains will only eat vegetables or fruits that can be harvested without significantly damaging the plant.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ehbowen]

They are not considered "sentient" in the same way as animals, at least not in Buddhism. Also, many Jains will only eat vegetables or fruits that can be harvested without significantly damaging the plant.

I'm really not wanting to go into the weeds or get too snarky. But I'm just wanting to highlight the disconnect between being concerned about the well-being of bacteria or fungi...but not (so much) plants.

Of course, I'm coming at this from an entirely different worldview. While not the central teaching, my emphasis is on stewardship. I believe that a wisely run and sensibly managed (with an eye to long-term preservation of the species and the land) omnivorous agricultural economy enjoys my God's blessings. I certainly respect a Hindu's rights to put his beliefs into practice within his own property and sphere of responsibility...but I'm not going to accept it as a goal to be emulated within my own.

[Redfaery]

I'm really not wanting to go into the weeds or get too snarky. But I'm just wanting to highlight the disconnect between being concerned about the well-being of bacteria or fungi...but not (so much) plants.

Of course, I'm coming at this from an entirely different worldview. While not the central teaching, my emphasis is on stewardship. I believe that a wisely run and sensibly managed (with an eye to long-term preservation of the species and the land) omnivorous agricultural economy enjoys my God's blessings. I certainly respect a Hindu's rights to put his beliefs into practice within his own property and sphere of responsibility...but I'm not going to accept it as a goal to be emulated within my own.

To be fair, Buddhism doesn't consider fungi or bacteria as sentient beings either. Also,  as has been mentioned, Jains tend to be far more strict in their conduct. Many won't eat tubers or root vegetables because the plant must be killed for the edible to be harvested.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ehbowen]

To be fair, Buddhism doesn't consider fungi or bacteria as sentient beings either.

I'm not saying that it does or that it should. I'm trying to dissect Ender's statement that:

Well, it *is* difficult to completely uphold, impossible even....The idea is that, as normal people, we cannot become perfect in one lifetime. However, as long as we *try* to behave righteously, we will be slowly remove bad karma, and will be reborn into better spiritual circumstances. Eventually, after many lifetimes, a person will be spiritual enough to actually follow this moral proscription, as a monk or other devotee.

I find this concept...the idea that it is not possible to live up to the highest and best demands of your faith...extremely distasteful. I'm not saying that it should be easy ["The hard is what makes it great."], but it does need to be possible. I personally believe that there was not a single action in the first 30 years of Jesus's life which could not or should not be emulated by any ordinary Christian. And even the last 3 years of his public ministry could be emulated by someone suitably indwelt with the Holy Spirit ("...greater works than these he will do.... [John 14:12b]"). In my own opinion, you don't get multiple lifetimes. You don't NEED multiple lifetimes; there is no excuse for not getting it right the first time!

[Hariti]

I certainly respect a Hindu's rights to put his beliefs into practice within his own property and sphere of responsibility...but I'm not going to accept it as a goal to be emulated within my own.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I find religious authoritarianism to be an anathema to everything that is right and good. It render's since, voluntary conversion meaningless, and impedes human free choice.

The importance of having religion, in my opinion, is the choice, the commitment, the deliberate act, involved in being religious. Any statement of faith made under threat of force, without choice, is hollow and insincere.

I am not trying to take away your religion, or your right to eat meat, or your freedom of conscience.

[Hariti]

In my own opinion, you don't get multiple lifetimes. You don't NEED multiple lifetimes; there is no excuse for not getting it right the first time!

Good for you. I believe differently.

IF I thought there was only one life, that would certainly make my religion look rather unfair and unappealing. In such a case, how could a mere mortal live up to the high expectations his Gods place on him, in only one life? It would make the Gods seem rather out of touch and jaded.

However, the fact is that I DO believe in reincarnation, and my entire religious system is based around that belief. Humans are flawed, and most people act badly, and I personally think that one life is not enough for most people to get it right.

That's one of the main reasons that I'm *not* a Christian; because the Bible leads me to believe, if I take it as truth, that there is only one shot at heaven or hell, and that most people will end up in the latter. To me, *that* is an "incredibly distasteful" religious idea! What sort of God knowingly creates flawed beings, who will most likely fail to meet his expectations, and then only gives them once chance? Most of them will wind up failing and being damned. It would make much more sense, in my mind, to give them many chances.

If you want to dissect my religion, be aware that I *will* do the same to yours. Both of use base our beliefs on a set of moral, philosophical, and supernatural assumptions. For me one of those assumptions is reincarnation.

[ehbowen]

I am not trying to take away your religion, or your right to eat meat, or your freedom of conscience.

And I'm not trying to state or imply that you were. But, speaking for myself, the reason that I engage in friendly discussion such as this one is to come to a more perfect understanding of what is good and true and highest and best and, insofar as possible, to help others do the same (...iron sharpens iron....). Maybe it doesn't show all that much, but I have learned a lot by participating here.