|
Paramemetic posted:I'm interested in some practical ethics from you all. I have more or less determined my stance, but would like to hear the thoughts of others. What are your thoughts on medical research that involves the suffering of animals but without actually involving with the animals? If the goal of a job is to enable happiness, it doesn't make sense to risk being unhappy so I can be happy. If you transgress your virtue, you will feel regret and unhappiness, why even bother? Happiness comes from virtue and generosity anyway, a job is just money.  *In the general sense, as in "why do we pursue wealth?" (Because we think it will make us happy)
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
To be clear, I'm not likely to take this job. It's a job working with stuff I enjoy working with (hazmats) but it's not something I'm likely to give up my current job for. Incidentally, the blood samples don't come from euthanized animals, they come from animals slowly dying a terrible death to a horrifying disease they were deliberately infected with. To me this actually makes it worse, which is why I immediately ruled out doing anything with the actual animals. Running blood samples through a centrifuge is different, and it was the "yeah but this isn't causing suffering" alternative offered by the person pursuing me. Regardless, I'm not needing the job for money or whatever, if I took it it would just be to build lab credentials. The research itself is ultimately beneficial for human beings, but I can't personally prioritize the immediate suffering of so many sentient beings just so potential future humans don't die in a particular manner. As for reasons for working a job, I think basically so as not to be a burden or cause of suffering for others is my only motivation here. Benefiting sentient beings directly with my work is also a motivator, but just "so I have wealth" has never done it for me. But I do think it's important for non-monastics to work according to their ability in order to have the resources to benefit others or at least to not burden them. Of course, this has to be weighed carefully when the work may be a cause of suffering to other beings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Regardless, I'm not needing the job for money or whatever, if I took it it would just be to build lab credentials. Paramemetic posted:As for reasons for working a job, I think basically so as not to be a burden or cause of suffering for others is my only motivation here. Benefiting sentient beings directly with my work is also a motivator, but just "so I have wealth" has never done it for me. But I do think it's important for non-monastics to work according to their ability in order to have the resources to benefit others or at least to not burden them. Of course, this has to be weighed carefully when the work may be a cause of suffering to other beings. Like, why would it ever make sense to do something that could potentially harm someone or yourself? You are a sentient being and it would be for your benefit not to make yourself suffer due to making some bad karma. Edit: It's good not to die from a disease, but you end up dying anyway. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
How do you reconcile the passivity that seems to come with much of Buddhist teachings and a desire to cause social change? I know that "engaged Buddhism" is a thing, but how is it a thing? How do you take a point of view associated so strongly with non-violence and juxtapose it with major causes that sometimes require if not actual force, then the implicit threat of force to cause change to happen? I am worried that my Buddhist practice is becoming selfish. I know that I currently have the means to practice, but many don't because of the economic realities of our times, and I as a member of the privileged class could go my entire life without doing anything to change that unless I actually put forth effort in trying to change it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Why do you want to build lab credentials? Because I'm a big dumb idiot who likes doing work where I risk my life, and lab work helps me get other jobs where I can do that also, haha
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:How do you reconcile the passivity that seems to come with much of Buddhist teachings and a desire to cause social change? I know that "engaged Buddhism" is a thing, but how is it a thing? How do you take a point of view associated so strongly with non-violence and juxtapose it with major causes that sometimes require if not actual force, then the implicit threat of force to cause change to happen? I don't think Buddhism really encourages passivity. It tends to encourage more focused and directed responses to things and of course having the patience and cool-headedness to not make major decisions for purely emotional reasons. Those can both look like passivity, but there's a big difference. There's also a long history of both Buddhist schools and individuals undertaking social projects. A lot of (most? all?) lineages have (often several) long running projects that they explicitly hope will help change things. There's also a common misconception that Buddhism is about stoicism and developing some blank expression or some poo poo. Every tradition I've heard of is usually trying to cultivate the opposite, i.e. a greater sensitivity to and awareness of life and experience and others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:How