euthanasia

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: euthanasia

Post by Zom »

I would even take it further: by acting that way one could possibly create (very) bad karma for him/herself.

I know, it is a completely different topic and another religion: but somehow I compare it with the majority of muslims who badly treat gays and lesbians "because it is in the koran". Also there, it is not that clear cut as those people want to make us believe and somehow I believe that those rigid people, who don't want to look at the suffering of others and show no compassion, *they* are the ones who are tested by god or, in this case (of euthanasia), will bear the kammic results.
Don't feel safe by following what you think are the rules.
Why not to take it even still further? Rigid people keep insisting that there is a rebirth and kamma - because it is written in the sacred book. Don't feel safe by following what you think are the rules.
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Zom, more reactions later, but I found a typing error in the article I cited from:

(D.II,187) must be: D. III,187

In which the Buddha says:

"23. ‘The friend who is the same in happy and unhappy times can be seen to be a loyal friend in four ways: he tells you his secrets, he guards your secrets, he does not let you down in misfortune, he would even sacrifice his life for you."

http://www.wisdompubs.org/landing/sigalaka-sutta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So your remark "But yes, Buddha taught exactly this way - intentional taking of life is intrinsically wrong" does not hold.
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Zom wrote:
I would even take it further: by acting that way one could possibly create (very) bad karma for him/herself.

I know, it is a completely different topic and another religion: but somehow I compare it with the majority of muslims who badly treat gays and lesbians "because it is in the koran". Also there, it is not that clear cut as those people want to make us believe and somehow I believe that those rigid people, who don't want to look at the suffering of others and show no compassion, *they* are the ones who are tested by god or, in this case (of euthanasia), will bear the kammic results.
Don't feel safe by following what you think are the rules.
Why not to take it even still further? Rigid people keep insisting that there is a rebirth and kamma - because it is written in the sacred book. Don't feel safe by following what you think are the rules.
Shall I cite the Kalama sutta? :-)

"10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Zom wrote:
As for the suttas I mentions, these are:

AN 10.174 (killing because of ignorance)
You are stating that euthanasia is "killing because of ignorance". Where did the Buddha say that, specifically about lay followers?
As I argued above, for monks different rules may apply.

Le me use your own phrase: "please provide canonical citations. If you can't do that - this will be just your personal opinion, and not what Buddha has taught."
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Zom: One of the five precepts is "I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech"

I wonder what you would have done in World War 2 if you were hiding Jews from the Nazis and if a German soldier would have asked you whether you were hiding Jews.

Would you show the same fundamentalism? "Because that's the rule?"
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
SarathW
Posts: 21183
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: euthanasia

Post by SarathW »

What is the pain threshold that we have to decide that a person or animal should put to death.
What is the check list?
Who decide it?
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: euthanasia

Post by Zom »

Shall I cite the Kalama sutta?
Shall I cite Ven. Bodhi article about the common mistake when people cite this sutta?

"though the discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation, it is problematic whether the sutta can support all the positions that have been ascribed to it. On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.

But does the Kalama Sutta really justify such views? Or do we meet in these claims just another set of variations on that egregious old tendency to interpret the Dhamma according to whatever notions are congenial to oneself — or to those to whom one is preaching? Let us take as careful a look at the Kalama Sutta as the limited space allotted to this essay will allow, remembering that in order to understand the Buddha's utterances correctly it is essential to take account of his own intentions in making them."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_09.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You are stating that euthanasia is "killing because of ignorance". Where did the Buddha say that, specifically about lay followers?
As I argued above, for monks different rules may apply.
Do you really need a passage where Buddha said to lay-followers that killing is an unwholesome action? There are so many of such texts and they are so well-known that I don't really understand why you ask for this.
Zom: One of the five precepts is "I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech"

I wonder what you would have done in World War 2 if you were hiding Jews from the Nazis and if a German soldier would have asked you whether you were hiding Jews.

Would you show the same fundamentalism? "Because that's the rule?"
Maybe I will keep silence - this is always a nice alternative for a lie. 8-)
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Passages where Buddha said to lay-followers that killing is an unwholesome action are not necessarily about euthanasia.
I don't believe you can cite such a clear cut passage from a sutta. If you can, please show me.

On the other hand, I cited: D. III,187 which you simply ignore.

