Some Examples of Imbalanced Behaviours

Date: Wed, Jan 23 Jan 2013 21:59:44 -0000
To: am-global@earthlink.net
From: "Satyaki"
Subject: Some Examples of Imbalanced Behaviours

Baba

== SOME EXAMPLES OF IMBALANCED BEHAVIOURS ==

Namaskar,
Humans are basically dominated by emotion and they do imbalanced things - without using their capacity of logic and reasoning. Yet this tendency toward sentimentality does not bring greatness. There are distinct defects in the path of sentiment. According to Ananda Marga philosophy, humans should be rational; the intellect should be guided by rationality. Please read the following life examples bearing in mind the stark difference between sentiment and rationality.

"Recently in the US, there was a ghastly massacre in Newtown, CT. A gunman entered a school and killed 26 people - kids and school officials. The whole country mourned this horrific tragedy for days. Flags were put to half-mast, President Obama visited and spoke with families, and huge attention and energy was directed towards Newtown. And that was most appropriate for the nation and world to rally around the Newtown tragedy.

Yet side by side, in the US, upwards of 1173+ people (reference Slate magazine) have been gunned down since the Newtown tragedy on 14 Dec 2012. In the US, the population is 310 million (three hundred and ten million), and there are 350 million (three hundred and fifty million) registered guns, including military assault rifles like the AK-47, in the hands of common citizens. Plus there are countless other unregistered guns floating around the US population. (Note: here we are not counting guns owned and operated by police and military personnel.) And with this vast number of guns, innocent people are killed everyday.

Here the point is that so many nameless, faceless persons are gunned down on daily basis, yet those incidents often go unreported, flags are not dropped to half-mast, there are no presidential visits, and people never hear of such events. More than a thousand have been gunned down in the US since the Newtown tragedy. It would be rational to extend the same supportive and respectful measures to all homicide victims of gunfire, and other crimes.

Unfortunately the general populace is not rational and that is why such dichotomies are in vogue. If the people were guided by rationality the situation would be much different."


Here are further examples:

LET THEM SUFFER

(A) In the US, "right-to-life" activists are against abortion - they do not want the living baby killed in the womb. That is to be appreciated. Yet those same activists do not want to care for the baby once it is born. If that child is born into a financially poor or needy family, those activists overlook the welfare of the baby. They 100% oppose programs which aim to care for and develop the child. They show no concern if the child receives the minimum requirements of life: Food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. Rather they blame that innocent babe for being born unto a financially poor family; they are willing to let that child suffer. Such is their emotional slant on the issue. Caring for the baby while in the womb is admirable, but it is irrational to wholly disregard the needs of that child once it is born. The rational approach is to care for the babe from the time of conception up through its formative years.

Unfortunately, the general populace is prone to the path of sentiment, not rationality; that is why this type dichotomy is going on. That is why do imbalanced and mindless things. If they had been rational the situation would have been different.

FETUS HAS NO RIGHTS

(B) Then there is another contingency that is "pro-choice" (USA) that favours abortions; they feel it is ok to destroy that living baby while it is in the womb. Yet once that baby is born, those same activists are keenly aware to watch for the welfare and well-being of that child by passing legislation to make schools better and help needy families etc. They aim to ensure that every child has the basic necessities and minimum requirements of life: Food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. Plus, if the child is abused by its parents, steps will be taken to put the parents in jail etc. Yet if that same child is still in the womb, they fully support a person's choice to destroy that innocent babe. Such is their emotional manner and sentimentality. The rational approach is to properly care for and respect the life of all living babies, whether they be in the womb or delivered.

Unfortunately, the general populace is not rational and that is why so many dichotomies manifest in society. That is why do imbalanced and mindless things. If they had been rational the situation would have been different.

SACRIFICING BEFORE MOTHER

(C) In India, worshipers of various deviis (deities) sacrifice goats and other animals in order to please their divine mother goddess - jagatjananii (mother of the world). Due to their emotional manner, such worshipers fail to realise that their chosen deity is also the divine mother of those sacrificed animals. Which mother will be happy seeing her sons and daughters slaughtered and killed in this way? Answer: No mother. No mother will take delight in watching her progeny be destroyed. But those devii worshipers think they are pleasing their mother goddess by such animal sacrifices. Because of their emotional approach, these worshipers cannot put these two points together. Due to their sentimentality, they cannot understand that the divine mother will not be pleased by sacrificial offerings. The rational approach then is not to indulge in animal sacrifice.