do you reconcile the passivity that seems to come with much of Buddhist teachings and a desire to cause social change? I know that "engaged Buddhism" is a thing, but how is it a thing? How do you take a point of view associated so strongly with non-violence and juxtapose it with major causes that sometimes require if not actual force, then the implicit threat of force to cause change to happen? Impermanent posted:I am worried that my Buddhist practice is becoming selfish. I know that I currently have the means to practice, but many don't because of the economic realities of our times, and I as a member of the privileged class could go my entire life without doing anything to change that unless I actually put forth effort in trying to change it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Looking even at two of the most nonviolent protests in the past hundred years, Gandhi and MLK Jr. both had non-affiliated groups that also supported their goals (like the Black Panthers) that were okay with the show of the potential for violence as a means to an end that allowed the nonviolent groups, like MLK's to wield much more political power. By "means" I mean access to space where I can practice, food and shelter enough to keep me from having to worry about them instead of meditate, and the free time to meditate when I can. Things that a person on the poverty line or a homeless person doesn't have access to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Looking even at two of the most nonviolent protests in the past hundred years, Gandhi and MLK Jr. both had non-affiliated groups that also supported their goals (like the Black Panthers) that were okay with the show of the potential for violence as a means to an end that allowed the nonviolent groups, like MLK's to wield much more political power. Impermanent posted:By "means" I mean access to space where I can practice, food and shelter enough to keep me from having to worry about them instead of meditate, and the free time to meditate when I can. Things that a person on the poverty line or a homeless person doesn't have access to. Edit2: Basically, if you're poor you can dedicate yourself more to the practice, less material distractions, etc. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend some good biographies of Buddhist teachers/masters/etc.? I'm finding them particularly helpful right now. Preferably in the Zen or Tibetan Buddhist tradition, but it doesn't necessarily have to be limited to those!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
"Living and dying in zazen : five zen masters of modern Japan". It's great, with a lot of stories about Kodo Sawaki, Uchiyama, and some guys who spend their lives homeless meditating in parks and building stuff with grass. A really good book. I thought a bit about practice making you able to "see your story and begin to write it differently". I think i was wrong ; after thinking about it, this way of putting it makes you the center of the world. In fact, a story, to be able to "work", has also to be recognized by others. So it's about writing a story that fits with others and do them good. Not just writing your own story, which would necessarily be completely deluded even in the conventional world. PS : a bit shocked by "being homeless allows you to meditate more". Being homeless allows you to struggle a lot, get into fights, die in cold nights, get bothered all the time by police, etc. I don't think being homeless is a good way of practicing nowadays. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Because I'm a big dumb idiot who likes doing work where I risk my life, and lab work helps me get other jobs where I can do that also, haha If you really feel that way, there's tremendous need in West Africa right now among many many suffering people, and my impression is that MSF is always looking for help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Maybe they would have had even better results if there was no implicit threat? I do not believe there is a history of any significant change happening without acted out, threatened, or implied violence. I would honestly love to find an example of this. If people in power were to turn toward compassion we would not have these problems, but they do not have have not, historically. I think that acting in such a way that I preserve my own code of morality while ignoring the suffering of others is not a real victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:I do not believe there is a history of any significant change happening without acted out, threatened, or implied violence. I would honestly love to find an example of this. agree with this.. organization is violence, there's no way around it. you can't organize for peace. not sure if this is a buddhist thing to say or not. i don't believe that engaged buddhism really exists. just that historically buddhist people that have social causes thrust upon them out of circumstance (thich nhat hanh, the dalai lama). You can organize for ownership, compromise, acknowledgement, and co-existence, but not peace. