"Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Grigoris » Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:07 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:05 pm
Killing causes physical pain. One has a body in the bardo. That also experiences pain.
So now you are saying that the body transmigrates through the bardo. And here was me thinking that it just rotted in a hole in the ground.

Sorry, you said "a" body. How come we cannot see this body then? Why can we not see bardo beings if they have physical forms?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6110
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by kirtu » Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:19 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:04 pm
kirtu wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:47 pm
Sonam Wangchug wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:26 pm
If animals are in pain we can administer pain killers.
Unfortunately Karmapa OTD does not live in the United States and he's not a vet.

In the United States there is practically no effective administration of pain killers for humans. This is because many medical personnel are afraid of creating an addictive situation (even in the case of terminal illness!!!!). This is an objective fact (although it has begun to change somewhat).
What do you mean by effective?
Yes. That's quite the question isn't it? Except to many patients (who haven't been listened to).
The over adminstration of pain management medicines such as Oxycontin has created an wide spread opioid addiction epidemic in the US, it is only with the past 5 years that medical personal have started to severely limit the amount and duration in the administration of pain management meds.
That's not what happened. For decades, maybe generations, doctors restricted pain medication severely in apparently most cases (at least a lot of cases) acting out of skepticism and fear.

Then we had a change in treatment followed by Mammon worshipers flooding patients with a vast oversupply which is where your comment comes in.

We still do not generally have effective pain management in the United States. The entire subject is controversial (except for the fact that the Mammon worshipers pumped up another drug epidemic).

Just one paper (amoungst many) to back up my basic argument that pain treatment is substandard : http://www.jabfm.org/content/14/3/211.full.pdf
Barriers to Effective Pain Management
Undertreatment of Pain

In a recent study of 805 chronic pain sufferers, it was reported that more than 50% found it necessary to change physicians in their quest for pain relief. Specific reasons for changing physicians included lack of physicians’ willingness to treat the pain aggressively, failure to take the pain seriously, and lack of knowledge about pain management.3 In a study of 1,308 outpatients with metastatic cancer,11 67% (871) of the patients reported that they had pain or had taken analgesic drugs daily during the week preceding the study, and 36% (475) had pain severe enough to impair their ability to function. Forty-two percent of those with pain were not given adequate analgesic therapy. A discrepancy between patient and physician in judging the severity of the patient’s pain was predictive of inadequate pain management. One third of practitioners reported that they would wait until the patient had less than 6 months to live before starting the maximal tolerated analgesia for severe pain.
Kirt
Last edited by kirtu on Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Bundokji
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Bundokji » Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:40 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:52 pm
There is a difference between rules and guidelines. Buddhism has guidelines, not rules. Adherence to it's ethical framework is not based on the fear of judgement and punishment.
Yes and no. The precepts take different forms depending on how they are applied. The Vinaya for instance are the monastic rules. Also the precepts are integral to the eight fold path.

Some Buddhists, however, describe them as guidelines to differentiate them from ideas associated with other religions or secular morality, both seem to be based on attachments and linear mode of thinking.

From my understanding, people think in terms of "ought" or "ought not". The precepts and how they are related to Kamma are thought of in terms of "if" or conditionality. Surprisingly, those who understand the deeper meanings and implications of conditionality (which i am not one of them) seem to be incapable of breaking the precepts.

It is also worth noting that if the four noble truths are described as "timeless", and if the precepts are integral part of the path, then the practitioner should think about them as "absolutes" even if they are dependently arising in his experience. The precepts are clear and unchangeable. How you choose to apply them in your daily life is a different matter altogether.
Do you support euthanasia?
Euthanasia seem to be rooted in ignorance, not so different from its opposite such as keeping the terminally ill linked to machines prolonging their misery.
If you think Buddha is a replacement for God...
Ironically, i used to contempt people who believe in God before encountering the Buddha's teachings. I still find the idea of God useless, but the Buddha helped me to become more sympathetic towards people who hold such beliefs.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28285
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Malcolm » Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:13 pm

kirtu wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:19 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:04 pm
kirtu wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:47 pm


Unfortunately Karmapa OTD does not live in the United States and he's not a vet.

