I could say alot but I think it is better to leave it as it is.
chownah
I could say alot but I think it is better to leave it as it is.
Well, I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to amend my understanding if it contains inconsistencies. But if, after claiming that there are inconsistencies, you are unable to point them out, then I appreciate that reticence on your part might be the better course.
And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.
Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .ntbb.html
I could say alot but I think it is better to leave it as it is.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:56 amWell, I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to amend my understanding if it contains inconsistencies. But if, after claiming that there are inconsistencies, you are unable to point them out, then I appreciate that reticence on your part might be the better course.
Yes, so you say! You can always PM me if you've been overcome by shyness.chownah wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:18 pmI could say alot but I think it is better to leave it as it is.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:56 amWell, I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to amend my understanding if it contains inconsistencies. But if, after claiming that there are inconsistencies, you are unable to point them out, then I appreciate that reticence on your part might be the better course.
chownah
I could say alot but I think it is better to leave it as it is.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:26 pmYes, so you say! You can always PM me if you've been overcome by shyness.chownah wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:18 pmI could say alot but I think it is better to leave it as it is.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:56 am
Well, I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to amend my understanding if it contains inconsistencies. But if, after claiming that there are inconsistencies, you are unable to point them out, then I appreciate that reticence on your part might be the better course.
chownah
Let me first express to know whether the terms intention and volition both meaning cetana has a difference in English. I have read that a psychologist would express a difference.rcteutsch wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:51 pm Intention is the determinative factor for whether kamma is wholesome or unwholesome. What is the meaning of intention, i.e., the Pali term translated as intention that refers to the mental quality determinative of wholesome or unwholesome quality of kamma. In American criminal law, for example, intention is defined in terms of purpose and knowledge. For example, one has intention to kill a person if the purpose of one's action was to the kill another being, or if one knew that one's action would kill another being. Knowledge, in turn, is defined in terms of "substantial certainty." In other words, if one is substantially certain that one's actions would result in the death of another person, then one had the requisite intention for criminal liability. Obviously American criminal law is not authoritative for Theravada Buddhism, my "intention" is merely to frame the discussion (no pun "intended").
Furthermore, I believe I saw somewhere that "negligence" is form of intention. What is "intentional negligence?" In American tort law, for example, negligence is merely the failure to act in accordance with the applicable standard of care, usually cast in terms of the "ordinarily prudent person." Gross negligence, in tern, is defined as "reckless disregard" for the risks associated with one's action. What sort of "negligence" is unwholesome from a Theravada point of view?
Also, does Theravada Buddhism have a detailed exegesis of "causation" with respect to moral action? In American tort law, for example, a "cause" can be cause-in-fact and/or a proximate cause. A cause-in-fact is an action that "but for" its occurrence, the event in question would not have occurred. Proximate cause, in turn, limits the extent to which causes-in-fact can be the grounds for liability: a cause is usually a "proximate cause" only if the effects of the action are foreseeable? Does "intention" serve the same role as "proximate cause" in Theravada, to limit the range of actions one is kammically responsible for?
I apologize in advance if my questions pose problems for others.
With metta,
Robert
True but Vinaya is often largely about maintaining social impressions or reputation of monks and the Sangha by laypeople. For example, Vinaya forbids monks going for alms at night so laypeople are not frightened by men wandering around their homes at night (even though there is nothing inherently immoral about wandering for alms at night). Therefore, to avoid social controversy, a monk cannot, for example, directly recommend an abortion, mercy killing or even killing in self-defense. However, a monk can explain to people the laws of kamma, namely, the quality of intention will dictate the quality of the result of the action. Monks have their ways to justify others engage in killing but not directly instructing it. That is why many monks have talked about abortion, for example, in a way that accommodates abortion in certain circumstances.
I considered this; however, I am not aware of any "motivation-based" exception to the principle that killing produces dark kamma in the suttas or vinaya. Sure, "compassionate" motivations may mitigate the heaviness of the kamma, but they do not absolve the killer entirely. On second thought, I suppose there is the exception of the two monks who committed suicide who did not seem to experience any dark kamma (not sure about the citation). Are there similar stories with respect to the killing of others? My motivation (no pun intended) is not to try to justify killing, as I happen to appreciate the stringency of the 1st precept, but really just to determine what about killing is inherently immoral or delusional.
The precept is literally written as a "training" rule thus arguably not as "stringent" as implied above. "Killing" is immoral because it causes trauma, regret and derangement of mind. There are some good documentaries on the Vietnam War, which show clearly how mentally deranged, psychopathic or "bestial" ("animal realm in Buddhism") some of the American soldiers became during the war and how suicidal (hell realm in Buddhism) they became after the war. As for a monk, killing in self-defence will support the attachment of "self-delusion" or "self-view". It is against the higher training. But for a layperson, while still traumatic, killing in self-defense can be justified. The suttas say:
Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Is it not always motivated by hatred, in that one hates what that being is, such that one is prepared to eliminate that being? This is the case even with killing carried out for reasons which one considers to be compassionate. If one did not have hatred for the state that being is currently in, then one's compassion would not result in wanting the death of another. Killing is essentially saying "Get rid of it!", which is why it is inherently dark kamma.rcteutsch wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:25 pm I suppose one might respond that deliberate killing is always motivated by delusion, which is why it always generates dark kamma. Delusion of what though? Without providing a non-circular answer (e.g., delusion that killing is ok, delusion that killing doesn't produce negative kamma, etc.), how is killing always motivated by delusion?
I agree. Is it similarly "wrong" to have the view/aversion "Get rid of it!" with respect to one's own negative mental states? I suspect there is a difference between chanda for Nibbāna and true aversion to what one perceives as wrong with oneself, since the latter is steeped in self-view, but I find developing the proper mindset towards afflictive conditions is quite precarious. How might one best "avoid" unskillful actions without cultivating aversion towards oneself/others/etc?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:25 pmIs it not always motivated by hatred, in that one hates what that being is, such that one is prepared to eliminate that being? This is the case even with killing carried out for reasons which one considers to be compassionate. If one did not have hatred for the state that being is currently in, then one's compassion would not result in wanting the death of another. Killing is essentially saying "Get rid of it!", which is why it is inherently dark kamma.rcteutsch wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:25 pm I suppose one might respond that deliberate killing is always motivated by delusion, which is why it always generates dark kamma. Delusion of what though? Without providing a non-circular answer (e.g., delusion that killing is ok, delusion that killing doesn't produce negative kamma, etc.), how is killing always motivated by delusion?
I don't know, but I think there are certainly more and less skillful ways of dealing with them. I have been taught that not acting on them leads to their demise without the requirement of killing them off - ironically, just like beings we might be inclined to kill out of compassion!
My hope is that it is accomplished by simply not doing them; by adopting the middle way of not giving in to unskillful urges, but not reacting to them with hate. They are what they are. Whether this can be accomplished in actuality is beyond my pay grade, but it seems to me that it is the only alternative to the problem that you so correctly identify.How might one best "avoid" unskillful actions without cultivating aversion towards oneself/others/etc?