Fish feel pain like any other animals. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/fish-feel-pain.aspx
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Fish-do-not-feel-pain-says-study/articleshow/18013766.cms
http://www.phenomenica.com/2013/01/fish-do-not-feel-pain.html
haha, grandfather said grandfather is right, grandmother said grandmother is right. :)
someone tell me which is true
Those news report are misrepresenting the scientific report which did not make an absolute statement.
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=5437
the Mail Online’s effort reads: "It is a debate that has raged for
years. But now Britain’s four million anglers can rest easy – because
fish do not feel pain, scientists have concluded."
This is wrong.
There is nothing in the review that explicitly states this, and I
suspect that this marks a dissonance within the scientific and
journalistic communities – one preferring cautious approaches, the other
requiring absolutes. Here, the journalists have shot themselves in the
foot.
It also says it is a minority view among scientists:
But the review itself only represents a minority of voices and I am
not criticising the authors of the review here. My thoughts on the
subject are covered elsewhere and can be tracked using the link given
above.
Others say http://www.care2.com/causes/fish-feel-fear-and-pain-and-stress.html
“Fish feel pain too,” agrees Discovery News’s Jennifer Viegas in her analysis of Penn State professor Victoria Braithwaite’s book on the subject, Do Fish Feel Pain? A 2009 study published in “Applied Animal Behaviour Science” also concluded that fish feel pain and that even after the pain is over, they alter their behavior in response to their memory of it. A 2003 study found ”profound behavioural and physiological changes” akin to those higher mammals exhibit in response to pain.
Also, lobsters, shellfish, etc also feel pain, another recent article:
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/4443/20130117/shellfish-feel-pain-dont-boil-lobster-crab.htm
which ever, in Buddhism when the consciousness/"soul" leave the body, (in this case the fish die), the pain is like pulling the shell out of a turtle (which somehow or rather the study mentioned that this act of pulling out the shell is felt and painful).
/\
Originally posted by kuji-in:Dear All ,
I would like to seek your opinion on the above topic as it is greatly troubling to me.
In many religions around the world, there have been practices where animal or human victims have been murdered on the altar in the belief that it will bring blessings.
I am deeply disturbed by all these. Perhaps anyone can kindly share his buddhist beliefs on the topic of blood sacrifice.
Here's my thoughts, though this is not sharing from Buddhist beliefs.
I believe there is this universal belief all over the world throughout human history that mankind have angered the gods and that sacrifices are needed to placate their wrath. But where does this idea comes from? Do people just make up this idea that somehow is universal in scope? What can explain this?
I believe there is a kernel of truth running though this idea, and that the Bible explains this very well. The Bible teaches that man sinned against God and a blood sacrifice was required for the atonement of sins. At the tower of Babel, God scattered the human population by changing their languages. And as each language group scattered all over the world they retained this belief of blood sacrifice for the remission of sins. But over time more is being embellished, but I believe the Bible contains the true account of its origins.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:That's quite cruel... if you think about it... but anyway all killings of animals for food are cruel unfortunately.
Sometimes we have to be more aware of the suffering of animals http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/earthlings/
Allow me to share from a Christian perspective.
The Bible teaches that in the beginning God made us all vegetarians. Every green plant was for food. Plants and trees are not "living" in the Biblical sense, as distinct from the biological sense. They are not called "nephesh chayah". So humans and animals eating plants and fruits would not be guilty of anything or killing anything. Anyway, it was only because of man's sin that death i.e. of humans and animals which are called "nephesh chayah" entered the world at the time of the Fall. And it was only after Noah's Flood that God permitted humans the eating of animal meat, which would make sense since there won't be time for agriculture after they left the Ark.
BTW, Jesus ate meat too : )
There's negative karma from eating meat whether one is involved in the killing or not. The karma is heavier if one is directly involved in the killing of course. But, even if one is not involved, there is definitely negative karma and it accumulates because we eat every single day and it is in the nature of karma to get bigger. Why is there negative karma from eating meat? Because by having meat in our food, we are increasing the demand for animals to be slaughtered and its meal to be sold to us. Karmically, it doesn't matter if we ordered someone to kill or we ourselves kill. Hence, there's definitely karma in eating meat.
Originally posted by Steveyboy:There's negative karma from eating meat whether one is involved in the killing or not. The karma is heavier if one is directly involved in the killing of course. But, even if one is not involved, there is definitely negative karma and it accumulates because we eat every single day and it is in the nature of karma to get bigger. Why is there negative karma from eating meat? Because by having meat in our food, we are increasing the demand for animals to be slaughtered and its meal to be sold to us. Karmically, it doesn't matter if we ordered someone to kill or we ourselves kill. Hence, there's definitely karma in eating meat.