In the United States there is practically no effective administration of pain killers for humans. This is because many medical personnel are afraid of creating an addictive situation (even in the case of terminal illness!!!!). This is an objective fact (although it has begun to change somewhat).
What do you mean by effective?
Yes. That's quite the question isn't it? Except to many patients (who haven't been listened to).
The over adminstration of pain management medicines such as Oxycontin has created an wide spread opioid addiction epidemic in the US, it is only with the past 5 years that medical personal have started to severely limit the amount and duration in the administration of pain management meds.
That's not what happened. For decades, maybe generations, doctors restricted pain medication severely in apparently most cases (at least a lot of cases) acting out of skepticism and fear.
No, they saw that a certain percentage of people on opiate-based medicines developed serious addictions.

Then we had a change in treatment followed by Mammon worshipers flooding patients with a vast oversupply which is where your comment comes in.
Yes, in the mid 90's when Oxycontin was advertised as nonaddictive and treatment protocols in medicine began to view pain as bad.
We still do not generally have effective pain management in the United States. The entire subject is controversial (except for the fact that the Mammon worshipers pumped up another drug epidemic).

Just one paper (amoungst many) to back up my basic argument that pain treatment is substandard : http://www.jabfm.org/content/14/3/211.full.pdf
Barriers to Effective Pain Management
Undertreatment of Pain

In a recent study of 805 chronic pain sufferers, it was reported that more than 50% found it necessary to change physicians in their quest for pain relief. Specific reasons for changing physicians included lack of physicians’ willingness to treat the pain aggressively, failure to take the pain seriously, and lack of knowledge about pain management.3 In a study of 1,308 outpatients with metastatic cancer,11 67% (871) of the patients reported that they had pain or had taken analgesic drugs daily during the week preceding the study, and 36% (475) had pain severe enough to impair their ability to function. Forty-two percent of those with pain were not given adequate analgesic therapy. A discrepancy between patient and physician in judging the severity of the patient’s pain was predictive of inadequate pain management. One third of practitioners reported that they would wait until the patient had less than 6 months to live before starting the maximal tolerated analgesia for severe pain.
Kirt
[/quote]

From the CDC:
Sales of prescription opioids in the U.S. nearly quadrupled from 1999 to 2014,1 but there has not been an overall change in the amount of pain Americans report.2,3 During this time period, prescription opioid overdose deaths increased similarly.

The supply of prescription opioids remains high in the U.S.4 An estimated 1 out of 5 patients with non-cancer pain or pain-related diagnoses are prescribed opioids in office-based settings.3 From 2007 – 2012, the rate of opioid prescribing has steadily increased among specialists more likely to manage acute and chronic pain. Prescribing rates are highest among pain medicine (49%), surgery (37%), and physical medicine/rehabilitation (36%). However, primary care providers account for about half of opioid pain relievers dispensed. 3
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/prescribing.html

MONDAY, July 31, 2017 (HealthDay News) -- More than one out of three average Americans used a prescription opioid painkiller in 2015, despite growing concerns these medicines are promoting widespread addiction and overdose deaths, a new federal study shows.

Nearly 92 million U.S. adults, or about 38 percent of the population, took a legitimately prescribed opioid like OxyContin or Percocet in 2015, according to results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

"The proportion of adults who receive these medications in any year seemed startling to me," said study co-author Dr. Wilson Compton, deputy director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

"It's an awful lot of people who take these, mostly for medical purposes, but within that a significant percentage end up misusing them," he added.