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:Can anyone recommend some good biographies of Buddhist teachers/masters/etc.? I'm finding them particularly helpful right now. Preferably in the Zen or Tibetan Buddhist tradition, but it doesn't necessarily have to be limited to those! "From the Heart of Tibet" is a biography of His Holiness the Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang Rinpoche, one of the twin heads of the Drikung lineage, and it is absolutely awesome. I have not read it entirely, but it discusses for example when His Holiness took a job working at McDonald's in New Jersey. It's awesome. Sheikh Djibouti posted:If you really feel that way, there's tremendous need in West Africa right now among many many suffering people, and my impression is that MSF is always looking for help. I am working on accumulating the accreditations necessary to go to work in this kind of environment, yes. The lab work would be working towards that, but even it would be contingent on another piece of training that I start Sunday. I am not taking the lab tech position by the way, I just took a promotion at my current job. I merely offered it as a topic of discussion because I was interested to see if there was an angle regarding it I might have missed. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:How do you reconcile the passivity that seems to come with much of Buddhist teachings and a desire to cause social change? I know that "engaged Buddhism" is a thing, but how is it a thing? How do you take a point of view associated so strongly with non-violence and juxtapose it with major causes that sometimes require if not actual force, then the implicit threat of force to cause change to happen? Buddhism certainly doesn't teach passivity, the acceptance it teaches involves acceptance of our own necessary roles, our own obligations and duties to act to benefit sentient beings. Historically, the changes brought about by Buddhist thinking tends to be slower, because it addresses the actual issues, not the superficial issues. A government revolt doesn't solve the problems of violence and oppression, it merely changes who is on what side of the violence and oppression. Shooting a dude in self defense doesn't save a life, it just costs a different life. Cultivating peace, cultivating loving-kindness, this brings about real change, even if it is tediously, horribly slow. quote:I am worried that my Buddhist practice is becoming selfish. I know that I currently have the means to practice, but many don't because of the economic realities of our times, and I as a member of the privileged class could go my entire life without doing anything to change that unless I actually put forth effort in trying to change it. There is a huge overlap between Buddhism and Existentialism. The causes and conditions that arise in our lives are essentially facticity, and the freedom to choose to act how we please according to that reality is absolute. Naturally, of course, there are other considerations. It is not practical for everyone in the West for example to gently caress off and do a 3 year retreat in seclusion being supported by the locals and so on. Similarly, it's not practical for many people in the East to travel far distances to see teachers, or to mobilize monetary assets in order to benefit people on the other side of the world. Consideration of our karma, of what is possible for us, is important. Less important is what's impossible, because who cares? Do what you can to practice and support and benefit others. One thing that gets mistaken for selfishness also is practice to cultivate our own enlightenment and our own happiness, but really this is the best way to benefit beings. Sometimes I also feel selfish, I feel like I'm not doing enough for others, but when that happens I remind myself of my limited capacity, and honestly assess if I'm doing my best, and if I am, no worries. If I am doing what I can to improve that capacity, that's good too. Practice in order to benefit all sentient beings, attain Buddhahood so you can be a Buddha for another kalpa and benefit infinite beings, earn some of that sick Western cash so you can use it to help others, work a job so you can avoid being a burden on others. Our capacities as individuals are often limited, but this is not an intrinsic state. Look at how single individuals can benefit millions of beings, such as any of the high lamas, and look at how one being can benefit even one other being so well, like your own mother who suffered so you could be born, and so on. There are a lot of ways to help beings, they don't all involve delivering them from poverty. Perhaps though poverty is your thing and you want to help liberate beings from that. Very good! But you maybe can't liberate EVERY being from poverty, not as a single human being. Nobody can do that! But maybe you can help one being out of poverty. Maybe you can't help them out of poverty forever, but maybe you can give them some money and they can eat for a few days. Or maybe you can give them some food! Whatever you can do is good to do. What you can't do doesn't really matter, it's not worth wasting effort thinking about I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Did the Buddha ever say anything about it being bad to hire prostitutes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Did the Buddha ever say anything about it being bad to hire prostitutes? I don't recall any suttas that address prostitution specifically. The precept concerning sexual misconduct mainly addresses sex with someone who is already involved in a relationship, or who is underage or otherwise vulnerable or protected. It involves sexual acts that would cause suffering in some way, which are best avoided. Access to insight has an article called "Buddhism and Sex" that is worth checking out. While the idea of prostitution isn't directly discussed, the causes and conditions leading someone to partake in that activity are worth looking into in terms of the attachment to sensual desire that would put one in that position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Shooting a dude in self defense doesn't save a life, it just costs a different life. This changed my perspective. Thank you for this - it made me realize that part of my perspective was based in a desire for suffering to be inflicted upon those who make other suffer, which isn't actually helpful. Paramemetic posted:Cultivating peace, cultivating loving-kindness, this brings about real change, even if it is tediously, horribly slow. This... I still have a hard time believing in my heart. I think it's something you have to meditate into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
