Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr. Jagan Mohan · 10-09-2002, 04:01 PM

Quoting Nick: 'Whose Justice'
Dear Friend, Does Justice 'belong' to somebody?
Justice is what is right. 'Dharma' is righteousness. Adharmic as far as Hindu understanding goes is what brings pain, inbalance and falsehood.

'The very thought of justice and injustice suggests comparison and superiority.'
Justice cannot be used in a relative sense.
What is justice for one person cannot be injustice for another. Justice is what is right (for all). It has nothing to do with Superiority nor comparision. Nor does it have anything to do with opinion or ideas.

Quote: Maybe they were just fighting for their idea of justice.
Fighting for Justice is fighting for what is right, like for the right to live and practice your faith. It is not that when Muslims were anihilating Buddhists thinking that they were doing justice, they were/are right. Fighting for their 'idea of justice' is different from fighting for justice. For Muslims, <a href="http://www.jamatdawa.org/english/faq/" target="_blank">it is their 'Duty from God' to fight infidels and uphold the religion of Islam</a> .

Quote: It is something for the politicians to do.
DL is a political as well as a religious leader for Tibetians.
I quote my own opening lines: The Dalai Lama post itself is a political one abeit a religio-political post...

Nick, you are right: You and I can coexist peacefully and respect each other's differences. You understand this perfectly. But do all Humanity and all religions adhere to the same principle? When they do not do, and when they commit violence to take away your right to existence; It is, according to Hindu Ideas, incumbent for a Kshatriya or a religious warrior to fight for Justice.
Quoting my post again: A Warrior has to fight for Dharma or Righteousness against the forces of injustice BUT without hating his opponent. It is not the opponent he is trying to defeat, but injustice itself.

One of the cardinal teachings of Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism is that of Ahimsa or non-violence in thought, deed and action. There is a saying: When a tiger is in the forest, its wrong to kill it, but when it enters your village and runs havoq, its your duty to kill it.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

Nick Riviera · 10-09-2002, 08:01 PM

Dr J,

I appreciate your thoughts.

Quote:

Justice is what is right.

Who decides what is right?

Quote:

Fighting for their 'idea of justice' is different from fighting for justice.

How so?

Quote:

A Warrior has to fight for Dharma or Righteousness against the forces of injustice BUT without hating his opponent.

Regardless of whether he hates or loves his opponent, the end result is the same, he is still prepared to take a human life.

I think we both agree that people should not be persecuted or oppressed. Where we disagree is on the question of justice. Our ideas of justice and Righteousness seem to be different.I don't believe that one idea is better than the other, just different, and I respect that.

Dr. Jagan Mohan · 10-10-2002, 04:55 AM

Nick,

I posted something long, but edited it thinking that we might be hijacking this thread

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2002, 04:01 PM	#21
Dr. Jagan Mohan Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Presently on the 'move' :) Posts: 98	Quoting Nick: 'Whose Justice' Dear Friend, Does Justice 'belong' to somebody? Justice is what is right. 'Dharma' is righteousness. Adharmic as far as Hindu understanding goes is what brings pain, inbalance and falsehood. 'The very thought of justice and injustice suggests comparison and superiority.' Justice cannot be used in a relative sense. What is justice for one person cannot be injustice for another. Justice is what is right (for all). It has nothing to do with Superiority nor comparision. Nor does it have anything to do with opinion or ideas. Quote: Maybe they were just fighting for their idea of justice. Fighting for Justice is fighting for what is right, like for the right to live and practice your faith. It is not that when Muslims were anihilating Buddhists thinking that they were doing justice, they were/are right. Fighting for their 'idea of justice' is different from fighting for justice. For Muslims, <a href="http://www.jamatdawa.org/english/faq/" target="_blank">it is their 'Duty from God' to fight infidels and uphold the religion of Islam</a> . Quote: It is something for the politicians to do. DL is a political as well as a religious leader for Tibetians. I quote my own opening lines: The Dalai Lama post itself is a political one abeit a religio-political post... Nick, you are right: You and I can coexist peacefully and respect each other's differences. You understand this perfectly. But do all Humanity and all religions adhere to the same principle? When they do not do, and when they commit violence to take away your right to existence; It is, according to Hindu Ideas, incumbent for a Kshatriya or a religious warrior to fight for Justice. Quoting my post again: A Warrior has to fight for Dharma or Righteousness against the forces of injustice BUT without hating his opponent. It is not the opponent he is trying to defeat, but injustice itself. One of the cardinal teachings of Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism is that of Ahimsa or non-violence in thought, deed and action. There is a saying: When a tiger is in the forest, its wrong to kill it, but when it enters your village and runs havoq, its your duty to kill it. [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

10-10-2002, 04:55 AM	#23
Dr. Jagan Mohan Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Presently on the 'move' :) Posts: 98	Nick, I posted something long, but edited it thinking that we might be hijacking this thread [ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.