YOGA REV

Is there an ethical side to Yoga?

Yes. Ethics can be defined as "the good life" or in more exact terms, discerning what is good or bad. Ethics starts with ahimsa. To ethical idealist, the goal of yoga is about self-discovery and discovery of a supreme law, which seeks to organize a mental and ethical formula consisting of [ethical] principles of conduct.

What about the teachings of ahimsa?
The teachings of ahimsa are yoga because one must practice ahimsa to achieve the best for one's self--a side of truth to karm--and a fundamental basis from which ethics starts. Beginning with the premise that each of us are responsible for achieving the person we will become. Additionally, we should act so as to cause as little harm or [perfectly] no harm to other sentient beings, so that we recieve the rewards or consequences of our actions in our current or next life. The goal is "cosmic harmony" within the world we live, following us to the next. There are limitations, since it's not practical to practice ahimsa all of the time. This example can be seen in the B.G. when Arjuna is urged to fight against his own archery teacher by the Krishna, because he had just cause to harm (dharma) So when applied in a practical sense, ahimsa can have a pluralistic application where it can be applied to utilitarianism (ethics of the greater good) and also libertarianism (ethics of self).

What are some of the main arguments offered in favor of its practice, and are any of them cogent, that is to say, do they carry the day?

The main arguments are (1) that if we act without harm, then we transcend all evil(s) in our next life, e.g., the Upanishadic view that self-realization includes seeing the self in all beings, thus a certain unity.

(2) From the B.G, "pain and suffering" to mean the pain and suffering of others, who dislike it just as one dislikes one's own pain and suffering.

(3) From the Shankra: (Likeness of Self=breathing beings, desire pleasure and find pain disagreeable--no explicit appeal to self interest. High road= by developing virtue of ahimsa, one be comes fit for the supreme persnal good..."social value" B.G. "to hold together the worlds.Low road, teaching virtue is its own reward

(4) The Jaina view percieve that everything is sentient. All souls are equally valuable.Thus if I realize suffering is bad for me, I conclude that injury to others is similarly bad to them. Hierarchy of conscious based on sense organs. Humans have 11=5 external senses of knolwedge and 5 more of action, along with manas (the innersense) and buddhi (rational intelligence) Logical correspondence follows as such (since a cow has 11). Animals are selves as indicated by their behavior. Being a self capable of feeling pain has [natural] moral rights. To propagate what selves see as bad for themselves is to commit a moral evil. Selves see pain and injury as bad for themselves. Therefore, to propagate pain or injury is to commit a moral evil. Further, to hurt an animal is morally wrong as it is more wrong to hurt a human being.


(6) Buddhism= metaphysics of Interconnectedness--"great vehicle" to carry all sentient beings to awakening or bliss.Karma is natural law.



(7) YS (social) "restraints" tops list of practice--convergence of moral constraint of self-interest. Don't hurt yourself in practice since we are interconnected (atman). Here ahimsa presupposes ahimsa towards self is right and natural.

(10) As an extention, and in the spirit of non-injury ethic, was born "non-absolutism" or maybeism. Meaning consideration of another's view to have truth value would deny harm to their holding of a certa

Are the teachings concerning karma presupposed as a premise or premises in any of the arguments you identify?

Karma is congruous with ahimsa insofar is it seeks "cosmic harmony" through non-harm ethics. For instance ahimsa as a restraint keeps you from harming yourself directly, which would be a payback for acting in a harmful way. Being aware of kinks that may harm you, would pressupose being harmed. More interestingly, the Jaina view--Karma as a presupposed premise which would entail Karmic payback according to different tiers of suffering, according to the magnitude of suffering caused to say a cow, compared to an ant.