Could it be that to be completely compassionate one has to break precepts, or gain bad karma?
2 Likes
As I understand it, kamma is intention, so itâs the motivation behind our actions which is the most important thing.
2 Likes
I try to view these questions as ethical quandaries, that require us to look at the qualities and weight of the kamma that is being undertaken. The First Precept is a training rule, not a law. My sense is that one can break a law, and incur punishment, but this is not necessarily the ethical framework that the Buddha tried to establish with his teachings on kamma. The magnificence of the Buddhaâs teaching is the way that it empowers us to study, to meditate and to cultivate wisdom, such that we act in the most ethical ways; not because someone made a law that we are bound to, but because we have gained insight into the most skillful and ethical actions possible for a good life on this Path.
We must as part of our training do all we can to preserve life. But, in some cases, assisting someone with a painful, terminal illness to die in way and at a time of their own accord, vs. undergoing a tortuous, ignoble death that is traumatic to both the patient and the family members witnessing a loved one die this way, is a bright and positive kamma.
5 Likes
Itâs a precious human birth. But if you are in pain due to cancer and unconscious how much are you able to meditate on realising the Four Noble truths?! No one is suggesting euthanising healthy people! It IS taking a human life, so there is some bad kamma there. However there is also the good kamma of wanting to release a person from suffering! This is a case of black and white karma, and isnât straightforward. Also the value given to suicide-euthanasia might be different in different cultures, so we may be talking based on those cultural value systems.
3 Likes
Pain in the human realm is better compared to a lower realm.
This is what @Polarbear has written in detail above.
1 Like
If a person decided to end their own life in order to shorten a period of great suffering, would that necessarily be dark kamma, given that the act would only be injurious to the person concerned? Though it could be injurious to the persons friends or relatives if they werenât in agreement?
I find this topic to be not at all straightforward. Leaving aside the Buddhist ethical framework, from a morally utilitarian point of view, there are many cases where euthanasia seems to be the compassionate choice. However, as with almost everything there are always going to be pros and cons. I can think of situations where people would be glad to have this as an option (ugly painful terminal illnesses); however, I can also think of situations where it might generate a negative dynamic.
For example, suppose one has just been diagnosed with early-stage dementia and the future care is likely to fall on some loved one. In a situation with euthanasia available, the sufferer will have to perhaps distressingly consider imminent euthanasia (perhaps out of a desire not to burden the loved one) while they are still mentally competent. Another alternative is to have some kind of living will specifying euthanasia during a later stage of the disease. Of course, the patient at that later stage may still have some understanding of whatâs going on and might frantically fight the procedure in spite of the prior instructions (this has actually happened in some cases 
). If the dementia patient doesnât choose euthanasia, this may create other dynamics. The hard-pressed stressed-out carer potentially may become resentful. In a situation without availability of euthanasia, everyone may accept that life sometimes is just crap and they just have to get on with things. Having options isnât always necessarily a good thing. Of course, in earlier times when life was often far harder, old people in some cultures, particularly when food was very short, might often just head off by themselves in winter snow to âgo huntingâ and never return.
There is also the slippery slope argument: that while it is for the best of intentions, a certain line is being crossed, which can have somewhat corrosive effects on society over time (there can be upsides to coarse sub-optimal but easily arbitrated boundaries). There was a long, very interesting and nuanced article in the Guardian (a well-known left liberal UK newspaper) earlier this year looking at this question with respect to the Netherlands. The Netherlands brought in a euthanasia framework with various protections 17 years ago.
The Netherlands is one of the few examples of a country where euthanasia has been available for an appreciable length of time. Itâs quite a balanced article, but certain evidence of the slippery slope does seem evident there (and itâs not all a bed of roses; the articles goes into both pros and cons of the Dutch experience). Plus itâs far yet from being the end of this particular experiment. I reckon weâll probably have to come back there in another 20 years to get a final more definitive idea of the true trade offs between the lighter and darker sides of euthanasia there. IMO this is a very grey and ambiguous topic.
1 Like
Yes, its a real can of worms. Interesting to hear about the Netherlands.
1 Like
The magnitude of samsara, as presented in the suttas, is so great, and the potential consequences of breaking the first precept so great, that even horrific pains suffered in a single human life are considered nothing in comparison to the horrors of samsara and falling to the lower realms, at least from the perspective of the suttas. Therefore, it would follow that it wouldnât make sense to be in favor of euthanasia if one believes in samsara. It would be akin to thinking that 4>TREE(3)
âMonks, suppose there was a man whose life span was 100 years, who would live to 100. Someone would say to him, âLook here, fellow. They will stab you at dawn with 100 spears, at noon with 100 spears, & again at evening with 100 spears. You, thus stabbed day after day with 300 spears, will have a lifespan of 100 years, will live to be 100, and at the end of 100 years you will realize the four noble truths that you have never realized before.â
âMonks, a person who desired his own true benefit would do well to take up (the offer). Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. - SN 56:35 Sattisata Sutta | One Hundred Spears
Near SÄvatthÄŤ. There the Blessed One said: âFrom an inconceivable beginning comes the wandering-on. A beginning point is not discernible, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long timeâcrying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasingâor the water in the four great oceans?â
âAs we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long timeâcrying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasingânot the water in the four great oceans.â
âExcellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.