Unfortunately, the general populace is not rational and that is why this dichotomy is occurring. That is why do imbalanced and mindless things. If they had been rational the situation would have been different.

HUMANE VS INHUMANE

(D) In many so-called advanced countries around the world euthanasia is illegal. If an elderly person is suffering from a lot of pain or if someone is diagnosed from a terminal illness and they want to die, it is against the law to put that person to death by injection or other means. That is rational. However, when that same family's cat or dog is old and sick, then they will put that pet "to sleep." They will intentionally end the life of that pet. That is treated as humane, but if they would do the same thing with their grandfather, then it would be thought of as ghastly or criminal and they would go to jail. All beings should be given the honour and right to live the natural course of their life. That is rational.

Unfortunately, the general populace is not rational and that is why all these dichotomies are going on. That is why do imbalanced and mindless things. If they had been rational the situation would have been different.

NEUTERING IS BARBAROUS

(E) If you ask ask any pet owner if they love their cat or dog and think for the welfare of their animal, they will be flabbergasted, "Are you kidding me - of course I love my dog - he is part of the family." Yet it is often the case that such owners neuter their pets. By destroying the reproductive glands, the animal can never fully bloom nor realise its true potential or dharma. It is not a real dog or cat, just a eunuch. The personality is not developed. Neutering also leads to various health hazards such as bone cancer, osteoporosis, obesity, hypothyroidism, urinary tract infections, and premature death etc. Such persons do not think to neuter themselves or their loved ones, only their pets.

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/02/17/dangers-of-early-pet-spaying-or-neutering.aspx

So it is not rational to hinder and jeopardise the health of their pets in this way. But with their own emotional manner, they neuter their pets.

Unfortunately, the general populace is not rational and that is why this dichotomy is occurring. That is why do imbalanced and mindless things. If they had been rational the situation would have been different.

Baba says, "In the past many slaves were converted into eunuchs – known as khojas in Persian. If the ovaries of a female or the testes of a male are dissociated from the body, the person will become a eunuch. In a male, if the testes are separated from the body, there will be physical and psychological changes. The man will not die but he will lose the sense of dutifulness and responsibility. All the qualities associated with the testes, such as the sense of dutifulness and responsibility, will be wanting. A eunuch will not be able to grow any pubic hair or the pubic hairs will be few. Should the testes be cut off and a man made into a eunuch? Can it be considered civilized? In some countries men were changed into eunuchs, and as they did not have any sex feeling, they were posted as security guards in the harems of the rulers. This is a barbarous system and goes against fundamental human rights. It is extremely bad." (1)

OVERALL MESSAGE

In day to day life, people engage in countless life choices based on sentiment and emotion alone, not rationality. This is not beneficial, rather harmful. It breeds double-standards, inequalities, and dogmas. It is only through the path of rationality that we can establish neo-humanistic values in our universal human society.

ANANDA MARGA TEACHINGS:

SENTIMENTALITY WITHOUT RATIONALITY IS DISTORTION, DOGMA

Ananda Marga Philosophy says, "If someone moves along the path of sentiment instead of the path of rationality, there is a hundred percent probability of great danger. Those who move along the path of sentiment do not discriminate between the proper and the improper, but merely silently accept all superstitions surrounding the goal towards which they have been running. Even the least question regarding propriety or impropriety does not arise in their minds, because they are moving along the path of sentiment." (2)

"When it [the mind] does not follow a particular method, when it moves haphazardly, swept away by whim, it is called “emotion”." (3)

"Sentimentality based on rationality is the strongest force in the universe. And sentimentality without rationality takes the form of, or rather the distortion of, dogma." (4)

About supporting communal ideas: "Those who are motivated by sentiment may earn temporary applause, but ultimately people realize, “No, they committed a mistake, they did not follow the path of rationality. They themselves were caught in the current of sentiment, and they drifted the society also in that current. As a result society has been destroyed." (5)