And about the hidden Jews and keeping silent, you know as well as me that that would be no solution. It would make you an accomplice, guilty as hell.The Germans would search your house and they would find the Jews.
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: euthanasia

Post by Zom »

Passages where Buddha said to lay-followers that killing is an unwholesome action are not necessarily about euthanasia.
I don't believe you can cite such a clear cut passage from a sutta. If you can, please show me.
It is not me who needs to prove something in this case. If you make an assertion that Buddha allowed killing in some circumstances and didn't allow in another - it is you who must find the corresponding passage. I'm personally not aware of any.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: euthanasia

Post by DNS »

Zom wrote: I'm personally not aware of any.
Here are some possibilities:
MN 144

In the Channovada Sutta (MN 144), Venerable Channa is sick, in pain and wants to 'use the knife.' Sariputta urges him not to. We are not told whether Channa's condition was terminal or not. Whatever the case, he did later commit suicide. Sariputta informed the Buddha of this and asked what would be his destiny in his next life. The Buddha replied, 'When one lays down this body and clings to a new body, then I say that one is blameworthy. But this was not so with Channa and therefore he used the knife blamelessly.' It would appear from this that Channa was a highly developed person and that between the time he 'used the knife' (i.e. cut his wrists or his throat) and he died he was able to be totally detached and therefore attain enlightenment. If this is was so, it's hard to understand why he could not have been equally detached from the pain caused by his sickness. Either way, the story suggests that killing (suicide or euthanasia) need not necessarily have negative results. The Vakkali and Godhika Suttas also have similar stories with those monks also taking their life, apparently after attaining a high level and suffering from pain due to illness.

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." (Bodhi, 2001 trans. Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, 2001, 2nd ed. 1359 n1312)

Tesakuṇa Jātaka from the Jātaka (Ja.V.109):
Always protect those who live justly. For the wheel of power turns in dependence on the wheel of justice..

The Buddha also met with kings and never advised them to abandon their armies, but did give them some governance advice.
SarathW
Posts: 21183
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: euthanasia

Post by SarathW »

Hi David
I think you are missing something very important here.
This Channa incident appears uncertain.
It is not logical to take one incident and disregard the teaching as a whole.
Even the Buddha cannot stop all the killing in this world.
Only he can do is to advise people not to kill.
Can Buddha stop patronising people who kill?
No, It is not practical.
Puthujana in general are involve with full of unwholesome activities.
If Buddha want to accept food only from an Arahant he will pass away soon.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by samseva »

Leon-nl wrote:(D.II,187) must be: D. III,187

In which the Buddha says:

"23. ‘The friend who is the same in happy and unhappy times can be seen to be a loyal friend in four ways: he tells you his secrets, he guards your secrets, he does not let you down in misfortune, he would even sacrifice his life for you."

http://www.wisdompubs.org/landing/sigalaka-sutta

So your remark "But yes, Buddha taught exactly this way - intentional taking of life is intrinsically wrong" does not hold.
You are misinterpreting the passage. By reading "someone would slit his/her throat to feed a tigress and her cubs" (from the example you gave) or something similar in the simple phrase that a good friend "would even sacrifice his life for you", you are inferring things which aren't there at all. To sacrify yourself doesn't mean to deliberately kill yourself or kill another being out of unselfishness for another. This is non-sense and is the reasoning we hear too often these recent times.

Scarifying yourself doesn't mean you are allowed to kill, either you or anybody else; killing out of unselfish intentions doesn't justify killing.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by samseva »

David N. Snyder wrote:In the Channovada Sutta (MN 144), Venerable Channa is sick, in pain and wants to 'use the knife.' Sariputta urges him not to. We are not told whether Channa's condition was terminal or not. Whatever the case, he did later commit suicide. Sariputta informed the Buddha of this and asked what would be his destiny in his next life. The Buddha replied, 'When one lays down this body and clings to a new body, then I say that one is blameworthy. But this was not so with Channa and therefore he used the knife blamelessly.'
David, I don't think the Sutta of Channa's suicide is relevant. For one, the Buddha didn't praise suicide at all. He simply said that Channa's suicide was blameless since he wasn't reborn, i.e., he was Enlightened. It's probably not even about the suicide itself, but rather the fact that he attained Arahantship, so to blame him wouldn't be applicable.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by samseva »

The debate of if killing an animal out of compassion to end its pain is the same one from a few months back. I don't think there is convincing arguments for pet-owners wanting to end their pet's pain and even less convincing evidence that killing can be good—which is pretty much the discussion that is going on.

Is killing to end a being's pain justified? Is not killing a being in pain out of not wanting to commit unwholesome kamma selfish? Personally, I would say no for both—to say yes for either question would be absurd. However, I don't think any discussing would convince anyone on either side, since our positions are probably already firmly taken.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: euthanasia

Post by tiltbillings »

samseva wrote:The debate of if killing an animal out of compassion to end its pain is the same one from a few months back. I don't think there is convincing arguments for pet-owners wanting to end their pet's pain and even less convincing evidence that killing can be good—which is pretty much the discussion that is going on.
I suspect you have not dealt with much dying and death, if at all.
Is killing to end a being's pain justified? Is not killing a being in pain out of not wanting to commit unwholesome kamma selfish? Personally, I would say no for both—to say yes for either question would be absurd. However, I don't think any discussing would convince anyone on either side, since our positions are probably already firmly taken.
Saying no is no less absurd.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply