|
Post by japanesebird on Jan 29, 2013 9:34:55 GMT -5
with albums surabhi and kamadhenu, merzbow has shown an interest in hindu mythology, at least as conceptual material for his albums. is this simply an overlap of his interest in animal rights or could masami akita identify as a 'hindu' in his personal beliefs? i would hope not, i had envisioned him as a 'buddhist' in basic spiritual-philosophical orientation. hinduism with its substantialistic beliefs in gods and so on is unpalatable to me.
does masami akita believe in god?
|
|
|
Post by Bucketfel on Jan 29, 2013 15:34:29 GMT -5
Hindu beliefs are also part of Japanese culture since early millenia. It wouldnt be strange that Masami would share some hindu beliefs to some excent given that its part of his cultural heritage as well.
Aslo, it doesnt hurt that all the hindu themes he's shared as in close connection to animals and then it might just be pure coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by ashessehsa on Jan 29, 2013 17:23:25 GMT -5
I'm guessing it's an animal rights thing, given the overlap between Masami's veganism and Hinduism's religiously-sanctioned humane treatment of cows. Hinduism permits a cruelty-free lifestyle in which milk can be used even to many vegans' acceptance; I know that Masami had mentioned that he would be ok with consuming milk from this culture in an interview somewhere.
I'm pretty sure he has more Buddhist leanings, if anything, considering Merzbuddha came out at least 5 years before anything overtly referencing Hinduism did.
|
|
|
Post by japanesebird on Jan 29, 2013 18:45:14 GMT -5
Hindu beliefs are also part of Japanese culture since early millenia. It wouldnt be strange that Masami would share some hindu beliefs to some excent given that its part of his cultural heritage as well. Aslo, it doesnt hurt that all the hindu themes he's shared as in close connection to animals and then it might just be pure coincidence. hm, i did not know that. yeah i read that interview. i wonder how far he takes the cruelty-free ideology? i am on the fence about the issue. i certainly have a passionate dislike of the meat murder industry and cannot contemplate the endless cruelty of it for long without being pushed to a near nervous breakdown, yet i fail to see how abstaining from animal products helps the issue. in fact it seems to be merely a help to the individual's guilty conscience. to solve the worldwide problem, the demand for animal products would have to be totally eradicated. and although i respect merzbow for boldly stating his cause, with peta links in his album booklets, "meat is murder" on his laptop, etc, it will not impact but a few of his diehard fans. we have to face the obvious facts, that one form of life lives upon another. this is the brutal truth of nature. that being so, i do not look at my cat as a sinner for killing a rat, nor think of her as a cruel being. if there is such a murderous instinct in carnivores, may it not also be in some humans, such as ted nugent? we call jeffrey dahmer a murderer and a cannibal for killing humans and eating them, yet ted nugent walks around with a clean conscience despite taking immense pleasure in hunting, killing, skinning, cooking, and eating deer [which, to me, is like hunting, killing, skinning, cooking, and eating innocent human beings who have never harmed anyone and never will, since deers are gentle forest dwellers]. it is interesting that beings who awaken to the inherent cruelty of killing and eating another living, sentient being have morally evolved beyond the creator of the cosmos - if there is such a creator - since 'he' apparently saw nothing wrong with the brutal nature cycle and it took billions of years for human beings to appear and find the whole thing sickening.
|
|
|
Post by ashessehsa on Jan 29, 2013 23:33:40 GMT -5
For me, vegetarianism, while partially out of concern for the undue pain animals experience, is only part of the matter. And before I go into my brief thing about vegetarianism, I just want to say that just because it's the natural way of things, doesn't mean we have to do it. Of course I don't hold it against my cat to kill a rat, and besides, that is very different from the food production industry we have in place today.
A meatless diet is more environmentally sustainable because, if we didn't have food animals and don't consume them, we would not have to raise as many crops to keep them fed. Less food animals, less pain, fewer crops, fewer carbon emissions and land usage.
|
|
|
Post by japanesebird on Jan 30, 2013 11:21:12 GMT -5
For me, vegetarianism, while partially out of concern for the undue pain animals experience, is only part of the matter. And before I go into my brief thing about vegetarianism, I just want to say that just because it's the natural way of things, doesn't mean we have to do it. Of course I don't hold it against my cat to kill a rat, and besides, that is very different from the food production industry we have in place today. A meatless diet is more environmentally sustainable because, if we didn't have food animals and don't consume them, we would not have to raise as many crops to keep them fed. Less food animals, less pain, fewer crops, fewer carbon emissions and land usage. I did not mean to imply that just because it's the natural way of things we should also do it. that is why i wrote the very controversial opinion that we have gone beyond the morality of the creator of the cosmos, if there is such a creator. assuming for a moment that "god created the world", he must have set in motion the vicious evolutionary cycle of life. to a deer, there is not much difference between being killed by a tiger and a man, in fact the tiger may be more compassionate, biting into the neck and almost erotically ending their life. the human hunter is a coward, shooting from a distance with painful bullets, letting the animal die slowly, posing for photographs over it, etc. i don't think cannibals like issei sagawa should be treated with any less respect than your average hunter. in fact, being that issei sagawa is an interesting man, and most hunters are not, i would even dare say he is to be treated with greater respect than hunters. he killed one human and ate her, while hunters in a lifetime may kill thousands of animals. what is the difference between a human and non-human? that we call one a 'person' because it can speak our language? the distinction is arbitrary and derives from an anthropocentric worldview.
|
|
|
Post by ashessehsa on Jan 30, 2013 12:32:31 GMT -5
There is a very real difference between the killing of a human and an animal, though. It might be argued that that difference only exists as a shared subjectivity between most people, but it is a view that I too share. The whole Issei Sagawa thing is complicated, but I know that what he did was wrong, and I see no reason to respect his actions more than the actions of a hunter at all.
That being said, I do believe in the potential of people to become better people and to heal, even some who are very deranged and sociopathic. While I think it is best to put people like Sagawa behind bars, I think it is important to learn from these people and to try and find compassion even for those who might deserve it the least. Absolute compassion and radical acceptance are necessary first steps toward change, for one's self and for others.
I find the way Japanese culture has handled Sagawa to be really baffling and odd, granted, I'm not the most well-read on the subject. My general view is that people who do actions such as that should not be regarded as bad people, but as people who are troubled or struggling who need help and to be understood. People who do things like Sagawa did ought to be taken from society, ie, put into prison, but efforts should be made by the people to understand why these people do what they do and to find compassion for them.
|
|