"Dogma is fast being replaced by rationality and reason. Human beings with their developed brains, developed nerve systems and developed nerve-cells started thinking that we are not to do something for a particular tribe or a particular clan or a particular nationality; we are to do whatever we are to do, whatever we must do, for the entire humanity of the Cosmos." (6)

"As a human being, what should one do? One should follow the path of rationality. Rationality is a treasure of humanity that no animal possesses. And those who possess the inner asset of devotion within their hearts and follow the path of rationality in dealing with the external world, must be victorious. They alone can accomplish worthy deeds in this world." (7)

MORE OF BABA'S TEACHINGS ON SENTIMENT AND RATIONALITY

"In the case of developed animals, sentiment exceeds inborn instinct. And more-developed beings, such as human beings, possess sentiment and rationality and the faculty of discrimination as well." (8)

Before the division of India: "The policy was divide and rule. One party said “Jai Hind” and another party said “Takasime Hind.” One party said “Victory to India;” another party said “Divide India.” These were the slogans of the time. It was not a healthy atmosphere. This sentiment was not even geo-sentiment. It was based on emotion and mean selfishness." (9)

"To counteract the malevolent effect of dogma-centred philosophies, the two most important factors are the development of rationality and the spread of education. Merely attending school and university classes will not necessarily have the desired effect. Stress should be placed on education which produces a high degree of rationality in the human mind, and this type of education should be spread amongst the people." (10)

"What is required now is the elevation of human existence, the elevation of human mind and human spirit. We require no dogma – we require more reasoning, more rationality – rationality moving unto the terminus of Parama Puruśa; the Supreme Desideratum is that Universal Nave." (11)

"As a human being, what should one do? One should follow the path of rationality. Rationality is a treasure of humanity which no animal possesses. And those who possess the inner asset of devotion within their hearts and follow the path of rationality in dealing with the external world, must be victorious. They alone can accomplish worthy deeds in this world." (12)

"The speciality of human beings is rationality." (13)

Namaskar,
at His lotus feet,
Satyaki


Note 1: REFERENCES

1. Bio-Psychology
2. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
3. Yoga Psychology
4. Subháśita Saḿgraha Part 12
5. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
6. Humanity Is at the Threshold of a New Era
7. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
8. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
9. The Dangers of Communalism
10. Prout in a Nutshell Part 18
11. Humanity Is at the Threshold of a New Era
12. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
13. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism

******************************************
When Left Hand is Used for Washing Your Backside...

Baba says, "There is a difference, however, between the cave-dwellers and the aboriginal human beings of the prehistoric period, and present day human beings. Human beings have brought more subtle beauty into the daily tasks and habitual behaviour, which they used to do in a crude way. Before eating, prehistoric human beings did not wash their hands, and they used both hands to eat. Today, we wash our hands, and use the right hand, or a spoon and fork. We enjoy eating in a more subtle fashion." (Subhasita Samgraha - 19, The Supreme Aesthetic Science and the Cult of Devotion)

In some parts of the world people eat using both hands. That is not good aesthetically nor hygienically. Humans have two hands. One is used for cleaning the backside. So it is quite proper not to use that hand for eating purposes. The only exception can be on medical grounds or if one has only one hand. If one has two hands then only the right is for eating - not for the back side. The left hand will be for that purpose. Think of it this way: No matter how clean the bathroom sink is no one will like to use that as a bowl to hold your food and eat out of that sink.
******************************************

EXCERPTS FROM PRIOR LETTER

MOTHER BUFFALO

(A) Across India, people look upon and revere cows as mothers. There are organisations, welfare institutions, NGOs, and various plans and programs wholly dedicated to protecting the sanctity and status of cows. They associate and worship cows with Gopal, i.e. Lord Krsna (see note 1). In India, cows are held in special regard. Side by side, other animals like buffaloes and street dogs are not given the same care; rather people abuse them. In particular, Indian street dogs are just kicked around and ill-treated. yet, these are all animals: Cows, buffaloes, and street dogs. The rational approach would be to respect the lives of each as living beings. But due to their deep emotional attachment with cows, they regard cows as divine beings and harass and mistreat street dogs. This is the work of human emotion, not rationality.

Unfortunately the general populace is not rational and that is why this dichotomy is occurring. If they had been rational the situation would have been different.

