In fact Aloka, there doesn't seem to be many women voices in general on Dhamma Wheel. I wonder why that is? Actually, where are the female Mods and/or Admins? This place has a serious lack of balance. Not just with gender but it seems also to be a prerequisite to have a Moderation or Admin role one has to be a right-winger. Perhaps this is not surprising when one considers the owner of this site is male, capitalist with conservative leanings. In my experience the culture of any organisation always trickles-down to reflect the views and ideals of the owner/boss, etc.
As if the gender etc of the admins matters. Identity politics at some of its worst there. But to your other point, for many years the admins/mods were left wing (and the page had more censorship. Funny how the two seem to go hand in hand). During that time the owner was the same, which kind of invalidates your claim.
Well as I have been reading Dhamma Wheel for perhaps as long as you have clw_uk, I would disagree with your assessment. And fortunately I can rely on my on judgment to make this assessment and look at the developments as they actually are, rather than to rely on what you say.
Ah, the old "identity politics" line. You guys on the Right love to trot it out on a regular basis, so much so in fact that it really has very little sting anymore. But talking about identifying, is it still the "Buddhist Fundamentalist Libertarian" position clw_uk? You know that Libertarian identity is so much more a refined self-view
Phena wrote:
I recall that Bhikkhu Bodhi believes that there is reasonably strong evidence in the Suttas to suggest an in between state. Unfortunately I don't remember which Sutta(s) he was referring to as it was some time ago, but I am fairly sure he mentioned this point twice in his talks on the Majjhima Nikaya and maybe also his set of talks on The Buddha’s Teaching As It Is.
cooran wrote:
‘’And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta S.N. 44.9 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Perhaps, though I think he had a clearer reference indicating the potential for longer time periods, but I would not like to say definitively, as I am uncertain about it.
binocular wrote:
What should be addressed is the question of why engage in sex if one doesn't want to have children,
Money. People have sex for money. You might not be aware of this but it happens alot and in virtually every culture and country. They don't call it the oldest profession for nothing. I think it would be delusional to think that no buddhist ever had sex for money.
chownah
Politically, I'm very progressive. I support gun control, the disassembly of enforced gender roles, and civil rights for all (particularly the marginalized). But when it comes to abortion, I find it difficult to voice my full-throated support for it. I understand that abortion can be a medical necessity. But I also see people arguing that abortion should be an option as a kind of birth control for recreational sex. "It's my body, my choice. I can do what they want." But aren't there technically two bodies involved? It seems cold to start the process of a new life just to casually extinguish it. If abortion can be avoided, it probably should be, but the option shouldn't be removed entirely.
One can argue that abortion gets under the 1st precept in buddism. But we also have to consider under which intention is a mother going to abbort a foetus. To my knowledge no mother will abort a child if it is not extremely compelling intentionally.
We can guess it to be a health issue or a sociological issue. Secondly on a kammic estimation it (abortion), may be a result of the kamma of the child to be borne.
As I have read there is no direct sutta or statement from lord budda relating to abortions.
If the intention is not to kill the child in the womb with aversion then the karma of abortion may not come under killing with dvesha.
However finally it is my view that in as most cases an abortion is done to save a mother then we cannot speak of negative karma or akusal. But there may be instances when an abortion is done with greed , where it will lead the intention to akusal or negative karma.
Abortion is morally wrong and I refuse to do it. That is the only choice that matters to me. Whether it is legal for someone else to do it is irrelevant to me because immoral stuff is legal in different places and I reject engagement in most politics.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
Wizard in the Forest wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:21 pm
Abortion is morally wrong and I refuse to do it. That is the only choice that matters to me. Whether it is legal for someone else to do it is irrelevant to me because immoral stuff is legal in different places and I reject engagement in most politics.
If you would conceive a child in a rape, you would carry the child to term -- and keep it?
I would, and since the child would not have a father I’d have to give them twice as much love and I wouldn’t make this a factor in the child’s life, either.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
binocular wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:41 pmIf you would conceive a child in a rape, you would carry the child to term -- and keep it?
In Thailand, its pretty clear. I recall Ajahn Buddhadasa wrote about abortion when there is harm to the woman's life, similar to Thai law, in the follow book (for which I cannot find the English translation):
A Buddhist Charter กฎบัตรพุทธบริษัท by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu.
Book resulting from the 50th anniversary commemoration of Suan Mokkhabalārāma on the Visākhapūjā Day of 1982.
Translated from the Thai (กฎบัตรพุทธบริษัท) by Mongkol Dejnakarintra & Somsri Thammasarnsophon. Bilingual edition. Vuddhidhamma Fund, Bangkok, 1990. 39+39 p. ISBN: 974-7680-18-1
Grounds on which abortion is permitted in Thailand:
1. To save the life of the woman Yes
2. To preserve physical health Yes
3. To preserve mental health Yes
4. Rape or incest Yes
5. Foetal impairment No
6. Economic or social reasons No
7. Available on request No
Regarding abortion, people argue until black and red in the face about whether or not it should be done, without investigating to find out in which cases it should and in which cases it should not. Once we follow the principles of the Buddhist way of reasoning, each situation itself will tell us what is proper and what is not. Please stop insisting on one-sided positions.
Wizard in the Forest wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:44 pm
I would, and since the child would not have a father I’d have to give them twice as much love and I wouldn’t make this a factor in the child’s life, either.
Bodhisattva of Compassion
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
mettafuture wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 2:06 pm
Politically, I'm very progressive. I support gun control, the disassembly of enforced gender roles, and civil rights for all (particularly the marginalized). But when it comes to abortion, I find it difficult to voice my full-throated support for it. I understand that abortion can be a medical necessity. But I also see people arguing that abortion should be an option as a kind of birth control for recreational sex. "It's my body, my choice. I can do what they want." But aren't there technically two bodies involved? It seems cold to start the process of a new life just to casually extinguish it. If abortion can be avoided, it probably should be, but the option shouldn't be removed entirely.
better than a talk about politics is a talk about morality. even if you're at risk of life, let's say if you are held at gunpoint, killing is bad kamma. how ever states go about enforcing their contrived morality, kamma doesn't change. we should concern ourselves with making the best decisions no matter the environment
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5
Dhammarakkhito wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 3:55 amconsciousness descends into the womb at conception
If human life was pristine (without modern technology) and there was no reliable universal birth control (which was merely invented 50 years ago after 200,000 years or so of human life); how would your views about abortion dictate views about what sexual misconduct is?
Last edited by DooDoot on Sun May 27, 2018 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
no, i'm not going to divert the topic. if you dont like the gandhabba interpretation, you can arrive at the answer via dependent origination
with consciousness as condition, name-and-form
with clinging as condition, existence
with existence as condition, birth
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5