Just curious, in Buddhism, is there negative karma in the very act of eating itself? Plants are also living things, right?
Anyway, I found this article interesting http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/vegetarianism.htm
Hey BroInChrist,
Negative and Positive karma is accumulated not in the action but the underlying motivation behind the action. Someone could be eating because he have to be a useful member of society by doing charity, then eating becomes good karma. If a greedy person eats because he loves food and he is just stuffing his face, then it becomes negative karma because it reinforces his selfishness. I hope my example is clear on this matter.
Originally posted by Steveyboy:Hey BroInChrist,
Negative and Positive karma is accumulated not in the action but the underlying motivation behind the action. Someone could be eating because he have to be a useful member of society by doing charity, then eating becomes good karma. If a greedy person eats because he loves food and he is just stuffing his face, then it becomes negative karma because it reinforces his selfishness. I hope my example is clear on this matter.
Thanks. One more question, and pls pardon the crude way of asking this, but who is keeping the karmic score and how is that being done? How do you know what your score is now at the moment?
Whether there is karma in eating meat or not (I shall not go into that), one should also be aware that 1) not only the Buddha ate meat that is 'pure' - i.e. meat that is not seen, heard, or suspected (to be killed for him/her), is pure - but, 2) he allowed all his monks to eat 'pure meat' regardless of whether they are ordinary unenlightened monks or they are arahants - and his monks in the early sangha do in fact, eat meat, and the Theravada tradition follows the early sangha up till today*, 3) when Devadatta demanded Buddha to implement strict vegetarianism the Buddha declined. 4) millions of animals and insects are killed by pesticides and harvesters in the cultivation of plant-based food as well. There is no way we can avoid indirectly causing the death of animals regardless of the food we choose to eat.
So if we are too insistent on vegetarianism, we are in fact, becoming like Devadatta ourselves. Of course, vegetarianism is also a good way to cultivate compassion, yet it should never become insisted as a requirement to become a Buddhist (not saying you are at fault here). Some may argue it is important for a Bodhisattva practitioner but I digress.
*Devadatta next plots discord among the
monks by proposing that the Buddha mandate five austere disciplines for
all recluses. These five are as follows:
1. forest dwelling
2. alms begging
3. the wearing of only refuse-rag robes
4. living at the foot of a tree
5. not eating meat or fish
All of these disciplines, Devadatta suggests, should be followed “for as long as
life lasts.”
The Buddha’s response is again sharp:
Enough, Devadatta. . . . Whoever wishes, let him be a forest-dweller;
whoever wishes, let him stay in the neighbourhood of a village; whoever
wishes, let him be a beggar for alms; whoever wishes, let him accept an invitation;
whoever wishes, let him be a rag-robe wearer; whoever wishes,
let him accept a householder’s robes. For eight months, Devadatta, lodging
at the root of a tree is permitted by me. Fish and flesh are pure in respect
of three points: if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have
been killed on purpose for him)
- Daniel Boucher - Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahâyâna
Elsewhere，the Buddha said:
... meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen
or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely
slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances
in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three
circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard
or suspected (that a living being has not been purposely slaughtered for
the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which
meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta, MN 55
Furthermore, in the Amagandha Sutta in the Sutta Nipata, a vegetarian Brahmin confronts Kassapa Buddha (a previous Buddha before Gautama Buddha) in regard to the evil of eating meat. The Buddha countered the argument by listing acts which cause real moral defilement and then at the end of the verse, he emphasized that the consumption of meat is not equivalent to those acts. ("... this is the stench giving defilement, not the consumption of meat").
........
Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm Smith:
The argument is, and it is the Buddha's argument, recall, that meat
that was not slaughtered for you specifically, that you have not seen
slaughtered, and did not request slaughtered is pure. In case someone
feels this is merely a Hinay�na argument, let me also remind you that
the Madhyamaka author Bhavaviveka also follows the same argument.
Shantideva of course is well known for arguing against meat eating.
While
it is true that the lower tantras instruct us that to be vegetarian --
tantras like Hevajra instruct us in the opposite fashion.
So, again, it all depends on what you personally want to practice.
I
am a Dzogchen Community practitioner, therefore I practice according to
that tradition. I believe that refusing to eat meat is a refusal to
extend one's compassion.
In the end, we are all food. Get used to it.
