Ticks and fleas

[Virgo]

Thanks Mike.

Kevin

[DNS]

Although the Abhidhamma model of the way in which
the mind works can accommodate a set of circumstances where genuine
compassion might play some part in an act of killing a living being, it does
not allow that the decisive intention leading to the killing of a living can
ever be other than unwholesome and associated with some form of aversion
(dosa).

The first is that the very idea that killing a living being might be the solution
to the problem of suffering runs counter to the Buddhist emphasis on dukkha as
the first of the four truths. As the first truth, its reality must be fully understood
(parinneyya). The second is that the cultivation of friendliness and com-
passion in the face of suffering is seen as an appropriate and even practical
alternative that can bring beneficial effects for self and others in a situation
where it might seem that compassion should lead one to kill.

That may be the position of the Abhidhamma and Commentaries and it seems to be the case from what I recall, however, I don't believe there is anything in the Suttas to back that position completely. Yes, the First Noble Truth is dukkha, but also there is release from dukkha. There are also the brahma viharas, which includes karuna (compassion). The Buddha didn't sit idly by and say "it's your kamma to suffer" to a monk suffering from dysentery. In fact he and Ananda helped wash the man.

How does euthanasia have any dosa? If someone really had dosa toward a being, wouldn't they just let him/her suffer an agonizing death? It is to relieve the suffering that one does euthanasia for oneself or another.

In the Channovada Sutta (MN 144), Venerable Channa is sick, in pain and uses 'uses the knife.'

The Commentaries take the position that Ven. Channa was a noble level monk, but not yet an arahant. As he was dying he was able to realize the truth and attain full enlightenment. However, the scholar monk Bhikkhu Bodhi disagrees and has written. "It should be noted that this commentarial interpretation is imposed on the text from the outside, as it were. If one sticks to the actual wording of the text it seems that Channa was already an arahant when he made his declaration [earlier in the Sutta Channa says: 'I will use the knife blamelessly'], the dramatic punch being delivered by the failure of his two brother-monks to recognise this. The implication, of course, is that excruciating pain might motivate even an arahant to take his own life; not from aversion but simply from a wish to be free from unbearable pain." (Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, 2001, 2nd ed. 1359 n1312)

[daverupa]

Hand sanitizers and antibacterial soaps: health, but at what holo-"caust"?

Would Polio still be around but for the genocide perpetrated by researching & developing a vaccine?

Better get out the water filters...

[mikenz66]

Although the Abhidhamma model of the way in which
the mind works can accommodate a set of circumstances where genuine
compassion might play some part in an act of killing a living being, it does
not allow that the decisive intention leading to the killing of a living can
ever be other than unwholesome and associated with some form of aversion
(dosa).

The first is that the very idea that killing a living being might be the solution
to the problem of suffering runs counter to the Buddhist emphasis on dukkha as
the first of the four truths. As the first truth, its reality must be fully understood
(parinneyya). The second is that the cultivation of friendliness and com-
passion in the face of suffering is seen as an appropriate and even practical
alternative that can bring beneficial effects for self and others in a situation
where it might seem that compassion should lead one to kill.

That may be the position of the Abhidhamma and Commentaries and it seems to be the case from what I recall, however, I don't believe there is anything in the Suttas to back that position completely.

Well, that's the interesting question, which Gethin explores at length. As I said earlier, it would be interesting to assemble all of the sutta sources and see how well they do fit the Abhidhamma model. I don't have a fixed view, but I am unconvinced by some of the arguments I've seen on this thread, which seem to be trying to justify the rightness of killing under some circumstances by arguments that to me sound like: "I don't think that the Buddha can have meant that." Let's try to examine carefully what the suttas say, and the arguments from the ancients for interpretating them in particular ways.

Yes, the First Noble Truth is dukkha, but also there is release from dukkha. There are also the brahma viharas, which includes karuna (compassion). The Buddha didn't sit idly by and say "it's your kamma to suffer" to a monk suffering from dysentery. In fact he and Ananda helped wash the man.

I don't think anyone is advocating that. Certainly not Gethin, who is advocating compassionate caring.

How does euthanasia have any dosa? If someone really had dosa toward a being, wouldn't they just let him/her suffer an agonizing death? It is to relieve the suffering that one does euthanasia for oneself or another.

Again, no-one is advocating letting someone suffer an agonizing death.

In the Channovada Sutta (MN 144), Venerable Channa is sick, in pain and uses 'uses the knife.'

The Commentaries take the position that Ven. Channa was a noble level monk, but not yet an arahant. As he was dying he was able to realize the truth and attain full enlightenment. However, the scholar monk Bhikkhu Bodhi disagrees and has written. "It should be noted that this commentarial interpretation is imposed on the text from the outside, as it were. If one sticks to the actual wording of the text it seems that Channa was already an arahant when he made his declaration [earlier in the Sutta Channa says: 'I will use the knife blamelessly'], the dramatic punch being delivered by the failure of his two brother-monks to recognise this. The implication, of course, is that excruciating pain might motivate even an arahant to take his own life; not from aversion but simply from a wish to be free from unbearable pain." (Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, 2001, 2nd ed. 1359 n1312)

Gethin has quite a long section on this issue. The exact timing of when he became an arahant doesn't make any difference to the statement that since he died an arahant he was blameless.


