Re: Re karma and killing: It's okay to irrigate crop fields, which certainly beats starving to death
Mon, December 7, 2009 - 8:02 AM
Okay, this last post still stands.
No challenge in several weeks. No questions as to clarity or meaning.
An important and basic point in Buddhist ethics. I'm sorry some people were misled by naive notions of Buddhist ethics.
If killing insects was contrary to The first of the Ten Precepts, you couldn't drive a car, as driving a car on the highway is pretty much always going to kill one or more insects.
If killing insects was contrary to The first of the Ten Precepts, you couldn't irrigate a crop field, as driving a car on the highway is pretty much always going to kill many many insects, by drowning, don't you know.
Nuff said. Now you know.
Short answer : driving car ok, if not with murderous intent. Irrigating crop fields okay, to feed people. Insect lives lost, but we can still be bodhisattvas. Being a bodhisattva is what it's all about.
At this point we've developed Buddhist ethics to the seventh grade level. That is a starting point.
We can also begin to address the issue of speech karma. As I in fact have already done. Speech karma relates to four of the Ten Precepts, # 4 through #7. Very important here. Very very important.
KT
--------------------------------------------------
PooP...
58 .Intentionally killing insects is indeed contrary to buddhist precept: Do not kill
Mon, December 7, 2009 - 9:26 AM
I disagree with your buddhism K,
It is okay to drive because you are not driving to kill bugs...... you are driving to get some place. Bugs happen to share same space and accidently get crushed underfoot even when just walking. That is the point, it is ACCIDENT. To intentionally kill bugs is bad unless you know something like phowa.
You don't have to intentionally kill bugs to irrigate fields. And if you notice some drowning bugs, it is no big deal to save them in process.
Even Nagarjuna got ripe karma from purposefully squishing bug against blade of grass and because of such he died by beheading from blade of grass.
Bodhisattvas do not discriminate against beings in lower realms.
Nuff said.
I used to like stan lee until I realized he stole everybody's superhero stuff and called it his. It is best to not misunderstand and steal buddha's superhero stuff.
-----------------------------------------------------
K
139 .Re: Intentional killing is indeed different than unintentional killing.
Sat, December 19, 2009 - 6:49 AM
Re:
"It is okay to drive because you are not driving to kill bugs...... you are driving to get some place. Bugs happen to share same space and accidently get crushed underfoot even when just walking."
Yes, that is my point. Unintentional killing is different than murder. Basically all legal systems uphold this distinction.
Therefore, go ahead and irrigate fields, or drive a car or whatever. There will be some collateral damage.
You can even take antibiotics, although that is intentional killing. It is intentional killing, but not of human beings. By all means, take antibiotics if necessary. And make use of common sense wherever possible.
I know about Nagarjuna and the blade of grass. That point is relevant. It is also far from central to the kinds of daily ethics we need to apply, which is again MOSTLY about common sense.
KT
------------------------------------
Ash
37 .Re: Intentional killing is indeed different than unintentional killing.
Sat, December 19, 2009 - 2:22 PM
even more basic application than 7th-grade ethics
First on the use of antibiotics. Antibiotics do not kill bacteria. They only slow or stop the growth. This is why a patient with end stage AIDS cannot have a bacterial infection sterilized by antibiotics. It is the white blood cells called macrophages that engulf and kill the bacteria. The white blood cells full of bacteria are what make pus. This is the natural survival and defense of the body. The antibiotics only slow the growth so that the white blood cells can kill faster than the bacteria can multiply.
Mice multiply orders of magnitude faster in artificial settings due to abundant food and few predators. In such circumstances their waste creates a vector for viruses and flea-borne bacterial illnesses. Right intention to protect children from often fatal illnesses guides this Right action of the mother to not only do so for them, but also by Right Effort to correct the artificially created dangerous environmentally damaging murine population explosion.
Right Awareness of how her action and outside crticism affects her seems to be genuinely lacking on the part of her critics. I can't imagine Buddha straying so far off the Middle path as to favor perpetuation of an artificial murine population explosion over safe survival of Children and stopping degradation of the surrounding biosphere. All accounts of Buddha I have read suggest awareness of all facets of living........ not tunnel vision that demands the sacrifice of human suffering. He did suffer before his enlightenement and sacrificed his health..Then he explained why that this only made things worse, not better!
What ever precept one follows must be skillfully reconciled with more basic aspects of the Dharma through awareness. Otherwise it is merely another unskillful failure to intergrate with Buddha's teaching and an ornate intricate deviation into Samsara, dooming one and collaterally others to continuing suffering and poor Karma. If this statement angers the reader then ask yourself why you are angry before you respond.
Love and appreciation,
Ash
-------------------------------------------------
K
139 .Re: Yes, dharma precepts are all about conscious application . . .and public health, too
Tue, December 22, 2009 - 8:58 AM
Re Ash:
"What ever precept one follows must be skillfully reconciled with more basic aspects of the Dharma through awareness. Otherwise it is merely another unskillful failure. . ."
Well said, Ash. Dharma precepts are all about conscious application. Nothing is more important.
Of course, getting to the seventh grade level Does Matter. As in, "Plays Well With Others."
I could comment on the direct effectiveness of natural antibiotics, but that is far from central to this discussion. Short answer, it is quite often a Good Thing to kill off some nasty bacteria to protect public health. That IS In Accord with the Mahayana Dharma. Count on it!
'Nuff said.
KT
---------------------------------------------------
Ash
37 .Re: Yes, dharma precepts are all about conscious application . . .and public health, too
Tue, December 22, 2009 - 6:09 PM
Thanks, KT for your thoughtful affirmation
Though I am a practitioner iin Allopathic medicine (MD) and respect the power of this very valuable tool, I also recognize that like many other powerful things. it is usually misused! Your statement on nartural antibiotics is well received. Lack of Awareness has many dire Karmic consequences that affect not only the actor directly but also others surrogately and collaterally. Awarerness of karmic consequence should lead a skilled teacher of Buddhist Tradition to good karma and not suffering. Too much of what I do in medicine are pathetic attempts to make up for the Karmic consequences of poor awareness and poor thought hygiene. these actions themselves generate Karmic consequences. I fear at times that I trap myself in a form of samsara when I should consider living a simpler healthy more natural life. Perhaps the mother in the case of a mouse infestation is similarly trapped?
Love and affirmation,
Ash
posted in
Tibetan Buddhism
- 31 replies