The survey found that 11.5 million people, or nearly 5 percent of the population, misused prescription opioids they'd obtained through illicit means.
https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/n ... ds-in-us#1

So, I am still not sure what you mean by effective, but since on out of three Americans used a prescription opioid in 2015...
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Grigoris » Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:18 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:40 pm
The Vinaya for instance are the monastic rules.
You keep talking about these as if they are somehow valid to us.
Also the precepts are integral to the eight fold path.
Yes, but there are other "levels" of vows, some of which seemingly contradict the guidelines outlined in the eight fold path.
Some Buddhists, however, describe them as guidelines to differentiate them from ideas associated with other religions or secular morality, both seem to be based on attachments and linear mode of thinking.
Whereas you, in your attachment to clearly defined rules, act out of non-attachment and non-linear thinking... :roll:
It is also worth noting that if the four noble truths are described as "timeless", and if the precepts are integral part of the path, then the practitioner should think about them as "absolutes" even if they are dependently arising in his experience. The precepts are clear and unchangeable. How you choose to apply them in your daily life is a different matter altogether.
This is a Mahayana forum, as such styrict adherence to the precepts and Four Noble Truths is not necessary. There are two other "levels" of vows too: Bodhisattva Vows and Tantric vows.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Jeff H
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Jeff H » Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:23 pm

My understanding of the teaching on karma is that the primary factor is one’s state of mind at the moment of death, compounded by the habitual actions and predominant experiences over one’s lifetime. When LZR teaches about death, he advises us to make our loved ones’ passing as calm and positive as we can for that reason.

I have been involved in euthanizing a cat and my observation was that it was done with the utmost respect. She had people who cared for her around her helping to make her feel at ease and I saw no evidence that the lethal injection was anything but painless, gentle, and swift.

Is it not better for their karma that a being should die in a peaceful state of mind than wracked with physical pain?

Also, no one addressed Greg’s point about easing physical pain in general. If the reason not to euthanize is that this cycle of the being’s ripening karma must be allowed to play out “naturally”, then why is it ok to intervene in any suffering situation?
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

Bundokji
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Bundokji » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:13 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:18 pm
You keep talking about these as if they are somehow valid to us.
Not if you link it to the overall exchange between us and the role each one is playing. You seem to be emphasizing the uncertain and the contingent, while i am emphasizing the other side. Because describing the precepts as "guidelines" serves your purpose in this discussion, i showed that there are exceptions hence mentioning the Vinaya as rules becomes relevant.
Whereas you, in your attachment to clearly defined rules, act out of non-attachment and non-linear thinking... :roll:
We seem to have different views on what constitute attachments. Calling a spade by its true name is not attachment, quite the opposite. You, on the other hand, seem to have a burning desire to be able to rid dying animals from what you view as unnecessary suffering, hence clearly defined rules can be quite threatening to your own attachments.
This is a Mahayana forum, as such styrict adherence to the precepts and Four Noble Truths is not necessary. There are two other "levels" of vows too: Bodhisattva Vows and Tantric vows.
Here where i admit to be lacking knowledge and where you can teach me if you want. Do the Bodhisattva Vows and Tantric vows clearly allow the practitioner to break the precepts occasionally, or is it that such clarity is seen as selfish attachments which defeats the purpose on those levels of practice?

Thanks

User avatar
Drenpa
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:50 am

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Drenpa » Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:38 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:57 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:46 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:17 pm


The idea that we can save any being from further suffering is something of a delusion. When we euthanize an animal, we are not putting them out of their misery, we are putting them out of our own misery.
We are putting them out of their current misery.
No, we are putting them our of our current misery. Their misery does not cease, it only increases.
+1

From Trike article quoted above: https://tricycle.org/magazine/to-kill-or-not-kill/
Among the letters sent in reply was one recalling the time a practitioner, painting the exterior of a building at Karme Choling, a Tibetan Buddhist retreat center in Vermont, had killed flies that were hopelessly stuck in the paint, in an effort to end their suffering. Later that day—during a question-and-answer period with the Venerable Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche, a Nyingmapa meditation master—the practitioner confessed what he had done.