So if you could go back in time and kill Hitler / *other person who has caused massive amounts of suffering*, you wouldn't?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Never mind
the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Crack posted:So if you could go back in time and kill Hitler / *other person who has caused massive amounts of suffering*, you wouldn't? I reject the notion of time travel as meaningful in this context because it presumes a pre-knowledge of someone else's actions, which you can never have IRL. Hypothetically, if I had to choose between taking a shot at someone threatening to blow up the world or a despot whose tyranny kills 1000s daily, I'd shoot them, though. I didn't say that I would become a pacifist, just that I understand more of Paramemetic's POV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Crack posted:So if you could go back in time and kill Hitler / *other person who has caused massive amounts of suffering*, you wouldn't? Poor Hitler! Think of all that bad karma he made, if only he had been lucky enough to make it as a painter instead. In different circumstances he might have been a really good dude. — Dhp., vv. 4-5 posted:He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me of my property. Whosoever harbor such thoughts will never be able to still their enmity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I'm interested in some practical ethics from you all. I have more or less determined my stance, but would like to hear the thoughts of others. What are your thoughts on medical research that involves the suffering of animals but without actually involving with the animals? Do it, as long as it does not involve frivolous killing. The animals themselves will benefit karmically from their involuntary, imposed suffering for the betterment of mankind. Yes, there is the slippery slope of concentration camp medical experiment argument; that is not quite parallel because the life of an animal is not yet "worth the life of a human", to say nothing of thousands of humans. The animal experimented on could ostensibly obtain a human birth of merit due to its sacrifice..... It's all a bit slippery, but keep in mind although this life is impermanent for us and the animals, it is our duty to improve the quality of life on this planet. As for that poster trolled you about having a job when the life of a monk/beggar is superior, he needs to realize that monkhood/beggarhood is for the losers who cannot maintain equanimity in the midst of the world. Today is not 560 B.C. where even a Buddha could not do such a thing. What I am saying here is that there has been major actual progress and elevation in the consciousness of humanity since then. Call it the flowering work of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Either this is true, or they have all lived in vain?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Do it, as long as it does not involve frivolous killing. The animals themselves will benefit karmically from their involuntary, imposed suffering for the betterment of mankind. Edit: According to the Buddha we're all heirs to our own karma anyway. What we sow, we reap.
Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Do it, as long as it does not involve frivolous killing. The animals themselves will benefit karmically from their involuntary, imposed suffering for the betterment of mankind. You're awesome, this is the kind of alternative viewpoint I was looking for by posting that. I still don't know that I am wanting to do this kind of work, but you raise an awesome point about the karmic benefits and so on. It's a really good perspective. I disagree that human lives are intrinsically more valuable or that animal lives are less valuable. It's true that they are less likely to attain Buddhahood, but they are still suffering beings that do not deserve to have unnecessary suffering inflicted upon them. That said, their karma is to die in a lab but that karma does benefit innumerable sentient beings, especially if it leads to the eradication of deadly diseases, so this is a really interesting perspective. You've put a bit of life back into this discussion. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I still don't know that I am wanting to do this kind of work, but you raise an awesome point about the karmic benefits and so on. It's a really good perspective. You can't say that someone's death will benefit sentient beings; what if some vaccine turns out to be defective and ends up killing a bunch of people? What if the research goes no where / runs out of funding and all the animal deaths are for nothing? What if you go back in time and kill Hitler, and someone much worse takes over and kills even more people? There's just no way of knowing. Anyway, you're not breaking the first precept and it doesn't seem to be wrong livelihood, so it doesn't seem like obviously bad karma to do it, but I still think if it gives you a bad feeling you shouldn't do it, because I think it will not be for your happiness and welfare to engage in something if you have ethical doubts about it. Okay, I've made my point. Whatever choice you make may it lead you to happiness and peace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