BLIND SENTIMENTS

Here Baba point out how those who revere cows - but not other animals like buffaloes - are caught in the net of their own hypocrisy.

Baba says, "So blind were their sentiments that they refused to listen to rationality. Take the case of cows: Hindus worship cows as something holy, apparently because they give us milk. But if cows are revered as mothers for giving us milk, shouldn’t buffaloes be given a similar status? Actually, buffaloes give more milk than cows. Unfortunately, the blind religious followers refuse to listed to logic as their religious sentiment for cows has taken root deep in their minds." (A Few Problems Solved - 2, Human Society Is One and Indivisible – 2)

WHY NOT COWS

(B) In the United States, people are enamoured with dogs. They pamper their dogs by giving them special cow meat and bones, fancy beds, toys, dog houses, and pay a lot of money for doggie massages, dog walks, and upscale therapies to keep their dog happy and well. They also spend tens of thousands of dollars on surgical procedures for their pets. Moreover, there are many laws that protect dogs from abuse and maltreatment. Yet, the US is primarily a meat-eating population. They slaughter and butcher cows on a mass-level to fill their bellies with the meat of those cows. Here again we see a dichotomy; both are animals yet they are treated much differently. With their emotion, humans treat their dogs as family members; that is positive as all animals should be treated well. That same regard should be extended to cows also. That would be rational.

Unfortunately the general populace is not rational; that is why this scene is taking place. If they had been rational the situation would have been different.

Baba's following teaching is related with both points A and B:

"If you have great compassion for the world of living creatures (this is a very good quality and is indicative of tenderness of heart, it is very positive), then you can take a firm stand for the non-killing of every creature, ábramhastamba from the elephant to the ant. In this way you can encourage and inspire your fellow human beings. But if you persuade and exert pressure on people by saying that only cows should not be killed, then you will be guilty of one-sidedness. It means there is partiality in you. Why should you invite the criticism that you do not have as much love for the buffalo and goat, as you have for cows? This is certainly not correct." (Ananda Vacanamrtam - 10, Chapter 10)

In India the cows are treated well while other animals are left to suffer whereas in the US dogs are treated lavishly while other animals are abused, tortured and butchered. So Baba's teaching is applicable to both the US and India as both express favouritism towards a particular animal due to their emotional attachment.

The rational approach is to respect and honour the existential value of all beings, including all animals, not just dogs etc.

Most of the population, however, follows their own emotions, i.e. whim. See how one wealthy woman even bequeathed her entire estate - i.e.  billions of dollars - to agencies caring for dogs, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02gift.html?_r=1& ; She did not leave even one dollar for suffering humanity.
 

GENDER ISSUE

(D) If one gender enters an official public building like a government office, then they are allowed to wear clothing that puts them in compromised positions, both on the upper and middle portions of their body. It may be that when they wear a sleeveless dress or skirt their underwear and / or undergarment is showing when they sit or stand in a particular way. Or, when they have a lower-than-usual neckline, then aspects of their xxxxx are visible when they lean this way or that. It has become common for their arms, and even armpit, to be completely bare for show. With this gender, it is fully accepted, and even encouraged and applauded to wear such attire.

In stark contrast, if the other gender enters those same offices with a sleeveless shirt, their armpits exposed, or part of their underwear showing, then they will be ostracized, and maybe even arrested and put in jail for indecent exposure and disorderly conduct. Such is the stark double-standard that exists across gender with regards to dress. That is not rational. The rational approach is that one's dress in public spaces and official places should reflect a sense of decency and dignity - irrespective of one's gender.

Again, let me emphasize that here we are not talking about how one dresses while walking casually down the street or in their own backyard; but, rather, how one presents oneself in important meetings, formal and official settings, and even on serious news broadcasts via TV and internet. In these venues, there is a wide gap of acceptable dress between genders.

Unfortunately the general populace is not rational and that is why such dichotomies are going on. If they had been rational the situation would have been different.

This same issue is expressed in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-13362586

OVERALL MESSAGE

In day to day life,  many incidents happen and numerous decisions are made based on sentiment / emotional manner. That approach is not at all laudable. Rather, it is an open invitation for inequality and dogma. In contrast, if we apply our sense of rationality then we can make heaven come on this earth.