Mike

[kc2dpt]

daverupa, it would seem you are mistaking Buddhism for Jainism. Buddhism does not teach bacteria and virii to be living beings.

[DNS]

I don't think anyone is advocating that. Certainly not Gethin, who is advocating compassionate caring.

I haven't read his whole booklet yet, but in the quote Gethin mentions dukkha as if someone were supposed to suffer.

Again, no-one is advocating letting someone suffer an agonizing death.

I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing anyone of that. I was speaking in general terms. Others have said that killing is always dosa, so I am questioning that. If someone uses euthanasia on oneself or another who is in excruciating pain and terminal, where is the dosa? (again, speaking generally, not accusatory)

Gethin has quite a long section on this issue. The exact timing of when he became an arahant doesn't make any difference to the statement that since he died an arahant he was blameless.

I think it makes a huge difference as Bhikkhu Bodhi noted. If one is already an arahant and decides to take the knife (i.e., euthanasia) then an arahant is capable of that. If he is not an arahant at the timing of taking the knife, then the issue is still up for debate of what an arahant would do.

[daverupa]

daverupa, it would seem you are mistaking Buddhism for Jainism. Buddhism does not teach bacteria and virii to be living beings.

I was pointing up that some approaches to the issues brought up in this thread appear Jain-esque, to me, so I referred to water filtration.

Buddhism teaches animals and humans to be two sorts of sentient life, and this category 'animal' is very broad, covering royal elephants to birds to ants, at least.

So, is our criterion to be that we have to be able to see the being with the unaided eye for it to 'count'? Maybe this is true, because we have to sense the being in one way or another in order to be culpable in its death, e.g. blind people walking on insects are blameless.

But I wonder, then, if the fact that we know bacteria are alive changes our ethical obligations... or, perhaps it points up the ludicrous nature of certain earlier obligations...

[Mr Man]

David what do you think a person's mind state would be when performing euthanasia? Can euthanasia ever be an action in isolation? If there is no aversion where is the need for euthanasia?

From "Revata's Farewell"

I don't delight in death,
don't delight in living.
I await my time
like a worker his wage.
I don't delight in death,
don't delight in living.
I await my time
mindful, alert.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[tiltbillings]

David what do you think a person's mind state would be when performing euthanasia? Can euthanasia ever be an action in isolation? If there is no aversion where is the need for euthanasia?

From "Revata's Farewell"

I don't delight in death,
don't delight in living.
I await my time
like a worker his wage.
I don't delight in death,
don't delight in living.
I await my time
mindful, alert.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

A lovely verse, but no mention is made of mind searing pain, etc.

[Mr Man]

David what do you think a person's mind state would be when performing euthanasia? Can euthanasia ever be an action in isolation? If there is no aversion where is the need for euthanasia?

From "Revata's Farewell"

I don't delight in death,
don't delight in living.
I await my time
like a worker his wage.
I don't delight in death,
don't delight in living.
I await my time
mindful, alert.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

A lovely verse, but no mention is made of mind searing pain, etc.

Which is neither here nor there.

[tiltbillings]

David what do you think a person's mind state would be when performing euthanasia? Can euthanasia ever be an action in isolation? If there is no aversion where is the need for euthanasia?

From "Revata's Farewell"

I don't delight in death,
don't delight in living.
I await my time
like a worker his wage.
I don't delight in death,
don't delight in living.
I await my time
mindful, alert.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

A lovely verse, but no mention is made of mind searing pain, etc.

Which is neither here nor there.

Except you are the one that quoted this verse in the context of euthanasia. Bringing one's life or another's life to an early end is usually in a context of the sometimes excruciating nature of the dying. So, the question of mind searing pain, etc is here and it is there.

[DNS]

David what do you think a person's mind state would be when performing euthanasia?

I don't know, possibly compassion, loving-kindness for wanting the being to free from pain.

If there is no aversion where is the need for euthanasia?

Aversion from what? Suffering? Then is following the 8-fold path an aversion of suffering too?

[Mr Man]

Tilt, to me the quote is an expression of equanimity and dispassion, which can be applicable to all conditions but maybe it was a mistake and a distraction. How about the questions that proceeded the quote?

[tiltbillings]

Tilt, to me the quote is an expression of equanimity and dispassion, which can be applicable to all conditions but maybe it was a mistake and a distraction. How about the questions that proceeded the quote?

An interesting consideration may be the monk who killed himself because of the pain he was suffering and attained nibbana?

The commentaries point out that the monk who is suffering from a debilitating illness with severe pain putting a great strain on his fellow monk, to stop eating is acceptable. The question as motivation is key, and I do not think that there is a simple, absolute answer to it.

[Mr Man]

Aversion from what? Suffering? Then is following the 8-fold path an aversion of suffering too?

Yes.