<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">Not sure if this should be here or in Ethics and Morality.<br><br>ã?‚ã‚‹æ—¥ã€?森ã?«è¿·ã?„込んã?Ÿå“€ã‚Œã?ªæ—…人ã?Œå±…ã?¾ã?—ã?Ÿã€‚<br><br>Once upon a time, there was a sad traveller wandering through the woods.<br><br>å‰?世ã?®è¡Œã?„ã?«ã‚ˆã?£ã?¦ç?£ã?®å§¿ã?«ã?ªã?£ã?Ÿã?¨ä¿¡ã?˜è¾¼ã‚“ã?§ã?„ã?Ÿå…Žã?¨ç‹?ã?¨çŒ¿ã?¯ã€?ã?›ã‚?ã?¦ä»Šã?‹ã‚‰ã?§ã‚‚良ã?„è¡Œã?„ã‚’ã‚’ã?—よã?†ã?¨æ€?ã?„ã€?ã?©ã?†ã?«ã?‹ã?—ã?¦å½¼ã‚’助ã?‘よã?†ã?¨è€ƒã?ˆã?¾ã?—ã?Ÿã€‚<br><br>The traveller, really a god from the next world in disguise, came upon three animals: a rabbit, a fox, and a monkey. They decided then that each would do a good deed, helping the traveller somehow or another.<br><br>ç‹?や猿ã?¯ã?Šã?®ã?Šã?®é£Ÿã?¹ç‰©ã‚„夜具をæŒ?ã?£ã?¦ã??ã?¦ã€?ã??ã?®æ—…人ã?«å·®ã?—出ã?—ã?¾ã?™ã€‚<br><br>The fox and the monkey brought food and bedding, respectively, and presented them to the traveller.<br><br>ã?¨ã?“ã‚?ã?Œå…Žã?«ã?¯å·®ã?—出ã?™ã‚‚ã?®ã?Œä½•ã‚‚ã?‚ã‚Šã?¾ã?›ã‚“。<br><br>However, the rabbit had nothing to present.<br><br>ã??ã?“ã?§ã€?ç?«ã‚’ã?Šã?“ã?—ã?¦ã‚‚らã?„ã€?ã??ã?®ä¸Ÿã?¸é£›ã?³è¾¼ã‚“ã?§è¨€ã?„ã?¾ã?—ã?Ÿã€‚<br><br>Then, the rabbit built up the fire, jumped into it and said:<br><br>「ç§?ã?¯ä½•ã?®ã?Šå½¹ã?«ã‚‚ç«‹ã?¦ã?¾ã?›ã‚“。<br><br>"I can give you no help.<br><br>ã?›ã‚?ã?¦ã€?ç§?ã?®è‚‰ã‚’食ã?¹ã?¦ä¸‹ã?•ã?„ã€?<br><br>Please, eat my meat."<br><br>å…Žã?®è‡ªå·±çŠŸç‰²ã?®æ°—æŒ?ã?¡ã‚’æ±²ã?¿ã€?æ„Ÿå‹•ã?—ã?Ÿæ—…人ã?¯ã?Ÿã?¡ã?¾ã?¡å¸?釈天ã?®å§¿ã?«å¤‰ã‚?ã‚Šã€?ç?£é?”ã?«å?‘ã?‹ã?£ã?¦ã€?æ?¥ä¸–ã?¯ã??ã?£ã?¨äººé–“ã?«ã?ªã‚Œã‚‹ã?Ÿã‚?ã?†ã?¨è¨€ã?„ã?¾ã?—ã?Ÿã€‚<br><br><br>Touched by the rabbit's self-sacrifice, the impressed traveller instantly changed into Indra, and said to the fox and the monkey, "Surely, this rabbit will find its way to the next world."<br><br>特ã?«å…Žã?®å¿ƒã?Œã?‘ã?¯ç«‹æ´¾ã?ªã‚‚ã?®ã?Ÿã?£ã?Ÿã?®ã?§ã€?永久ã?«æœˆã?«ç½®ã?„ã?¦ã‚„ã‚‹ã?“ã?¨ã?«ã?—ã?¾ã?—ã?Ÿã€‚<br><br>Since the rabbit's heart was so good, Indra decided to put the rabbit on the moon for all eternity.<br><br>ã??ã?†ã?—ã?¦ã€?月ã?®è¡¨é?¢ã?«ã?¯é»’焦ã?’ã?®å…Žã?®å§¿ã?Œè¦‹ã?ˆã‚‹ã‚ˆã?†ã?«ã?ªã?£ã?Ÿã??ã?†ã?§ã?™ã€‚<br><br>Sometimes, it is said that the figure of a charred rabbit can be seen on the surface of the moon.<br><br>*weep*<br><br>*weep*<br><br>*weep*
*When rabbits self-sacrifice to a disguised Buddhist deity borrowed from Hinduism...
- Thread starter GB-GIL Trans-global
- Start date
What an incredibly stupid rabbit.
Originally posted by p_ete2001
PMSL. what a lovely tale that is GB-Gill. :bugeye: Sounds to me like god punished the rabbit anyway.
nonono. that isn't PUNISHMENT.
It's putting his face on the moon, making him immortal, whatever.
...so the Japanese used to think the moon was actually a little bunny rabbit, while WE thought it was made of green cheese. lol.
The thing is, he was selfless and was rewarded.
Also, another thing that makes this a real moving story more than it would be otherwise is that the selfless creature in question was a fuzzy, cute, little bunny rabbit.
But it was stupid. I understand perfeclty the moral or point of the story. It's just that hte rabbit was stupid.
He gave his life to slightly aid another being. Now, if the other man would have surely perished had he not gotten food immediatly, then I would say it was a more understandable, yet still dumb, act. But it wasn't even that. He just killed himself for the sake of helping a guy. Not a good move.