N
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Thanks. One more question, and pls pardon the crude way of asking this, but who is keeping the karmic score and how is that being done? How do you know what your score is now at the moment?
brownie points? kind of show that u still got more to learn about the understanding of karma. or simply refuse to pick up the explaination, while still sticking to your own fixed understanding.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
brownie points? kind of show that u still got more to learn about the understanding of karma. or simply refuse to pick up the explaination, while still sticking to your own fixed understanding./\
Sorry if I have offended you in some way. But this is a genuine question I am asking. According to some here, you can accumulate positive and negative karma, then it would not be unreasonable to ask who or what is keeping the "score" and how each person would know where he stands. I don't profess to know heaps about Buddhism, so I am open to being corrected.
@BroInChrist,
Karma is not a score card. Karma literally means actions and each action we do leaves an indelible mark in our mind. It reinforces our mind either towards selflessness - the concern for others or selfishness, which is the concern for only ourselves. In Buddhism, when we are overly selfish, we create problems for ourselves and we becoming increasingly unhappy. People who are happiest is usually people who are more selfless or those that have others as their concern. So any action leading to either states of mind determines whether it is positive or negative. In the end of the day, karma is registered within the deepest levels of our mind and from this part of our mind, karma will reappear to us as 'fruits' of actions.
Since it is stored within us, that's why we have people with various talents and mental dispositions right from the moment of our births. If karma and retribution was in the hands of God, then God is really biased and unfair and this is totally opposite of how Christians describe him. Why are some people born mute, impaired or left to suffer in diseased and war torn countries while others are born rich and living comfortably in Singapore?
Originally posted by Steveyboy:@BroInChrist,
Karma is not a score card. Karma literally means actions and each action we do leaves an indelible mark in our mind. It reinforces our mind either towards selflessness - the concern for others or selfishness, which is the concern for only ourselves. In Buddhism, when we are overly selfish, we create problems for ourselves and we becoming increasingly unhappy. People who are happiest is usually people who are more selfless or those that have others as their concern. So any action leading to either states of mind determines whether it is positive or negative. In the end of the day, karma is registered within the deepest levels of our mind and from this part of our mind, karma will reappear to us as 'fruits' of actions.
Since it is stored within us, that's why we have people with various talents and mental dispositions right from the moment of our births. If karma and retribution was in the hands of God, then God is really biased and unfair and this is totally opposite of how Christians describe him. Why are some people born mute, impaired or left to suffer in diseased and war torn countries while others are born rich and living comfortably in Singapore?
The Bible teaches that we reap what we sow. But this is not to be confused with the doctrine of karma. The Bible also teaches that we should be selfless, again not to be confused with the notion that there is no self. You can't be selfish if there is no self to talk about. Since karma can be positive and negative, why would it not be possible to know where you stand on this karmic register? How much merits must one accumulate to escape samsara? You can't see how far you have gone if you can't look back and see where you have been or take stock of present position.
The idea of karma is foreign to the Bible. The fact of death and suffering is explained in the Bble, it is because we live in a fallen world. There are people born deaf and blind which Jesus healed. But there will come a time when all is restored. Have you read about the man with no limbs? Why is he also happy? See http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/about-nick/
When we see the world through Biblical lens we come away with a completely new outlook. We understand why the world is the way it is, and we look forward to a new heavens and a new earth.
Indeed, the idea of karma is foreign to Christianity.
Buddhist karma and Christian 'you reap what you sow' is different because karma is a natural law without an arbiter whereas 'you reap' in Christianity is the result of God's judgement.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The Bible teaches that we reap what we sow. But this is not to be confused with the doctrine of karma. The Bible also teaches that we should be selfless, again not to be confused with the notion that there is no self. You can't be selfish if there is no self to talk about. Since karma can be positive and negative, why would it not be possible to know where you stand on this karmic register? How much merits must one accumulate to escape samsara? You can't see how far you have gone if you can't look back and see where you have been or take stock of present position.
In Buddhism, you know you have made enough merits to escape samsara when 1) you have a human life instead of a birth in other realms which are by far much more numerous than the human realm in comparison [e.g. ants by itself outnumber human tens of millions of times in numbers] 2) you are not born with a disability such as hearing and seeing impairment that prevents the study and practise of dharma, 3) you are not born in a place where the dharma is not known, such as some places in Africa or certain Islamic countries, etc. 4) you actually meet with the dharma/Buddhist teachings, or a Buddhist teacher, or sangha/community that practises the teachings
When we qualify all these, we know we have obtained an incredibly rare birth and circumstance conducive to our attainment of liberation, through tremendous merits we have accumulated in past and present lives. We actually have such tremendous merits as to achieve a birth that is more rare than striking a million dollar jackpot.
