Purpose, Life and Value

The other day, couple of friends and I were going out for lunch. We were walking on the pavement and there were couple of ants on the path. Since a kid, I was always interested in ants. This post isn't about one of the successful species of the earth but a conversation which took place.

I asked them to be watchful of the steps and not to trample / step over them. I was showered with questions, arguments and praises (pun intended). One of them said, "You eat chicken (he meant you're a non vegetarian) don't you feel bad?" Other, "Who on earth has time to watch and be mindful?"

Hmmm think about it. Do they have a point here? Human, the most busiest animal on earth, sweating hard to earn money, kill others, expanding his horizons of knowledge, doing good stuff to other HUMANS. Now where has he got the time for ants? Of what use it? Aren't they right?

No sir, they are not. I say, as long as you do not have a purpose you shouldn't take a life. Am neither a supporter of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals nor People For Eating Tasty Animals, but when you kill a hen, you have a purpose. You may want to call it for survival, necessity, part of diet etc., Good, bad or ugly park it aside, you have a purpose.

Now, you have no purpose when you stamp on / trample / kill an ant which is going about on its own course. You're wasting a life and are not giving it a chance it attain its true purpose.

Basing on the premise above, one argued, "Terrorists also have a purpose then, to kill people. So what if it's a bad one. Do you support it?" To which I replied, "Humans are part of food chain. When they kill an animal they have a purpose. They don't kill an animal after baptizing it or since a particular person of a particular religion is rearing / domesticating it. killing in the name of god or honour killing has no purpose at all. It can never be categorized as a purpose. If I am vegetarian and you aren't the purpose of your killing an animal according to me is bad since it doesn't serve my purpose of satisfying hunger and to you it is good since it serves your purpose. Terrorism has no purpose. It doesn't value life. It just takes away the purpose of life."

The third one then presented two quotes by Leo Tolstoy, "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite." and by David Brenner, "A vegetarian is a person who won't eat anything that can have children."  So can't you survive without eating meat?

The answer is broad. Man has evolved over a period of time and started farming much later before he started to feed himself with meat (rather raw meat). As human races evolved some became nomads, some farmers, some kings etc, What we eat determines our genetic structure. They say eating meat makes you merciless. So should a king be, merciless in a battle and strong. Aren't vegetarians strong? Could be. That's why the purpose of killing for them could be bad and good for the rest. Now imagine, you're a soldier lost in a forest, how do you survive? By eating snakes, frogs and what not. Now, if you're adamant on not killing you'll die. Do you see a purpose? In the struggle to kill a snake, he might die too. Can you blame the snake? The stronger simply survived. So as Bradley Mille said, " Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the child, as it is to the caterpillar." So long as there is no purpose a life should never be taken away. 

PS: I donot know the impact of the conversation but they actually watched their steps on our way back home :) Not sure if its because of my nagging or they realised something. I sincerely hope its latter.

Am I chickening out? When I have to console someone?

Am composing this..as I am waiting for a bus to go to Hyderabad. I get this call from a friend carrying a bad message that one of our close friend's mom expired.

She was a friend of mine too. Just a couple of days back this friend and I were   discussing about her life long illness and thought, the sooner she passes away the better. Two days later, I get this news around 2:30 PM. I was at office. My initial reaction was, nothing. Absolutely. Calm. Slowly as the news sunk in, I went mad. I had no clue what I was doing. Asking someone out for a smoke, chatting, blabbering, cursing myself, then others. All sorts of thoughts were running in my mind. It was as if, you're drowning in a sea, gasping for air, then swimming for a while, then drowning. At some point, I din't even want to go and see him. Why? Am I scared that I wont be able to console him? Why did I ask someone to be there with me for sometime or ask them out for a smoke and later have a guilty feeling? Am I so emotionally weak or does it happen with everyone?

Then I recollected, Longaker's model of managing change, I was in the first stage, Shock! Then, I wanted to check how humans feel when someone close to them dies, According to David Gershaw, people / mourners tend to:

1. Self blame, question one self, criticise one self

2. Blame others

3. Find relief that the person expired

4. Numbness

According to Mark Pettinelli, thought, action and feeling can occur in any order. So here, emotions (negative) were empowering thoughts and actions.

According to Oral Cancer Foundation, grief has several dimensions. It may last for more than an year and slowly the mourner carries on with a radically altered experience of life.

Next time, you see a friend (mourner / one who lost a dear one) behaving this way, realise, that they'll need their time and not to force them out of it but help them to overcome it.

As a persian proverb says, "This too shall pass!"

