Anyone interested in discussing case studies

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Folks,

Knowledge just through intuition is one way to wisdom. Here you acquire the principles directly without reference to relevant practical experiences. But learning from experiences and then forming the principles on which wisdom is created is another way.

In the spirit of the second approach I thought it would be interesting to discuss practical cases that present moral or legal dilemmas and derive principles on the basis of which if one acts would result in a neat solution to the problem.

What do you think?

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

It would be interesting to discuss case studies

May be you can give us a sample case study to start off discussion.

 

[sravna]

OK Renuka. I will start with a hypothetical case which presents a dilemma.

Mrs and Mr.X are wife and husband resp. They have been in the relationship for quite some time and have almost adolescent daughter and son. Mrs.X happens to meet Mr.Y with whom she grows a relationship. It should be noted that Mrs.X really does not have a chemistry with Mr.X but has a chemistry with Mr.Y. But somewhere within herself she feels a guilt for the relationship with Mr.Y.

What should Mrs.X do ? and what is the rational basis for it?

 

[renuka]

Ok interesting case study.

I would discuss it from a general point of view..hormonal point of view and also a Karmic point of view.

1)The case is Mrs X is attracted to Mr Y..I presume may be even Mr Y is married to someone else say Mrs Y becos married women seldom get involved with unmarried men cos in a married man and married women "emotional affair" its relatively safer cos no one would dare black mail the other cos both are married.

2)Now Mr X and Mrs X would have had their chemistry once upon a time that led to production of 2 kids..surely there was some sexual attraction at some stage of their life...now what happened to the chemistry?

Before that I assume both Mr X and Mrs X are in their forties..this is when most marriages enter a stale mate situation.

3)Why does Mrs X feel guilty?

Well this is normal..unless a person is a sociopath most humans feel some guilt when they feel they are doing an act not in accordance with the norms of society..but usually this guilt is only in the early stages..once a person gets used to being in a new relationship..the hormonal high of a new relationship deletes the feeling of guilt.

This is the stage when a full blown affair starts..once guilt goes into recycle bin.


Ok lets get to the story...why did Mr X and Mrs X lose their chemistry?

Its actually normal..ask any married couple in their late 40's and above..they will tell you that life is in auto pilot mode..reason? Natural..nature intended humans to start off with chemistry and then gradually stabilize into steady state of mutual respect and stable non sexual love.

Sexual love does not last too long for most minds with the same partner..here is the catch 'the same partner"..one goes into status-quo state after a while in any marriage...but at times the human mind does desire some attention that may be lacking in their own marriage and seeks harmless friendship for some time pass and one thing leads to another.

Coming to chemistry with Mr Y..actually even if it was a Mr Z there would have been chemistry..cos chemistry is nothing but a new experience.

After a while even that chemistry would fizzle off and become a steady sans chemistry state.


Now coming to what Mrs X should do:

1)Firstly..if she is enjoying her new found chemistry..she can very well have fun as long she knows how to deal with consequences and not be caught.

2)If guilt is consuming her....then she can use some filmi dialogue and end it with Mr Y..she can say that she will meet him again in another birth and wants him to promise her that he would never say goodbye ever in their next birth...

Janam janam janam saath chalna yunhi
Kasam tumhe kasam aake milna yahin
Ek jaan hai bhale do badan ho judaa
Meri hoke hamesha hi rehna
Kabhi na kehna alvida

3)There is also another method Mrs X can handle this..now this needs a mature mind and not easy for the average human.

She has to analyse...why is she in such a situation?

Is it her Karma or is there a lesson she needs to learn from this situation?

Well sometimes we feel instant chemistry with even a perfect stranger..the story goes that we could actually have a Karmic link with that person.

But then at times even a pleasant feeling could be a a negative unsettled Karma..so we can never really know if a person we like is actually pain or pleasure or both..Tum dard ho tum hi aaraam ho!


So one needs to stop and think about this situation..mostly people start to stop and think after nicely having enjoyed their affair!LOL

Ok..what I mean is..one can view Mr Y as a Karmic relationship..for which Mrs X would never know if he is meant to be positive or negative..so how does she handle him?

She has to transform her feelings to a non sexual feelings.

That is she does not have to hate him or be sexually attracted to him but she has to learn to wean off this chemistry sensation and move on in life..viewing Mr X and Mr Y as two people who have a Karmic link in her life and knowing both of them was meant for her inner transformation to go beyond sexual attraction.