Then the rest is really up to us whether we want to waste away our precious birth in worldly foolishness, or to actually practise the dharma to attain liberation. Liberation is not so much about merits (though merits are important), it is more about attaining wisdom. Merits merely aid us, but is not the sole or even primary cause of liberation. The more direct cause is to attain penetrative insights and wisdom into the nature of reality through vipassana/vipashyana or insight meditation.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Indeed, the idea of karma is foreign to Christianity.
Buddhist karma and Christian 'you reap what you sow' is different because karma is a natural law without an arbiter whereas 'you reap' in Christianity is the result of God's judgement.
In Christianity, "reaping and sowing" has both a natural order meaning and a moral order meaning. In a natural order meaning, it means the laws of nature applies. If you jump off the cliff without parachute, you reap the consequences of a splattered body at the base. In a moral order meaning, it means if you do wrong then you must face the moral (and legal) consequences that come with it. It also means that only moral agents can enforce a moral law. God is a moral being, and thus created humans as moral beings too. Thus God's moral standards apply, He tells us what is right and wrong. He is the absolute moral standard. And He judges rightly in accordance to His holy and just character.
This is different from Buddhism where Karma is a natural law, inanimate. Is it then a moral law? But how is morality enforced by something that is itself just natural law, like the law of gravity? A moral Person can judge right and wrong, how does a natural law make that judgement?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:In Buddhism, you know you have made enough merits to escape samsara when 1) you have a human life instead of a birth in other realms which are by far much more numerous than the human realm in comparison [e.g. ants by itself outnumber human tens of millions of times in numbers] 2) you are not born with a disability such as hearing and seeing impairment that prevents the study and practise of dharma, 3) you are not born in a place where the dharma is not known, such as some places in Africa or certain Islamic countries, etc. 4) you actually meet with the dharma/Buddhist teachings, or a Buddhist teacher, or sangha/community that practises the teachings
When we qualify all these, we know we have obtained an incredibly rare birth and circumstance conducive to our attainment of liberation, through tremendous merits we have accumulated in past and present lives. We actually have such tremendous merits as to achieve a birth that is more rare than striking a million dollar jackpot.
Then the rest is really up to us whether we want to waste away our precious birth in worldly foolishness, or to actually practise the dharma to attain liberation. Liberation is not so much about merits (though merits are important), it is more about attaining wisdom. Merits merely aid us, but is not the sole or even primary cause of liberation. The more direct cause is to attain penetrative insights and wisdom into the nature of reality through vipassana/vipashyana or insight meditation.
Assuming that you are an ant, how does an ant (i.e you) accumulate good karma for itself so that it does not become an ant (or something less than an ant) in the next life? An ant does what it does, doesn't it?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:In Christianity, "reaping and sowing" has both a natural order meaning and a moral order meaning. In a natural order meaning, it means the laws of nature applies. If you jump off the cliff without parachute, you reap the consequences of a splattered body at the base. In a moral order meaning, it means if you do wrong then you must face the moral (and legal) consequences that come with it. It also means that only moral agents can enforce a moral law. God is a moral being, and thus created humans as moral beings too. Thus God's moral standards apply, He tells us what is right and wrong. He is the absolute moral standard. And He judges rightly in accordance to His holy and just character.
This is different from Buddhism where Karma is a natural law, inanimate. Is it then a moral law? But how is morality enforced by something that is itself just natural law, like the law of gravity? A moral Person can judge right and wrong, how does a natural law make that judgement?
Buddhist karma is not so much about 'right' and 'wrong'. It is more about wholesome and unwholesome actions. No judge is involved.
For example, a seed of hatred etched deep in one's mind will eventually grow into a fruit, a result, and that karmic result must naturally correspond to that seed or karmic cause, which is why those who are always killing other beings are going to be reborn in a place of suffering such as hell. It is impossible that a seed that is rooted in craving, aggression and delusion can result in any true happiness.
The Pali word kamma or the Sanskrit word karma (from the root kr to do) literally means ‘action’, ‘doing’. But in the Buddhist theory of karma it has a specific meaning: it means only ‘volitional action’ not all action. In Buddhist terminology karma never means its effect; its effect is known as the ‘fruit’ or the ‘result’ of karma.
The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called ‘moral justice’ or ‘reward and punishment’. The idea of moral justice arises out of the conception of a supreme being, a God, who sits in judgement, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong.