A butcher doesn't actually kill his animals, just cuts up the meat. Is the distinction in this case in terms of "right livelihood" that where a butcher is involved with the whole carcass and flesh whereas in a lab you only handle the blood? Seems sketchy to me, especially given these animals are being given a prolonged death rather than a bolt to the skull or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Crack posted:A butcher doesn't actually kill his animals, just cuts up the meat. Is the distinction in this case in terms of "right livelihood" that where a butcher is involved with the whole carcass and flesh whereas in a lab you only handle the blood? Viewed in the context of the first precept (not killing), I think it makes sense that butchery is wrong livelihood first and foremost because it involves a lot of killing, i.e. a lot of precept breaking. Basically, having the intention to kill a living being and then killing it, that is the really unskillful karma. If just handling meat was really bad karma, the Buddha would probably have stressed that. From the suttas: quote:"And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person takes life, is a hunter, bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. ... Edit: If you are a butcher (where you kill animals) or a hunter, you make killing a habit. It's your habit not to have mercy for living beings. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:As far as I know, traditionally a butcher also kills animals. Nowadays a butcher might get his meat from a slaughterhouse, and do no killing himself. Ah poo poo, I apparently didn't realise that the guys in the slaughterhouse were also called butchers. I was thinking of the local butcher shop where there's a van that comes round with a load of pig carcasses hung in the back, but I guess they were killed by another butcher. Regarding hunting, what about in situations where it is necessary in order to survive? I mean nowadays that would mean getting lost in a forest, but there are probably still communities reliant on fishing or hunting to live. Especially if you back a couple thousand years, where hunting was pretty necessary. I guess it's the same problem in the end, killing a few deer so your tribe doesn't starve, infecting animals in the hope that it will prevent people from succumbing to fatal illness. And I guess the prospective chef would be in Paramemetic's position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:Can anyone recommend some good biographies of Buddhist teachers/masters/etc.? I'm finding them particularly helpful right now. Preferably in the Zen or Tibetan Buddhist tradition, but it doesn't necessarily have to be limited to those! This is following on the heels of the talk about Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, but this book by Lady Diana Mukpo is pretty interesting, if incredibly subjective since its from her point of view as his wife: Dragon Thunder. Like was discussed earlier, it goes into his wild behavior that he was known for. Really though, this is the most comprehensive place to look for info about him: http://www.chronicleproject.com/index.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Crack posted:A butcher doesn't actually kill his animals, just cuts up the meat. Is the distinction in this case in terms of "right livelihood" that where a butcher is involved with the whole carcass and flesh whereas in a lab you only handle the blood? One thing that has been specifically mentioned is that a profession related to killing is still a wrong livelihood even if you aren't doing any killing yourself. The most common and most specific example I've always heard was making weapons. A person whose occupation is working in a gun factory could go their whole lives without killing anybody or being directly involved in killing anybody but is still partially responsible for whatever suffering the guns they make cause because, well, they made them. Butchery is similar; the existence of a butcher means that animals must be killed for the butcher to take apart. Even if the butcher did not kill the animal he's partially responsible for the death. Incidentally this is also why Buddhism encourages vegetarianism. Buying meat creates demand for it, which by extention causes animals to be killed for meat. If you buy a cheeseburger then you are partially responsible for killing the cow that became the meat. Crack posted:Ah poo poo, I apparently didn't realise that the guys in the slaughterhouse were also called butchers. I was thinking of the local butcher shop where there's a van that comes round with a load of pig carcasses hung in the back, but I guess they were killed by another butcher. There are different schools of thought on that and there are some sects of Buddhism that don't require vegetarianism for monks. That's a difficult question to answer for a lot of reasons but in some areas of the world diets are very heavy on meat because there isn't much else to have in the area. I'm talking places where you can graze livestock but the soil is lovely for farming. In that case eating meat isn't awful and eating meat isn't some horrible grave sin that condemns you to Hell. It's one of those things where it isn't totally prohibited and is judged situationally. As in, you should avoid causing as much suffering as you can but sometimes it's impossible to cause no harm. But yeah, killing a deer here and there so you and yours don't starve is fine. Killing for sport, however, is right out and if you can avoid eating meat then you should. