Response: 'Abandonment' and Burden Shift

In response to Julia - Full comments here - http://juliamcla4.blogspot.com/2012/01/search-for-self-at-all-costs.html

I suppose I should agree that leaving the family is not selfless, though I think that it isn't selfish either. I promote the idea of equality for men and women. I think that men and women should have equal economic, social, civil, human rights, and so on. Meaning I think that any opportunity a man has, a woman should have to. The difference is, I am mostly concerned with the Human rights as it is the antecedent to all other rights. By definition I think that woman already have all of those rights. They have equal rights to take opportunities and responsibilities. They should be able to leave their families, if they want, but they should also be willing to take up the same responsibilities that they expect from others.

1.) That's irrelevant because a person could die at any moment anyhow. You don't need to be elderly to pass away, and when you do pass away, you leave your family with no more than you would have if became a Sannyasin. Additionally, most of these families have many generations, meaning that, it would probably fall on a variety of people even the males of the next generation.

2.) An elderly person or an ill person, who expects to die soon, should not choose to become a Sannyasin, I think. If they are ill or incredibly old they cannot successfully walk miles and miles and only survive off of bare minimum food intake. They would likely die on the side of the road somewhere. Additionally, the choice to become a Sannyasin is a choice to embark on a spiritual journey - it takes time. There is little point to embarking on a journey which could take a decade, if you only expect to live for ten months. I am uncertain if one could suggest that women are unable to 'abandon' their own 'obligations.' Women do, after all, have the same human rights as men - if they wanted to they could just as easily walk away from their 'obligations' and, in fact, some do. As Avery mentioned; It's not largely men who are ABLE to become Sannyasin, women are perfectly able to, some simply CHOOSE not to. To view this otherwise seems possibly sexist to me - when the women choose to become Sannyasini, they too are 'abandoning' their families, leaving only the man responsible. In any given family, men and women alike all have equal opportunity to become a member of the Sannyasa.

3.) We'll agree that leaving is not selfless; though it does not necessarily have to be selfish either, I think. Regarding the 'abandonment' of a loved one, he is going to die anyhow. Not letting him leave is only putting off the inevitable consequences and probably causing more suffering, given that with death, it is abrupt and you know he is dead, whereas with becoming a Sannyasin he leaves gradually and in good health. Your argument continues to state that women would pick up a heavy burden if the man left, this implies that it is already the man alone who is carrying this heavy burden, bearing the largest obligation in the family. It's also unfair for this to happen, but it seems like women have no particular objection to men taking on the entire burden. It is only when faced with having to do what men already do, actually being equal, that they begin to object and imply that men are somehow selfish in choosing not to continue carrying such a heavy burden

I also figured I should add that Women do indeed have a place in Indian society, they are fairly progressed in that sense. In some ways they are even further along than we are. Indira Gandhi was the second female head of modern government in the world and she also is the second longest serving Prime Minister (15 years). Also, Pratibha Patil is the current President of India and won the election receiving more than 2/3 of the vote (more than twice as many votes as the other candidate. She also took office at the age of 73, older than our oldest elected president.

Response: Leaving Family - Selfish, Selfless, or Something Else

Response to Julia: Go here for full comments - http://juliamcla4.blogspot.com/2012/01/search-for-self-at-all-costs.html#comment-form

I do agree with a good majority of the things that Avery has said. Avery addressed the possibility that leaving, even if it's not necessarily selfless, is not necessarily a bad thing either. I am going to talk about how leaving could actually be selfless, even taking the family into account.

For those who are reading this on just my blog - A Sannyasin is a person who has given up the material world possessions and connections with other people.

1.) There is no discernible legal difference between dying and becoming a Sannyasin. Thus, becoming a Sannyasin, legally dying, would result in all of the Sannyasin's property and wealth going to his family. This essentially eliminates of the problem of the family's dependency on him.

2.) Furthermore, leaving your family, if they are dependent on you, could be viewed as selfless. Such that, leaving a dependent family would force them to gain their own independence, which, mind you, they would have to do regardless - when he actually dies. Though, not only would they have to gain their own independence after the individual's death, they would also be left to mourn over his death, which would be an additional burden which could prevent them from becoming independent in a timely fashion.

3.) The family can also be selfish. As with we saw in the movie, the family had no actual objections other than "but who will care for us" (even though he stated that they would be supported). They didn't say they loved him and didn't want him to go; they only thought of themselves. It could very well be selfless to lead by example and, by leaving and giving up all of his possessions and wealth to them, teach them to be selfless.

4.) As I mentioned before, the individual seeking to become a Sannyasin is going to die eventually. Imagine how the family would feel if, after his death, they realized that it was only them that prevented him from becoming a Sannyasin; only they prevented him from becoming spiritually enlightened. I can imagine they they would experience heavy negative feelings (from guilt to sorrow) about this. It could then be considered selfless to prevent them from having this severe emotional distress.