Once Mrs Y realizes this..there is no need to feel guilty anymore..life's lessons comes in many forms.

But most important Mrs X should never ever tell Mr X even about her own inner transformation.

Some situations are best kept a secret ..anyway females are the best when it comes to hiding their own deep dark secrets but they gossip about everyone else's secrets!LOL

 

[sravna]

Good Renuka. I like your response. It does not explicitly give prescriptions but says it is in accordance with what Mrs.X is capable of doing. The principle we are drawing from your response is "Each person finds his own level of comfort and should act in accordance with it". Let us now analyze each solution and see what could be the factors that will play out .for each of the solution

The first solution is when Mrs.X is not capable of controlling her feelings for Mr.Y. There are two important factors that would determine the future peace of such persons namely (a) self control or (b) capacity to control situations. So as you say if Mrs.X is the type of person who can control situations but does not possess self control, she will opt for this solution and find her peace .

In my view such persons have to constantly keep planning for their peace and do not possess the type of inner peace that is possible.

 

[renuka]

In my view such persons have to constantly keep planning for their peace and do not possess the type of inner peace that is possible.

Some people are driven by risky behavior hormonal thrills....they seek pleasure at any cost.

But even then there is hope for such people..that is when they get some disease and are unable to function in a risky manner anymore.

Then they start to preach...saying "I once was lost but now I am found..was blind but now I see".

When hormones cant act anymore...humans become holy!LOL

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Your second solution indicates in the fight between guilt and chemistry, guilt eventually wins. So she is able to bring back her self control. The fact that she has self control indicates she possesses more freedom in dealing with a situation with that self control. She gets influenced less by external factors than if she had been a type who choose the first solution.

In my view self control is the most precious possession one can have.

The third solution is actually inconsistent with the behaviour of Mrs.X in being attracted to Mr.Y . A person who is mature enough to think about karmic perspective is very little influenced by only chemistry in my view. I will assume that person has enough self control over situations like this and will not allow it to happen in the first place.

So the fundamental principle I am putting forth is that one's inner happiness and its quality depends a lot on the self control he or she exercises. It actually starts from your principle that each person tries to find his or her own level of happiness but adds that there are differences in the quality of happiness that each approach offers.

So what I was thinking is that once we lay down the fundamental principles on what brings peace and happiness which is what every solution eventually strives for, we can branch off from there and become more specific on the principles and eventually actions that would lead to peace and happiness.

We will try to analyze different cases for this

 

[Vaagmi]

Nahi nahi rakshathi dukrinjkarane................

 

[sravna]

Nahi nahi rakshathi dukrinjkarane................

There are people who are wise enough to be able to not follow rules and go by intuition.. For those who follow rules it is wise to follow the right rules

 

[Vaagmi]

Radio waves are electromagnetic waves and voice or sound waves ride them to reach a receiver.

There is basically love and affection between a man and woman to start with once they are married. It is the musical sound waves. There is also the primordial sexual attraction ( which is survival related for humanity) which is the powerful equivalent of electro magnetic wave. One rides the other and humanity survives/evolves/expands. The byproducts are ecstasy and orgasm (hope praveen wont delete this).

If a human being- whether male or female- thinks for a moment standing away from itself to understand what is happening to it when the act is performed, this perspective will dawn on it.

If music is missing it becomes just static. If electromagnetic oscillation is missing the radio is dead.

Music is as important as the carrier waves.

If Mr. Y and Mrs.X are able to enjoy music over static they can continue the relationship for ever leaving Mr X behind so that he can look for some other partner to work on a new oscillator to start a new musical effort.

There is nothing to feel guilty about it. We, in fact, offer oblations during tharpanam to the jnaatha ajnaatha pithrus.

Westerners have got rid of this guilt part of it quite easily as it is their culture. The effort there it appears is to create and transmit music always. Every time a new raga and every time at a new wavelength/frequency. LOL.

 

[sravna]

If Mr. Y and Mrs.X are able to enjoy music over static they can continue the relationship for ever leaving Mr X behind so that he can look for some other partner to work on a new oscillator to start a new musical effort.

There is nothing to feel guilty about it. We, in fact, offer oblations during tharpanam to the jnaatha ajnaatha pithrus.

Westerners have got rid of this guilt part of it quite easily as it is their culture. The effort there it appears is to create and transmit music always. LOL.