He gave his life to slightly aid another being. Now, if the other man would have surely perished had he not gotten food immediatly, then I would say it was a more understandable, yet still dumb, act. But it wasn't even that. He just killed himself for the sake of helping a guy. Not a good move.
All kindness requires sacrifice.
"The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide form ourselves the violence we intend towards each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: “I feed on your energy.�" - “Dune Messiah� by Frank Herbert
Conversely, all kindness is a gift of one's energy... one's life.
To all of those who think that the rabbit is a fool, I say, "Without the sacrifice of others you would not exist."
~Raithere
"The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide form ourselves the violence we intend towards each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: “I feed on your energy.�" - “Dune Messiah� by Frank Herbert
Conversely, all kindness is a gift of one's energy... one's life.
To all of those who think that the rabbit is a fool, I say, "Without the sacrifice of others you would not exist."
~Raithere
Raithaire:
The use of power over another is not always destructive, would you agree?
Giving power can really be the most precious thing we can give. Yet allowing someone to feed off your own power is not necessarily a kindness. Both the person who is fed off of and the person who feeds are affirming power, and by doing so, reaffirming life.
As for kindness, for those who assert the rabbit as kind, I say:
"Unnecessary and destructive self sacrifice is simply masochism with a halo."
The use of power over another is not always destructive, would you agree?
Giving power can really be the most precious thing we can give. Yet allowing someone to feed off your own power is not necessarily a kindness. Both the person who is fed off of and the person who feeds are affirming power, and by doing so, reaffirming life.
As for kindness, for those who assert the rabbit as kind, I say:
"Unnecessary and destructive self sacrifice is simply masochism with a halo."
Energy (as used in my previous post) and power are not quite the same thing. But as to your question of power; I don't agree. The use of power over another is always destructive. However, there are times when we may do so for a greater good. As the surgeon excises dead tissue so the wound may heal so we may sometime use power over another for a greater good. I find it dangerous to ignore this principle though. Ignoring it we create the opportunity for horrendous mistakes. What is destructive comes to be thought of as good.
I agree. Supporting destructive behavior is, in itself, destructive. Destructive behavior is self-limiting... by supporting this behavior one allows it to continue further than it would have.
Yes.
I think you're missing the point of the story by taking it too literally. As with much philosophy it is useful sometimes to demonstrate a point by giving an extreme example. To automatically term it masochistic, I feel, is an error. The parent who sacrifices their life for their child is not being masochistic. Neither is the soldier who throws himself upon a grenade to save his troop. Nor the firemen and police who died in 911. These people make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of life. These are extreme examples to be sure but the difference is only one of degree.
~Raithere
Raithere:
Not quite, but very simular.
The enforcement of just laws. Sadomasochism. Telling your two year old not to put her hand on the hot stove or ELSE.
I don't think any of these things can be described as destructive. One COULD argue that the last example is destructive of the child's freedom, but I think that's pushing it a bit.
Umph. Must disagree again.
Suppose I'm a British soldier in WW3. Am I supporting (unnecessarily) destructive behaviour by feeding my power to my country, so that we aren't overrun by the Nazis?
Of course, you do end up with a question of "greater good".
There's a difference between sacrificing your life for a greater good, or for ideals, and sacrificing your life to be a tasty snack for someone who doesn't even need it.
That's like saying that the only difference between a person who dies to protect his country and a person who dies protecting his wallet from muggers is only one of degree.
Not quite, but very simular.
The enforcement of just laws. Sadomasochism. Telling your two year old not to put her hand on the hot stove or ELSE.
I don't think any of these things can be described as destructive. One COULD argue that the last example is destructive of the child's freedom, but I think that's pushing it a bit.
Umph. Must disagree again.
Suppose I'm a British soldier in WW3. Am I supporting (unnecessarily) destructive behaviour by feeding my power to my country, so that we aren't overrun by the Nazis?
Of course, you do end up with a question of "greater good".
There's a difference between sacrificing your life for a greater good, or for ideals, and sacrificing your life to be a tasty snack for someone who doesn't even need it.
That's like saying that the only difference between a person who dies to protect his country and a person who dies protecting his wallet from muggers is only one of degree.
They're still destructive. Addressing them separately:
The enforcement of just laws is still destructive; it's simply that justice and the safety of individuals the law-breaker may harm is of more value than the injury we meet out to the criminal. The destructive principle becomes clearer when we think about unjust laws or instances where the punishment seems excessive.
Sadomasochism is a bit more subtle of an issue for it involves consent... that is, one willingly submits without duress. Still there is a destructive principle at work. Certainly, sadism without consent is destructive and you can envision instances where masochism becomes very self destructive, involving physical injury.
Warning or even teaching your child involves yet more subtle aspects regarding authority, self-esteem, education, and so on. We're into the realm of the mind here where cause and effect are even more difficult to determine. Yet even here we can see that misuse or extreme censure is damaging. You can see the result of misuse in every bigot and violent fanatic on the planet.
It is purely a question of greater good and necessity. I find that this example highlights my point, actually. The soldier is not only supporting but committing the severest of destructive behavior. It is therefore his obligation to weigh the necessity and the value to which his actions are dedicated. Do I think that the Allies in WWII were justified? Yes.
Most definitely. Yet the story was written to highlight a particular attitude... which is actually a meditative practice used in Buddhism to cultivate compassion. In this practice one imagines another being suffering then takes all of that being's suffering upon one's self while giving every thing good one possesses to the one suffering. They are not advocating that one actually carry out such extreme action but fostering empathy and compassion.
Well no. The person who dies protecting his wallet is only protecting his possessions. The person who dies protecting his country is defending the lives of his countrymen. A difference of kind, not degree.
~Raithere