Also, I would, related to family duty, recommend reading Edith Wharton's "Ethan Frome." All the suffering that Ethan goes through is a result of his acting on the 'familial duty' to support his mother. His choice to give up his own desires creates suffering for not just himself, but everyone he loves and many people whom he does not.
Supplementary - I would also recommend Franz Kafka's "Metamorphosis" as an example of how feeding your family's dependence on you can, and does, turn them into the selfish, greedy kind of person that nobody likes.

On Selflessness, Selfishness, Self, and Family

I do agree with a good majority of the things that Avery has said. Avery addressed the possibility that leaving, even if it's not necessarily selfless, is not necessarily a bad thing either. I am going to talk about how leaving could actually be selfless, even taking the family into account.

For those who are reading this on just my blog - A Sannyasin is a person who has given up the material world possessions and connections with other people.

1.)  There is no discernible legal difference between dying and becoming a Sannyasin. Thus, becoming a Sannyasin, legally dying, would result in all of the Sannyasin's property and wealth going to his family. This essentially eliminates of the problem of the family's dependency on him.

2.) Furthermore, leaving your family, if they are dependent on you, could be viewed as selfless. Such that, leaving a dependent family would force them to gain their own independence, which, mind you, they would have to do regardless - when he actually dies. Though, not only would they have to gain their own independence after the individual's death, they would also be left to mourn over his death, which would be an additional burden which could prevent them from becoming independent in a timely fashion.

3.) The family can also be selfish. As with we saw in the movie, the family had no actual objections other than "but who will care for us" (even though he stated that they would be supported). They didn't say they loved him and didn't want him to go; they only thought of themselves. It could very well be selfless to lead by example and, by leaving and giving up all of his possessions and wealth to them, teach them to be selfless.

4.) As I mentioned before, the individual seeking to become a Sannyasin is going to die eventually. Imagine how the family would feel if, after his death, they realized that it was only them that prevented him from becoming a Sannyasin; only they prevented him from becoming spiritually enlightened. I can imagine they they would experience heavy negative feelings (from guilt to sorrow) about this. It could then be considered selfless to prevent them from having this severe emotional distress.

Also, I would, related to family duty, recommend reading Edith Wharton's "Ethan Frome." All the suffering that Ethan goes through is a result of his acting on the 'familial duty' to support his mother. His choice to give up his own desires creates suffering for not just himself, but everyone he loves and many people whom he does not.
Supplementary - I would also recommend Franz Kafka's "Metamorphosis" as an example of how feeding your family's dependence on you can, and does, turn them into the selfish, greedy kind of person that nobody likes.

Desensitization: Video Games v. Religion

--The availability of video games has led to many youth being desensitized to death.

--Video games glorify death and destruction. By playing these video games, they are becoming desensitized to death.

You can hear arguments like this all of the time. Any time there is any act of violence committed by I teenager, I can almost assure you that you will encounter this opinion somewhere along the line. Now, I had thought about this before, and it was precisely the sort of thing that I eventually wanted to blog about. So, here it is.

In short, there are deeper societal (religious) causes of desensitization which should be considered long before violence in the media. I am not suggesting that violent media makes no contributions;.I just feel that it is important to recognize that video games are not the sole contributors towards desensitization, and I would also argue that it's not even the largest factor. Simply, most people don't confuse Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty with the real world (unless they are desensitized into the army), while a good portion of people do actively think that there is some brand of special deity waiting to hand out an eternal life filled with all the happiness anyone could ever want. Thus, religion is posing a real world view which could desensitize youth and adults alike.

Firstly, nationalism glorifies death when it's for the 'right' cause. Countries, especially the sorts like America, are constantly using the media to suggest that we have to kill all of these people, or we have killed all of these people in the past, because we are 'better than they.' Through-out the public, however, there tends to be very little note of this. It seems like one murder, possibly due to one video game, is more problematic than 'training' people in the army to mercilessly slaughter hundreds of people.

Continuing, religions also contribute a heavy part to the desensitization to death. Most religions tell the followers that this life is somehow followed by another life, either in heaven or through reincarnation and so on. It suggests that the value of this life is very little, which could cause some to conclude that the loss of one life isn't important because they will just be born again or they will be sent straight to heaven. To reference this to our class, in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna says the following: "Nor will there be a time when we will cease to exist . . . So too at the time of death [we] attain a new body." He uses this quote to suggest that Arjuna not be afraid to kill every opposing person, because after all, they will have a new life soon. Christianity, too, has it's part. The primary reward for being a christian is to receive another, even better, eternal life in heaven. If someone held the strong opinion that a Christian would go straight to heaven, they wouldn't need to think twice about killing them because they would go to a better place.