Guilt comes from within. t depends on the mental make up of the person. It can be obscured just like all morally right things can be, but the point is it is a naturally occurring feeling. A person who feels guilt for doing something morally wrong is still listening to the conscience. By overriding guilt the music will only become discordant with time. In my view it cannot be music always. Definitely not good quality music.

 

[sravna]

It is my view that the western notion of equality and its notion of other values alone are not enough for an exploitation free society. In the same way a society which talks of only values cannot give an exploitation free society. In the former case, the way it has been practiced, everything reduces to just performing the right behavior and no care for right intent. It is just being politically correct and pragmatic. In the later, everything eventually reduces to meaningless rituals and superstitions. Both lead to exploitation.

It is between these two groups that we see fights very often these days. Pragmatism and values have to be integrated. The problem is people have found it easy to practice pragmatism alone or preach values alone without bothering about the other. The mix of both is what gives rise to character and integrity. It gives stability and harmony to society.

We need to think about ways to stress about the importance of both so that one does not compromise on one or the other. As an individual this would seem to be a daunting task but would not be so if the society realizes this as a whole. Spiritual leaders, politicians and social workers have to understand this and be involved to make the mass change possible.

 

[sravna]

Here's another dilemma:

Women are not allowed inside certain temples. So there seems to be a case of discrimination. We have been recently seeing events where some women's organizations have been fighting for the right to worship. On the other side it is said something which has been a part of tradition cannot be given up.

What do you think?

 

[renuka]

Here's another dilemma:

Women are not allowed inside certain temples. So there seems to be a case of discrimination. We have been recently seeing events where some women's organizations have been fighting for the right to worship. On the other side it is said something which has been a part of tradition cannot be given up.

What do you think?

For me I dont really bother fighting for some issues cos I do not really need to identify with the concept of prayer or God only in a temple.

Personally I can never really concentrate in a temple...there is just too many distractions..too many people...too much noise etc.

Now coming to logical thinking.

In almost all religions it has been always males that have taken the lead when it came to religion..most probably becos males were the literate ones and females were not as literate and were pre-occupied with pregnancy and child rearing.

There was no contraceptive practice in the past..hence a female was always getting pregnant and that is enough to keep any female busy!
Poor nutritional status too with repeated pregnancies did not give any time for a female to take any lead outside her home.

So men always had the upper hand when it came to dealing with religion and then also came the man made laws.

Some temples in the past would have been in areas not conducive for females to handle..hence females were barred from entering.

Some rules set down in the past could have had a valid reason with was in accordance with the time and era but now since times has changed..we need to logically analyse each and every practice to decipher if it is equally valid in present times...sadly this is not happening cos rules of the past have become superstition and people fear change.

We have been fed with superstition over the years until we have forgotten to spell LOGIC.

Superstition breeds fear and once fear sets in...that spells doom for the intellect.

So the choice is ours..to live in fear or live logically.

But these days any form of protest is just based on emotions and ego..males and females are just fighting with each other to make a statement to feed their egos..no one is actually solving any problems in the right manner.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

You have touched upon a very subtle point. As you say logic is the paramount criterion which one should act and make decisions. But the moot point is how do you verify the truth in the logic? Take the example of the notion of equality. According to the way it is now understood, treat everyone in the same way. Is it really possible given the deep differences that exist among them. Each may require a different treatment and a different solution. This concept of equality which emphasizes the differences says let what one has in excess compensate the deficiency that other has and vice versa. It implies that both excess and deficiency are problems and so offers this complementary of equality where both are complements are treated as equal.

I will share my views on the case in a while.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

If one wants to derive the principle underlying what you say, it is: Logic should be the basis for our actions. My response was: how do you verify whether certain logic is valid?

Let me give my answer to this. Any solution that a logic suggests should be holistic in nature. It cannot appease one at the expense of another. It should be satisfactory as a whole. That is the best solution a logic can offer.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

Personally I feel equality does not exist..in fact its not entirely fair to expect everyone to conform to the same standards becos each one of us have different capabilities..weakness and strength.

We have to handle each situation depending on the case.

Coming to verifying the Truth in logic...Logic itself is subjective to time,place,person and current understanding and knowledge.

Once upon a time it was logical to think that a spermatozoa is actually needed for creation of life along with a ovum but now cloning has proved that we do not need a spermatozoa but only need DNA from any cell to be sustained in a de-nucleated ovum.

So what seemed logical then was no more logical now.

