Off with their heads!

So… the Denver shooting tragedy is all over the news and will be for some time, I suspect. In the clinic I work at, people have been very vocal regarding their opinions on what should be done with the Joker. I think partially because of the time we live in and partially because of the area of the USA I live in, many many folks have expressed their view that killing the man who killed others is the only way to make anything right. This is very “Old Testament,” very eye-for-an-eye, and I suppose it’s very human.

I need to say something about this, but without using my words. I’ll be using someone else’s. What’s shared below is the response I received from my beloved, who’s non-religious in every sense, when I asked him, “What do you think of the death penalty?” (This question was asked specifically in the context of the Denver shooting.)

I’m against the death penalty, for a variety of reasons.

Mostly because we are supposed to be a humane society.  Regardless of what someone does, it does not justify killing that person.  How are we any better than the criminal if we treat him in a similarly cruel way?  The death penalty is abused, used too often, and way too celebrated.  It’s the modern-day version of having all the people in a town chase someone with torches and pitchforks and lynching him.

Second, in a way, it allows the criminal off easy.  Rather than having to spend the rest of his days in confinement in an undesirable living situation, he gets to just have it ended.  It seems that a lot more satisfaction should be gotten out of knowing that a person who did a heinous crime has to spend the rest of his life in a prison, not allowed to enjoy the freedom the rest of us have.

Third, if we are supposed to be a “Christian country,” then everyone should hate the idea of the death penalty and it should be outlawed.  It goes against all of the ideas that Jesus taught, and how can someone claim to be a good Christian and still be completely FOR the death penalty.  Somehow it’s possible, because Christians seem to be the largest group who just love the death penalty. 

Lastly, I just think it’s morally wrong.  If we are supposed to have compassion, then how can we be happy to know that we kill anyone, regardless of what they have done?  I can completely understand how someone who has had someone taken from them can feel like they want the person who killed them to be killed as well.  That’s why we have laws and a justice system, so that we don’t take the law into our own hands and let emotions drive our decisions.  Any time I hear of a person/family who chooses to NOT seek the death penalty for someone, I have great respect for them, because they are able to overcome their own grief and do the right thing, and be better than the killer by showing them compassion.

What he’s saying above isn’t rocket science. It’s common sense, which actually leads to a very elevated and compassionate state of mind and action.

Christians(Abrahamists) aren’t the only ones who stumble here. I’ve been reading a book by an American guru. By virtually every account he’s incredible. He’s very well-educated both in western sciences as well as in so many things Vedic. He wrote a book, a manifesto which I’ll be bloggering about soon enough, in which he pretty much lays out what he sees as the revolutionary foundations for a new global and dharmic society. In this manifesto, he says so many things I couldn’t agree more with. Among other things, something he says that I fully disagree with is that the death penalty is dharmic.

I’m no guru, but I’m confident that even if you toss out the concept of ahimsa there’s plenty within our Dharma that counters something like the death penalty.

On that note, I’ll close by re-iterating what my beloved said and encourage you, reader, to give up the idea of killing another as any form of vengeance or retribution. It simply doesn’t work the way you think, and also brings you to the same level as the original transgressor. Be reasonable. Be compassionate. Be humane.

Be truly better than those you so despise.

Om shanti

Advertisement

Star: Three/Seven, The Soul and its universality

The third, official/unofficial start of Hinduism is the Soul.

The basics of this star include:

• Universality of the existence of souls
• All living beings have “soul” -not just humans
• The same life, which is Atman/part of Brahman, exists in all living beings
• Soul is indestructible
• The whole Universe is one(family)

Earlier in his booklet, Thatte mentions Purusha and Prakruti. The soul is the Purusha of a being. Since the soul is essentially a living entity’s Atman, which itself is a small part of the Ultimate Brahman, and since every living thing has soul, all things have the same foundational essence and are thereby connected. Hence the Vedic sentence, “Vasudev’ Kutumbhakum.” Universal Family. Hinduism believes that the whole Universe is an intimately-connected family.

All living things have soul, which can also be called Self or jiva. All soul is part of the Universal Consciousness, aka Brahman. It’s because of this that all that is living must be treated with care and respect. This is the basis of environmental sensitivity which is embedded in Hindu philosophy.

What happens to the Atman when one dies?

You must first understand that a person dies because the Atman leaves the body, not the other way around. Once He has left the body, it is dead. The Bhagavad Gita explains, “Just as one discard old clothes when they get worn out and puts on new clothes, similarly, the Atman discards the body(at the time of death) and is reborn in another physical body.” (It should be noted that while the body is impermanent at best, Hinduism places great emphasis on physical well-being. Patanjali’s Yoga Shastra/Sutra is a great resource for this!)

The life form the Atman takes upon rebirth is determined by a staggering number of factors, not least of which is the Atman’s store of karma yet to be worked through as well as the condition/focus of one’s mind at the moment of death. It has supposedly taken “several million cycles of birth, death, and rebirth” to experience life as a human. Some believe that it’s possible for the Atman to regress to a lower life form, depending on one’s actions/karma. This is something I’m not sure I agree with entirely.

It seems to me that, if there is a hierarchy of life(surely based on the development of consciousness), it isn’t a two-way street. Evolution, whether physical or spiritual, must surely be a process that leads to ever-better states of existence, with no choice of going back really. So, I don’t see reincarnation as a matter of forward/backward movement of the Atman in its development. I see it as a matter of how much or how little the Atman progresses compared to what the potential for progress is. A life lived with intentionally more effort placed on improvement(punya- good deeds, etc…), versus the opposite which would be a life lived with tons of paap(badness) is more likely to know further and faster advancement.

This alone would constitute “heavenly” reward in the form of increased nearness to moksha/mukti/samadhi(freedom from the samsaric cycle of birth and rebirth), as opposed to the relatively hellish “punishment” of another turn around the wheel.

Thatte’s practical take-aways in this chapter include: We all have a soul and it’s because of this that we’re all connected. It’s because of this connection that we should strive to treat others with compassion and empathy. And although he doesn’t go much into these, he also claims as take-aways: You create your own heaven or hell. As well, we can train ourselves to control the desires generated by our senses. Controlling these desires isn’t the same as denying them, rather it means that the intellect is in charge of using the mind to control one’s senses.