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Crack posted:Ah poo poo, I apparently didn't realise that the guys in the slaughterhouse were also called butchers. I was thinking of the local butcher shop where there's a van that comes round with a load of pig carcasses hung in the back, but I guess they were killed by another butcher. We don't want to die so we do bad karma and then we die anyway. On top of that we suffer the bad effects of that karma we made, even if we did it to survive or whatever. This is a major reason for why samsara ain't so great. The responsible thing is really to cease existence by becoming enlightened
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Well if you live a life of virtue you can get reborn in a heaven realm, so it's probably a much better deal to not kill, starve to death and then get reborn there. Too bad part of that package then makes you go "I must help others reach this state" and then you come back anyway. I loved reading about the 6 realms in descending order. The horror of realizing that you fit into every one is a good realization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:The Buddha says "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." So since we don't know the intentions of the animals being experimented on, there's no way of knowing the karmic effects. There's no way for us to know the karmic effects for them. But that presupposes "they" exist in such a way that "they" have distinct karma from "us." We can't know their intention, I think it's unlikely that they intend to die for the benefit of sentient beings, but still they are dying and still it is benefiting sentient beings. More to wit, we are benefiting sentient beings through their deaths, and so while we would still take the karma of killing, we would also take the karma of benefiting others. It's very tricky, but truthfully this statement I think indicates more that it is important our state of mind while we perform an action. Wrathful bodhisattvas can be terrifying and really scare sentient beings, being really horrific and so on, but they do so out of such compassion that this is still an enlightened act. There is one prayer to Mahakala that even asks that obstacles, demons, and so on be "annihilated compassionately." quote:You can't say that someone's death will benefit sentient beings; what if some vaccine turns out to be defective and ends up killing a bunch of people? What if the research goes no where / runs out of funding and all the animal deaths are for nothing? What if you go back in time and kill Hitler, and someone much worse takes over and kills even more people? There's just no way of knowing. There's no need to know I think, because it hasn't been realized. Increasingly I realize that this whole notion of what's really real is nonsense. We have no access to anything that is "really real" even if it were anything other than emptiness. The only thing we have any access to is our own perceptions and mental formations. "Actual reality" is just emptiness, just interdependent arising and falling, impermanent and flowing like a wave. What use to say "oh this wave is really bad karma, that wave is actually good karma?" Intention strikes me as being so important because a good intention with a good result is good, a good intention with a bad result is still a good intention, a bad intention with a good result is still tainted by malice, and a bad intention with a bad result is obviously what it is. But even that is all subjective and interpretative because "good" and "bad" results are just mental formations based on our own desires. Maybe that monkey was going to bite a technician if it didn't die of Ebola. Maybe it was going to murder another monkey. Who knows? It doesn't really matter I think. quote:Anyway, you're not breaking the first precept and it doesn't seem to be wrong livelihood, so it doesn't seem like obviously bad karma to do it, but I still think if it gives you a bad feeling you shouldn't do it, because I think it will not be for your happiness and welfare to engage in something if you have ethical doubts about it. The particular determination of my result is that my root guru speaks specifically against animal testing in a book, and generally runs a program of benefiting all sentient beings including all animals. I would love to pose this exact question to him, but I think I don't need to because to me, I am not yet accomplished enough where I think I can be responsible for the killing of animals for the benefit of other animals, I am not yet accomplished enough where I can kill the assailant on the boat to save the crew, and so on. But thanks to Mr. Mambold's post I see how it is possible to do so, how that perspective can exist. Regarding the idea that we are inheritors of our own karma, this is true, but it is why we know that monkeys that die in lab testing had "dying in lab testing karma." Monkeys that are spared dying in lab testing have "monkeys that are spared of dying in lab testing" karma. What happens happens. Still, I think I do not have "kill monkeys in a lab with deadly diseases" karma, at least not right now. Maybe upon further reflection in the future I'll find I do. I think there will be no shortage of suffering to try to relieve in the future, so for now I will try to finish this class, and try to learn as much as I can to benefit beings. Maybe I'll even get around to properly learning Tibetan. Does anyone want to learn Tibetan with me? I need a study buddy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