With a look of horror, Rinpoche said, “You killed them?!” He went on to say that although no harm would come to the practitioner since he had acted with good intention, killing the flies had not ended their suffering—it had simply removed it from our awareness. The flies’ negative karma would result in suffering, if not in this lifetime, then in the bardo, or in their next lifetime, or in the one after that. And their suffering might be much worse later on, Rinpoche said.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Grigoris » Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:01 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:13 pm
Not if you link it to the overall exchange between us and the role each one is playing. You seem to be emphasizing the uncertain and the contingent, while i am emphasizing the other side. Because describing the precepts as "guidelines" serves your purpose in this discussion, i showed that there are exceptions hence mentioning the Vinaya as rules becomes relevant.
No it doesn't. Vinaya rules apply to a tiny minority of the Buddhist community (monastics), none of us here are monastics, so the rules have no bearing on us. Do you touch money? Do you go into a room alone with a person of the opposite sex? Do you eat after midday? Why do only some rules apply to you and not others? You choose which rules apply and which don't? On what basis?

The precepts are not binding. One follows the precepts voluntarily. If one breaks a precept there is no consequence, other than that which applies even to those that do not hold the precepts (the natural law of karma).

There are no precept police. There is no God to punish you.

It's got nothing to do with "serving my purpose", it is reality.

Now if you want to go practice rules that do not apply to you, then that is your problem, not mine. If you need threats of eternal torment to choose between right and wrong, wholesome and unwholesome, that is also your problem and not mine.

Like I said earlier: "Yes, strictly following rules works quite well for some people."

If it works for you then go for it. I prefer to develop and rely upon my discriminating wisdom.
We seem to have different views on what constitute attachments. Calling a spade by its true name is not attachment, quite the opposite. You, on the other hand, seem to have a burning desire to be able to rid dying animals from what you view as unnecessary suffering, hence clearly defined rules can be quite threatening to your own attachments.
Straw man argument. Not worth replying to.
Here where i admit to be lacking knowledge and where you can teach me if you want. Do the Bodhisattva Vows and Tantric vows clearly allow the practitioner to break the precepts occasionally...
When motivated out of compassion and wisdom.
...or is it that such clarity is seen as selfish attachments which defeats the purpose on those levels of practice?
No. And just to be clear (yet again): Stubbornly abiding to rules can also be based on selfish attachment.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

amanitamusc
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by amanitamusc » Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:20 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:13 pm
kirtu wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:19 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:04 pm


What do you mean by effective?
Yes. That's quite the question isn't it? Except to many patients (who haven't been listened to).
The over adminstration of pain management medicines such as Oxycontin has created an wide spread opioid addiction epidemic in the US, it is only with the past 5 years that medical personal have started to severely limit the amount and duration in the administration of pain management meds.
That's not what happened. For decades, maybe generations, doctors restricted pain medication severely in apparently most cases (at least a lot of cases) acting out of skepticism and fear.
No, they saw that a certain percentage of people on opiate-based medicines developed serious addictions.

Then we had a change in treatment followed by Mammon worshipers flooding patients with a vast oversupply which is where your comment comes in.
Yes, in the mid 90's when Oxycontin was advertised as nonaddictive and treatment protocols in medicine began to view pain as bad.
We still do not generally have effective pain management in the United States. The entire subject is controversial (except for the fact that the Mammon worshipers pumped up another drug epidemic).

Just one paper (amoungst many) to back up my basic argument that pain treatment is substandard : http://www.jabfm.org/content/14/3/211.full.pdf
Barriers to Effective Pain Management
Undertreatment of Pain

In a recent study of 805 chronic pain sufferers, it was reported that more than 50% found it necessary to change physicians in their quest for pain relief. Specific reasons for changing physicians included lack of physicians’ willingness to treat the pain aggressively, failure to take the pain seriously, and lack of knowledge about pain management.3 In a study of 1,308 outpatients with metastatic cancer,11 67% (871) of the patients reported that they had pain or had taken analgesic drugs daily during the week preceding the study, and 36% (475) had pain severe enough to impair their ability to function. Forty-two percent of those with pain were not given adequate analgesic therapy. A discrepancy between patient and physician in judging the severity of the patient’s pain was predictive of inadequate pain management. One third of practitioners reported that they would wait until the patient had less than 6 months to live before starting the maximal tolerated analgesia for severe pain.
Kirt
From the CDC:
Sales of prescription opioids in the U.S. nearly quadrupled from 1999 to 2014,1 but there has not been an overall change in the amount of pain Americans report.2,3 During this time period, prescription opioid overdose deaths increased similarly.

