A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
I am talking about reality, not theory. Are you saying that you do not experience bodily pleasure or mental suffering? Do these experiences not arise as a consequence of karmavipaka?
These are part of throwing karma, but the actual sensations we feel in these existences that are a result of karma are differentiated on the basis of whether their cause is virtuous or nonvirtue, and all nonvirtue ripens as pain in the body and all virtue ripens as pleasant feelings in the mind.Grigoris wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:32 pmI am talking about reality, not theory. Are you saying that you do not experience bodily pleasure or mental suffering? Do these experiences not arise as a consequence of karmavipaka?
Isn't beauty, long life and good health (bodily attributes) a consequence of positive karma vipaka?
What is the Sanskrit term for this?
Do you have an abhidharma source for this please?...and all nonvirtue ripens as pain in the body and all virtue ripens as pleasant feelings in the mind.
Abhidharmasamuccaya“The results of favorable and unfavorable actions are produced in the good and bad destinies (sugati, durgati). This also, through the projecting action (ākṣepaka-karma) and the completing action (paripūraka-karma). What is projecting action? It is the action by means of which the result of fruition is produced. What is completing action? It is the action by means of which, after having been born, one experiences good and bad results.”
Yes, you can find this in the Ahidharmakoshabhasyam, pg. 632, Poussin/Pruden:Grigoris wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:57 pmWhat is the Sanskrit term for this?Do you have an abhidharma source for this please?...and all nonvirtue ripens as pain in the body and all virtue ripens as pleasant feelings in the mind.
And what, on the basis of this theory, is the source of pleasant bodily feeling then?
This was precisely my point:
I agree that the precepts are not rigid laws or commandments and that this mindset (seeing things as either-or) is a cause of a lot of misery in the world, both to the individual and to society. Our minds however, with all their limitations, in an attempt to solve a fallacy (false dilemma) usually replace it with another fallacy (the fallacy of middle ground) which states that all extremes must be wrong.Emmet wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:10 pm 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?
While we don't have access to each others mind, and if your ideal is to liberate others from their misery, all we can talk about in a meaningful way is our world of appearances. In this world, the mind understands the notion (infinite gradients of gray) as a fixed rule, clings to it and we are back to square one.We operate in the saha world; where real life is not black and white, but infinite gradients of gray.
Let us think hypothetically contemplate the possible outcomes of each alternative if taken into an extreme: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?
On the other hand, there is a sutta about a monk who saw a guy being tortured before capital punishment, so he interfered by calling for a quick execution. The monk had to disrobe because he intentionally encouraged killing and regretted his actions.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.
Somehow I don't think that Ajahn Thanissaro Bikkhu lacks wisdom. As such his "justification" for not acting comes from a certain mindset/theoretical approach. An approach that put's the importance of maintaining one's precepts and spiritual development above dealing with the suffering of others.
This is exactly what one of my teachers said, but also left the door open for the possibility that euthanasia could come from compassion, and be beneficial in some circumstances.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:17 pmThe 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.Emmet wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:41 pm Am I prolonging life, or am I prolonging needless suffering? I know nothing about past or future lives or the karmic debt of swallows, but I've seen an awful lot of suffering and death. I believe that sometimes under some circumstances my Mahayana vow to save all beings might be best practiced by saving them from any further suffering.
When my dog died at the ripe old age of 12, the vet actually came out to our house to do the deed. Our dog was one of his first patients out of med school when she was a puppy, and it was a really emotional experience for him as well. We paid him extra for the service, but it was clearly a deeply emotional experience for him as well, and he made every effort to make her comfortable. Tilly had a very quick death surrounded by her loved ones (seriously, out in 5 seconds). I'm glad we gave her that, and that my death is similar.Aryjna wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:40 pm There is also the question of burdening the veterinarian with yet another death. I think in the case of the person doing the euthanasia, if it is a professional, it is even more difficult for a pure motivation to be present, because even if they are compassionate they are getting paid to kill the animal.
I'm not saying there is a clear answer to every individual case, but I think the side of the veterinarians doing the euthanasia is also a part of the discussion. For example, I recall reading stories indicating that doing pujas etc. for money may sometimes bring negativity, even if the practitioner has a good motivation. This seems similar but possibly 'worse' in a way.Tlalok wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:48 pmWhen my dog died at the ripe old age of 12, the vet actually came out to our house to do the deed. Our dog was one of his first patients out of med school when she was a puppy, and it was a really emotional experience for him as well. We paid him extra for the service, but it was clearly a deeply emotional experience for him as well, and he made every effort to make her comfortable. Tilly had a very quick death surrounded by her loved ones (seriously, out in 5 seconds). I'm glad we gave her that, and that my death is similar.Aryjna wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:40 pm There is also the question of burdening the veterinarian with yet another death. I think in the case of the person doing the euthanasia, if it is a professional, it is even more difficult for a pure motivation to be present, because even if they are compassionate they are getting paid to kill the animal.
I understand the point of view that we should allow the karma to ripen in their current birth, but would not the circumstances that the animal is in (i.e. a domesticated animal with people that care about it enough to try and minimize its suffering) also be its karma? The vast, vast majority of animals die hideous, protracted deaths. We go to doctors when we're in pain and they treat it, should we not because its our karma to bear?
I asked the same question pages ago and nobody answered. I think people are unwilling to answer because westerners for some reason only consider NEGATIVE circumstances as being the outcome of past karma. It probably has to do with Abrahamic notions of divine retribution.
Nobody will answer this either.The vast, vast majority of animals die hideous, protracted deaths. We go to doctors when we're in pain and they treat it, should we not because its our karma to bear?
I don't think it has anything to do with it being the animal's karma or not. Of course one would take the animal to the doctor, not just let it suffer and die somewhere around the house without doing anything.Grigoris wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:21 amI asked the same question pages ago and nobody answered. I think people are unwilling to answer because westerners for some reason only consider NEGATIVE circumstances as being the outcome of past karma. It probably has to do with Abrahamic notions of divine retribution.Nobody will answer this either.The vast, vast majority of animals die hideous, protracted deaths. We go to doctors when we're in pain and they treat it, should we not because its our karma to bear?
Sometimes I get the feeling that people here are closet Opus Dei members, given their fixation on this idea that pain/suffering somehow equals purification/liberation, overlooking the fact that if this was the case then all sentient beings in samara would be liberated since, as the Buddha said: idam dukkham.
opus dei self mortification tools.jpg
I mean with the view that it is its karma so there is no need to try to cure the disease.