Sources: 

http://www.strategies-for-managing-change.com/christine-longaker.html

http://www.jiskha.com/social_studies/psychology/death_emotions.html

http://cnx.org/content/m14358/latest/

http://cnx.org/content/m14334/latest/?collection=col10447/latest

http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/emotional/patterns_of_grieving.htm

Should I kill the mosquito?

The question may sound silly. Agreed. But this was a conflict I always had since I was a kid. I happened to read 'Srimad Bhagavadgita', (holy book of Hindus) in which, Krishna (Narayana) says, "I am omnipotent and omnipresent. I am the one who creates, preserves and destroys but not you (man or nara). You must perform your duty / action and leave the results of the action to me." This should have made my life easier. Did it? Nope. This paved way to a new question, when god is everywhere how could I kill the god!?

I posed the same question to my dad, to which my old man answered, "It is not only your duty to preserve nature but also have an equal responsibility to protect your body." Hmmm this sounds reasonable I thought. I happily started killing mosquitoes. One day I happened to watch a show on television. It was about Valmiki, a sage who after being a dacoit / thief, renounces everything and goes to meditate in dense forest. Nothing moved him. Ants build mound on his body. I also saw/ read couple of other stories on the same lines. That meant people could still live in peace without actually having to harm other living beings.This again brought back the conflict. 

I would like to narrate two stories here. One. A saint and his disciple were traveling together. They saw a bus fell into the river. By the time the bus was pulled up using a crane and rescue team, every one in the bus was drowned. Disciple asks his master, "O master! you had mentioned in one of your speeches that, people who do punya (or good deeds) are closer to god. This bus must be carrying good people too. So why should they die?" To which the saint did not answer. They continued with their journey. At night they decide to rest beneath a tree. They sit down. Suddenly the disciple springs on to his feet. Something stung him. He looks around and sees ants. In an act of rage, he kills not only the ant which bit him, but also, the ants around. When he settles down. The sage smiles at him and asks his disciple, "How many ants bit you?". "One", replies the disciple. "Then why did you kill the good ants around it? You're only supposed to kill the one that harmed you." (The moral of the story is interpreted in many ways but what stuck me was the line highlighted. This made me think. Am I killing the mosquito which bit me or innocent ones too?)

Then I happened to read the second one. Its about Sri Rama Krishna Paramahamsa and his teachings. (I cannot vouch whether it s a true story or not) He had several disciples. He used to send one disciple daily to fetch condiments from a store which was across the river. One day he sent Shantananda (Known to be the most saatvik amongst the disciples). The boatman started abusing Rama Krishna Paramahamsa, to which Shantananda didn't reply and instead started weeping. When he returned to ashram, master asked his disciple (in front of several other disciples) what happened. When the disciple narrated the incident. Master gave a mouthful to his disciple and questioned him, "How could he hear someone abusing his teacher?"  Next day, he sent Vivekananda to the grocery shop. The boatman again started abusing the teacher. Vivekananda was not amongst the ones to keep quiet. He bashed the boatmen and threw him into the water. When he returned, the master asked him to narrate if something happened. Hearing what happened, (in front of several other disciples) he gave a mouthful and questioned him, what kind of a sage Vivekananda was? and commented that the disciple was unfit to be a sage with such a temperament. When Vivekananda left, other disciples asked the teacher to explain his actions. To which the master replied, "Shantananda is too soft, he should learn to use anger when needed. On the other hand, Vivekananda is temperamental, he should cool down and learn to suppress his anger. One should display emotions in right amounts at right times and should not be bogged down or tied to the events and move on. One should strive to live like a droplet on lotus leaf. Attached but yet detached."

All these din't completely answer my question till last week. I joined a philosophy class and posed the same question to my teacher. I thought the question was silly and was wasting others' time. Teacher thought otherwise. He answered it perfectly saying, one should behave according to ones nature. If you're aggressive. Understand your nature. Accept it. Love yourself. Go ahead kill the mosquito because it might harm you. If you're passive. Understand your nature. Accept it. Try to avoid killing the mosquito by applying a repellent. One should understand ones nature first. Without understanding it, if you try to imitate others it will become a source of conflict of values. Slowly with experience one attains the higher levels beyond the three gunas (qualities). That finally answered my query.

Last evening one of my classmate, Mani told me that he blogged his thoughts on the same question, "Mosquito Geeta". Please go through it. After going through his work, I thought I should elaborate why I asked that particular question and hence posting the same. So do not know if this post answers any of your questions but I got mine answered! 

I would like to thank Somayaji Manikantan to make me think and give my thoughts a shape.