The supply of prescription opioids remains high in the U.S.4 An estimated 1 out of 5 patients with non-cancer pain or pain-related diagnoses are prescribed opioids in office-based settings.3 From 2007 – 2012, the rate of opioid prescribing has steadily increased among specialists more likely to manage acute and chronic pain. Prescribing rates are highest among pain medicine (49%), surgery (37%), and physical medicine/rehabilitation (36%). However, primary care providers account for about half of opioid pain relievers dispensed. 3
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/prescribing.html

MONDAY, July 31, 2017 (HealthDay News) -- More than one out of three average Americans used a prescription opioid painkiller in 2015, despite growing concerns these medicines are promoting widespread addiction and overdose deaths, a new federal study shows.

Nearly 92 million U.S. adults, or about 38 percent of the population, took a legitimately prescribed opioid like OxyContin or Percocet in 2015, according to results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

"The proportion of adults who receive these medications in any year seemed startling to me," said study co-author Dr. Wilson Compton, deputy director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

"It's an awful lot of people who take these, mostly for medical purposes, but within that a significant percentage end up misusing them," he added.

The survey found that 11.5 million people, or nearly 5 percent of the population, misused prescription opioids they'd obtained through illicit means.
https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/n ... ds-in-us#1

So, I am still not sure what you mean by effective, but since on out of three Americans used a prescription opioid in 2015...
[/quote]
amanitamusc
Gabapenton is replacing the opioids here in Arizona and it seems to be catching on in
other places.The CDC is underplaying it as they are with fentanyl.
https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/sm ... gabapentin
https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories ... -40-states
Prince is dead and Fentanyl is king of the streets! https://pagesix.com/2018/04/19/prince-d ... rosecutor/

amanitamusc
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by amanitamusc » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:09 am

The fall of opioids and the rise of gabapentin.
http://www.startribune.com/drug-epidemi ... 481752501/

Bundokji
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Bundokji » Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:25 am

Grigoris wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:01 am
No it doesn't. Vinaya rules apply to a tiny minority of the Buddhist community (monastics), none of us here are monastics, so the rules have no bearing on us. Do you touch money? Do you go into a room alone with a person of the opposite sex? Do you eat after midday? Why do only some rules apply to you and not others? You choose which rules apply and which don't? On what basis?

The precepts are not binding. One follows the precepts voluntarily. If one breaks a precept there is no consequence, other than that which applies even to those that do not hold the precepts (the natural law of karma).

There are no precept police. There is no God to punish you.

It's got nothing to do with "serving my purpose", it is reality.

Now if you want to go practice rules that do not apply to you, then that is your problem, not mine. If you need threats of eternal torment to choose between right and wrong, wholesome and unwholesome, that is also your problem and not mine.

Like I said earlier: "Yes, strictly following rules works quite well for some people."

If it works for you then go for it. I prefer to develop and rely upon my discriminating wisdom.
When i began the practice, i was shocked by the amount of paradoxes in the Dhamma, until i began to see that life as experienced by us is paradoxical, and that these paradoxes are an outcome of how the self is constructed and the way we function.

The fact that the precepts are binding to some (monastics) and voluntary to others is due to the empty nature of compounded things. You seem to imply that when things are taken voluntarily they are necessarily unbinding, as if "voluntarily" and "binding" are mutually exclusive. If you contemplate this deeply, you would see whose actions are driven by an external authority. :smile:

I would add that some aspects of the practice are deeply rooted in self view such as training in morality. From my observations, the most abused and misused aspect of the teachings is Anatta. Simple and straightforward statements such as "refrain from killing" become ambiguous, difficult to understand. The sure mark of confusion caused by misunderstanding of Anatta is talking non-sense.
what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we can- not talk about we must pass over in silence
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Sila belong to conventional reality. Trying to explain the conventional in ultimate terms is based on a delusion that the ultimate and the conventional are ultimately different, damaging both in the process.
When motivated out of compassion and wisdom.
While this is an admirable motivation, i fail to see how claiming that killing can be wholesome is wise.