I'd actually be down for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:There's no way for us to know the karmic effects for them. But that presupposes "they" exist in such a way that "they" have distinct karma from "us." We can't know their intention, I think it's unlikely that they intend to die for the benefit of sentient beings, but still they are dying and still it is benefiting sentient beings. More to wit, we are benefiting sentient beings through their deaths, and so while we would still take the karma of killing, we would also take the karma of benefiting others. It's very tricky, but truthfully this statement I think indicates more that it is important our state of mind while we perform an action. Wrathful bodhisattvas can be terrifying and really scare sentient beings, being really horrific and so on, but they do so out of such compassion that this is still an enlightened act. There is one prayer to Mahakala that even asks that obstacles, demons, and so on be "annihilated compassionately." To be honest, I think that ideas a la 'the animals will make good karma because they died so that humans can live' is wishful thinking in order to feel better about killing animals. If by state of mind you mean intention, then according to the Buddha that is equivalent with karma. But still, the first precept is to abstain from killing, and not 'abstain from killing (unless there is possibly some benefit to it)'. The Buddha taught the Dhamma out of sympathy and concern for our welfare, so we must assume that he gave the teachings so that following them would maximize our welfare. Right, so it is reasonable to assume that killing is probably much worse than any benefits that might arise from it, because the Buddha specifically urged us to abstain from it. It could be that reality works such that even if you kill one rhesus monkey and save a thousand people, still that's more bad karma than good karma. I'm not saying it is this way - we don't know how it is, all we know is that a presumably perfectly enlightened being, a Buddha, said 'don't kill living beings'. It's probably important! Paramemetic posted:There's no need to know I think, because it hasn't been realized. Increasingly I realize that this whole notion of what's really real is nonsense. We have no access to anything that is "really real" even if it were anything other than emptiness. The only thing we have any access to is our own perceptions and mental formations. "Actual reality" is just emptiness, just interdependent arising and falling, impermanent and flowing like a wave. What use to say "oh this wave is really bad karma, that wave is actually good karma?" Intention strikes me as being so important because a good intention with a good result is good, a good intention with a bad result is still a good intention, a bad intention with a good result is still tainted by malice, and a bad intention with a bad result is obviously what it is. But even that is all subjective and interpretative because "good" and "bad" results are just mental formations based on our own desires. Just as a disclaimer, all these things I'm saying are based on my current understanding of the Dhamma, and I reserve the right to change my viewpoints as my understanding changes (and hopefully deepens)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
All this talk about ethics and death reminded me of a quote I read two months ago, concerning euthanasia, rebirth, and eugenics. I've been meaning to ask a buddhist about her/his stance on it, so here it isquote:“A child should be recognized as a human being when he is born -- and then, too, I have some reservations. It's by Rajneesh, the guy/guru who had a huge following back in the 70s & 80s. His philosophy is a smörgåsbord of different teachings, buddhism amongst them. Iirc he supported eugenics as a moral duty, since we should strive to provide the best body/vessel for a newborn child. Not saying I agree with this, but its moral and ethical implications have been keeping me occupied. midnightclimax fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Well yeah, intuitively, reading this without much thinking, i'd say this sounds like nazi bullshit. For buddhists i think, enlightenment is not conditioned by body or mind. The whole point is to get rid of body and mind conditions. Which means that however crippled, deaf or "bad" you are, you can get enlightened. It might even give you some more perspective and might help the practice somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Isn't he the same guy who had a bunch of followers who tried poisoning people in Oregon? I might be mixing up my religious figures. I'm not speaking about his teachings but the name sounds familiar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 23:37
|
|