Likewise..we should have that approach in our mind that even logic is subject to change ..therefore even Truth is nothing but a mere speculation.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

If one wants to derive the principle underlying what you say, it is: Logic should be the basis for our actions. My response was: how do you verify whether certain logic is valid?

Let me give my answer to this. Any solution that a logic suggests should be holistic in nature. It cannot appease one at the expense of another. It should be satisfactory as a whole. That is the best solution a logic can offer.

Dear Sravna,

Its very hard for logic alone to be the basis for our actions. That would make us very mechanical and cold...not to mention even being closed minded.

I feel the better approach in life is to depend on logic to a great extent but also keep an open mind that sometimes logic alone does not give all answers to the questions becos at times what we call logic could be text book knowledge and we seldom go beyond that.

I will give you a personal example..at the beginning of this month I fell sick with Influenza A.

I knew it right away it was Influenza cos I had Influenza B a few years ago and the symptoms of Influenza A are a good 10x worse than B!

Now the Influenza virus is supposed to be an acute short incubation virus that attacks within 2-4 days of exposure to it.

But I had noticed that 3 week before that I had symptoms of aching body..congested respitory system...severe lethargy etc.. and then finally I had full blown Influenza A.

Ok now..the Influenza viruses are known to undergo rapid mutation.

I did ask my doc if there is a possibility that Influenza Virus can mutate to a slow acting virus instead before becoming full blown cos I did have mild Influenza like symptoms 3 weeks before.

The doc said No..the virus is not a slow acting one.

So his answer was a logical answer based on current studies but for me I kept my mind open..that if something can mutate to be more virulent why can't it mutate to change its mode of action...to become a slow acting virus too.

Who knows may be in the future some slow acting Influenza virus would be identified.

For me I feel logic is fine as long we are able to keep an open mind to other possible options.

 

[sravna]

For me I feel logic is fine as long we are able to keep an open mind to other possible options.

Dear Renuka,

That is my point. Logic can indeed get better. In the above case if you consider the possibility of being open minded, you are using better logic. Ideally, the one that considers the situation as a whole is what would be the best logic.

 

[sravna]

My analysis of the case is this:

Explain the logic behind the tradition. What is considered as tradition has both rational and irrational basis. So if something is rational, the rationale behind it should be explained and if the rationale is valid, the tradition should not questioned any further. If not what is normally considered as fair should prevail.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Dear Renuka,

If one wants to derive the principle underlying what you say, it is: Logic should be the basis for our actions. My response was: how do you verify whether certain logic is valid?

Let me give my answer to this. Any solution that a logic suggests should be holistic in nature. It cannot appease one at the expense of another. It should be satisfactory as a whole. That is the best solution a logic can offer.

Logic can never be illogical It cannot be holistic - it cannot compromise with illogical statements and situation - Paradox is not logic even if it is Gods paradox! The logically illogical or illogically logic situations are pardox and will fail in logical audit!

 

[sravna]

Logic depends on unstated premises whose truth decides how good the logic is. The more your underlying premises are in sync with your logic the more true your logic is. If you are able to present a logic with such consistency it is holistic in nature

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Logic depends on unstated premises whose truth decides how good the logic is. The more your underlying premises are in sync with your logic the more true your logic is. If you are able to present a logic with such consistency it is holistic in nature

A says God exist - B asks him to prove - A says disprove God You cannot so accept God is A's logic! ! Both cannot prove his stand but expect the other to accept his stand since it is not disproved - Proving or disproving God who never obligies you with an Avathar in Test Tube as proof is illogical - Yes illogic can be holistic!

 

[sravna]

A says God exist - B asks him to prove - A says disprove God You cannot so accept God is A's logic! ! Both cannot prove his stand but expect the other to accept his stand since it is not disproved - Proving or disproving God who never obligies you with an Avathar in Test Tube as proof is illogical - Yes illogic can be holistic!

The above is your logic or illogic whatever you may call it. I stated a fact. Your response should relate to that.

 

[sravna]

Regarding unsettled issues such as existence of God, both the sides have to be accommodated. Spiritual people base their beliefs on their experiences or faith. Scientists base their beliefs on physically verifiable evidence. For the former the latter is an illusion and for the latter the former is just imagination.

What I suggest is in resolving issues, spiritual people should provide a moral basis for their cases and the secular ones "analytical logic" if I may use that phrase. In the case of the temple for example if traditionalists are able to show that a higher dharma is upheld because of the practice then that should provide sufficient grounds for the continuation of the practice. Otherwise not.