Even if you internally believe in what you and you are doing it with pure intentions, making such bold claims in a public forum is dangerous. Avoiding harm is better than doing good in my opinion.

The Bodhisattva path seem to require more wisdom, otherwise, it would be akin to a blind leading the blind.

Peace

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by seeker242 » Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:54 am

Allowing a rabid dog to be confined to a cage for 2 weeks, while it sits there and dies a "natural death", meanwhile it's eating it's own legs, is animal cruelty plain and simple.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

amanitamusc
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by amanitamusc » Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:06 pm

Jeff H wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:23 pm
My understanding of the teaching on karma is that the primary factor is one’s state of mind at the moment of death, compounded by the habitual actions and predominant experiences over one’s lifetime. When LZR teaches about death, he advises us to make our loved ones’ passing as calm and positive as we can for that reason.

I have been involved in euthanizing a cat and my observation was that it was done with the utmost respect. She had people who cared for her around her helping to make her feel at ease and I saw no evidence that the lethal injection was anything but painless, gentle, and swift.

Is it not better for their karma that a being should die in a peaceful state of mind than wracked with physical pain?

Also, no one addressed Greg’s point about easing physical pain in general. If the reason not to euthanize is that this cycle of the being’s ripening karma must be allowed to play out “naturally”, then why is it ok to intervene in any suffering situation?
:good:
Is it the case that doctors treating beings in any manner are hindering that beings natural karma or
is it that beings karma to be treated and even be released into the next bardo peacefully?
How does one recognize ones true nature in the next bardo if they die from alzheimer's ?
If the moment of death and how you die is so important how do you factor in these shit deals?
These could be some of those "ask your lama" questions?

User avatar
Emmet
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:51 pm
Location: Clay County, NC

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Emmet » Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:10 pm

Do the Bodhisattva Vows...clearly allow the practitioner to break the precepts occasionally...?
Yes. Precepts are not rigid laws or commandments; they're exemplars; the archetype of how a bodhisattva operates. We operate in the saha world; where real life is not black and white, but infinite gradients of gray. Sometimes we're faced with conundrums for which there simply are no good options, only least bad ones. What option best promotes and maintains ahimsa; "non-harming"? Which option is most consistent with my vow to liberate all beings? What choice best inures to the welfare of all, no matter how imperfectly?
There's a story told of an exemplary monk beyond reproach, who awoke to find a naked woman in his bed. In great anguish, she said her child was very ill, perhaps terminally so, and that for sport the richest merchant in town promised to provide her child with the best medical care in the world if she could entice the monk to forsake his vows. Without hesitation the monk had sex with her, with great compassion and loving kindness. When the abbot found out, he publicly humiliated the monk and banished him; out of respect for the woman and to protect her from further suffering, the monk offered no defense. The sangha as a whole, who knew of the true facts of the case, came to his defense and persuaded the abbot to relent.
One of the Jataka Tales tells of a previous incarnation of the Buddha as a sea captain, who discovers that there is a murderous pirate on board, intent upon robbing and killing his passengers. He could either do nothing, in which case the passengers would all be killed, or he could expose the pirate for what he is, in which case the passengers would kill him first. He chose to kill the pirate himself, thereby not only saving the passengers lives, but saving them from the karmic consequences of killing the pirate. and conversely saving the pirate from the karmic consequences of killing the passengers. To save all beings, he chose to accept the karmic debt of killing himself.
In the Lotus Sutra, to entice the distracted children (us) from the burning house (samsaric world), the father (the Buddha) blatantly lied, promising them amusements far superior tho those which so enchanted them. The leader of a caravan, knowing that they were almost there if they could only summon the strength to push on a little longer, just as everyone was so exhausted and discouraged they were on the verge of giving up and going home, created a mirage of a golden city; by deception enticing them to drive on. The physician upon arriving home found that his children had gotten into his stores and poisoned themselves. Unable to coax them into taking the antidote, he left, then send word that he had died, and his dying wish was that his children would comply and take the medicine he had prescribed for them.
The saha world is a complicated, confusing, and messy place, where rigid legalism and simplistic notions of good and evil frequently have unintended and untoward consequences, sometimes exacerbating rather than ameliorating a situation. A bodhisattva not only acts ethically, but to applies those ethics skillfully, for the benefit of all beings. That requires some wisdom, creativity, and flexibility which rigid legalism precludes. However imperfectly, we do the best we can.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28285
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:46 pm