The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction; it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment. Every volitional action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces good effects, it is not justice, or reward, meted out by anybody or any power sitting in judgement of your action, but this is in virtue of its own nature, its own law. This is not difficult to understand. But what is difficult is that, according to karma theory, the effects of a volitional action may continue to manifest themselves even in a life after death. (Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught)
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddhist karma is not so much about 'right' and 'wrong'. It is more about wholesome and unwholesome actions. No judge is involved.
For example, a seed of hatred etched deep in one's mind will eventually grow into a fruit, a result, and that karmic result must naturally correspond to that seed or karmic cause, which is why those who are always killing other beings are going to be reborn in a place of suffering such as hell. It is impossible that a seed that is rooted in craving, aggression and delusion can result in any true happiness.The Pali word kamma or the Sanskrit word karma (from the root kr to do) literally means ‘action’, ‘doing’. But in the Buddhist theory of karma it has a specific meaning: it means only ‘volitional action’ not all action. In Buddhist terminology karma never means its effect; its effect is known as the ‘fruit’ or the ‘result’ of karma.
The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called ‘moral justice’ or ‘reward and punishment’. The idea of moral justice arises out of the conception of a supreme being, a God, who sits in judgement, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong.
The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction; it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment. Every volitional action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces good effects, it is not justice, or reward, meted out by anybody or any power sitting in judgement of your action, but this is in virtue of its own nature, its own law. This is not difficult to understand. But what is difficult is that, according to karma theory, the effects of a volitional action may continue to manifest themselves even in a life after death. (Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught)
Then in Buddhist thought do you call something e.g. rape, murder, adultery, wrong or merely unwholesome? And who/what decides what is wholesome or unwholesome? It would seem to be ultimately dictated by outcome and not by the act. There is mention of a good action, what then is good? It's hard to detach it from any moral judgement, yet you seem to say that it has nothing to do with justice. And if something is just a natural law, then it makes no sense to call anything right or wrong, just or unjust.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Then in Buddhist thought do you call something e.g. rape, murder, adultery, wrong or merely unwholesome? And who/what decides what is wholesome or unwholesome? It would seem to be ultimately dictated by outcome and not by the act. There is mention of a good action, what then is good? It's hard to detach it from any moral judgement, yet you seem to say that it has nothing to do with justice. And if something is just a natural law, then it makes no sense to call anything right or wrong, just or unjust.
You can judge it to be 'wrong', I wouldn't have problem with that. But karma in and of itself isn't about 'wrong' or 'right'... karma is either wholesome, unwholesome, and pure [i.e. actions not done out of craving, aggression and delusion].
With regards to karma, nobody decides something to be wholesome or unwholesome just like nobody decides something to be black or white... what is black is seen to be black by a discerning eye, and a black seed seen plainly in sight produces a black result, while a white seed produces a white result... just like a black animal produces a black offspring and a white animal produces a white offspring. A chinese man produces a chinese offspring, a western man produces a western offspring [lets not talk about mix blood]. You don't need to "judge" if someone is a chinese, i.e. his skin colour is already plain in sight for you to see, and if you have the intelligence to discern. Seeing is enough, no need for judgement. Same goes for karma.
When the Buddha calls it 'wholesome' or 'unwholesome' he is not making a judgement on things, he is simply describing the action and its results. What is wholesome produces states of well being, happiness, freedom from suffering and afflictions. What is unwholesome is... well... the opposite of that.
For example smoking two packs of cigarettes a day is certainly unwholesome because it does damage to one's body. You don't get cancer because of someone's judgement that it is 'evil' and 'wrong', you get cancer because smoking is unwholesome, it causes addiction and the tars accumulate and cause cancer. We don't say smoking is 'evil' or 'wrong' - well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but regardless of your opinion whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' - it is a fact that smoking is 'unwholesome', so karma is non-judgemental in that sense yet can be catergorized as wholesome/unwholesome with its corresponding effects:
Buddha:
3. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
6. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome.
7. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.
8. "When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
Gravity and friction are examples of natural law. to gravity, there's either up/repel or down/attract. to friction, there's stop and go. there's opposition everywhere. dark and light, male and female etc.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:...it got to do with the discrimination of the mind.Gravity and friction are examples of natural law. to gravity, there's either up/repel or down/attract. to friction, there's stop and go. there's opposition everywhere. dark and light, male and female etc.
/\
The laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology etc) are not to be confused with the laws of morality. But both have their source in an eternal Mind, God.