Jeff H wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:23 pm
My understanding of the teaching on karma is that the primary factor is one’s state of mind at the moment of death, compounded by the habitual actions and predominant experiences over one’s lifetime. When LZR teaches about death, he advises us to make our loved ones’ passing as calm and positive as we can for that reason.

I have been involved in euthanizing a cat and my observation was that it was done with the utmost respect. She had people who cared for her around her helping to make her feel at ease and I saw no evidence that the lethal injection was anything but painless, gentle, and swift.

Is it not better for their karma that a being should die in a peaceful state of mind than wracked with physical pain?

Also, no one addressed Greg’s point about easing physical pain in general. If the reason not to euthanize is that this cycle of the being’s ripening karma must be allowed to play out “naturally”, then why is it ok to intervene in any suffering situation?
IN general, karma that ripens on the body is only nonvirtuous karma, resulting in pain. The karma that ripens on the mind is only positive karma, resulting in happiness.

I am pretty sure that a cat suffering from a great amount of pain, near death but not quite there, would still resist your attempts to kill it, as would every creature.

So in general, I am pretty sure euthanizing pets, for example, is not a course I would recommend. However, if an animal is rabid, there is little choice in the matter. I don't think there is any reasonable objection to killing diseased animals or animals that carry diseases harmful to humans, such as mosquitos, ticks, and so on. This is just common sense.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Grigoris » Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:09 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:25 am
The fact that the precepts are binding to some (monastics) and voluntary to others is due to the empty nature of compounded things. You seem to imply that when things are taken voluntarily they are necessarily unbinding, as if "voluntarily" and "binding" are mutually exclusive. If you contemplate this deeply, you would see whose actions are driven by an external authority. :smile:
Damn you did well plugging that straw man full of arrows.
I would add that some aspects of the practice are deeply rooted in self view such as training in morality. From my observations, the most abused and misused aspect of the teachings is Anatta. Simple and straightforward statements such as "refrain from killing" become ambiguous, difficult to understand. The sure mark of confusion caused by misunderstanding of Anatta is talking non-sense.
And now you have started the personal attacks.
Sila belong to conventional reality. Trying to explain the conventional in ultimate terms is based on a delusion that the ultimate and the conventional are ultimately different, damaging both in the process.
Another straw man.
...i fail to see how claiming that killing can be wholesome is wise.
And another straw man.
Avoiding harm is better than doing good in my opinion.
I guess that is why you are not a Mahayana practitioner.

Anyway, this conversation is now over.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Grigoris » Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:57 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:46 pm
IN general, karma that ripens on the body is only nonvirtuous karma, resulting in pain. The karma that ripens on the mind is only positive karma, resulting in happiness.
I don't know about you, but I often feel bodily pleasure and mental suffering.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28285
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Mercy" killing of a dying animal - moral doubts

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:11 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:57 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:46 pm
IN general, karma that ripens on the body is only nonvirtuous karma, resulting in pain. The karma that ripens on the mind is only positive karma, resulting in happiness.
I don't know about you, but I often feel bodily pleasure and mental suffering.
This is just not how karmavipaka works.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Miroku, passel, Rick and 43 guests