âThis is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long timeâcrying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasingânot the water in the four great oceans.
âLong have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long timeâcrying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasingâare greater than the water in the four great oceans.
âLong have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father⌠the death of a brother⌠the death of a sister⌠the death of a son⌠the death of a daughter⌠loss with regard to relatives⌠loss with regard to wealth⌠loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long timeâcrying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasingâare greater than the water in the four great oceans.
âWhy is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteriesâenough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.â - SN 15:3 Assu Sutta | Tears
Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, âWhat do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?â
âThe great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It doesnât even count. Itâs no comparison. Itâs not even a fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
âIn the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell. - SN 56:102â113 Paášsu Suttas | Dust
âMonks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west; a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south; a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think? Would that blind sea turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?â
âIt would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole.â
âItâs likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. Itâs likewise a sheer coincidence that a TathÄgata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. Itâs likewise a sheer coincidence that a Dhamma & Vinaya expounded by a TathÄgata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A TathÄgata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A Dhamma & Vinaya expounded by a TathÄgata appears in the world.
âTherefore your duty is the contemplation, âThis is stress ⌠This is the origination of stress ⌠This is the cessation of stress.â Your duty is the contemplation, âThis is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.ââ - SN 56:48 Chiggaḡa Sutta | The Hole
Praising death is part of the parajika offense regarding killing humans in the vinaya:
If a monk intentionally kills a human being or seeks an instrument of death for him or praises death or incites someone to die, saying, âGood man, whatâs the point of this wretched and difficult life? Death is better for you than life!ââthinking and intending thus, if he praises death in various ways or incites someone to dieâhe too is expelled and excluded from the community.ââ
The motivation is different in the Vinaya story but I donât think that changes the fact that praising or condoning death to the ill is considered bad in early Buddhism:
At one time a lay follower was sickâŚ
They then went to that lay follower and said, âYouâve done whatâs good and wholesome; youâve made a shelter against fear. You havenât done anything bad: you havenât been greedy or immoral. Whatâs the point of this wretched and difficult life? Death is better for you than life. When you have passed away, youâll be reborn in a happy place, in heaven. There youâll be able to enjoy the five kinds of heavenly sense pleasure.â
That lay follower thought, âThe Venerables have spoken the truth, for Iâve done whatâs good and avoided whatâs bad, and after death Iâll be reborn in a happy place.â
From then on he ate various kinds of detrimental food and drank detrimental drinks, and as a consequence, he became seriously ill and diedâŚ
The Buddha rebuked them, âFoolish men, itâs not suitable, itâs not proper, itâs not worthy of an ascetic, itâs not allowable, it should not be done. How could you praise death to that lay follower? This will not give rise to confidence in those without it - SuttaCentral
In my understanding of the worldview of the texts, I donât think there is room for the idea that euthanasia would ever be considered the compassionate choice, whether for an animal or a human. Of course, if one doesnât share or perhaps only partially shares the worldview of the EBTs then euthanasia may very well be or at least appear to be the compassionate choice in many cases.
7 Likes
Yes you can. See my experience.
Seven days without pain killers.
You were unconscious, and contemplating the Four Noble Truths! Wow!
How about a compassionate answer, embedded in the Buddhist world view, for this dilemma. Unless you believe that the answer to all of lifeâs moral dilemmas can be fouth in the five precepts:
With metta
1 Like
I was talking about the pain.
We cant kill a person because sh/e is unconsious.
As a general comment, I regard the precepts as training principles rather than commandments. And sometimes as a way of assessing my progress.
1 Like
There are experts who have seems many people suffering and dying. There are peopleâs wishes, which have been recorded. If unconscious, then the closest relatives are approached, with weighing up of the chances of recovering from unconsciousness. Itâs not a whimsically performed. Also done under when legal safeguards are met, that is, only in extreme circumstances. Itâs not for us to impose on anyone else. It can only apply to oneself.
Whatâs the difference in practice?
1 Like
I think its the difference between making ethical decisions based on a degree of insight, rather than following a moral code learned in childhood. A deeper understanding of why certain behaviours are unskillful, and the possible outcomes. Though of course to some extent this development is a product of life experience.
4 Likes
I ask because it is a common statement among western Buddhists that the precepts are principles or guidelines and not commandments and it usually sounded to me that the subtext was that itâs fine to break the precepts if it seems reasonable to do so because they arenât commandments.
2 Likes
Yes, Iâve come across that attitude. It could be a way of rationalising bits of unskillful behaviour, but I also wonder if its about people not liking the idea of conforming to âexternalâ rules.
3 Likes
No the precepts have to kept 99% of the time, with the wisdom to know when rarely one might have to not keep it, for wise and compassionate reasons. Thereâs clinging to sila (sila upadana) and going beyond good and bad mentioned in EBTs which is a stage beyond childish morality. Also the purpose of noble morality (arya sila) is Unification and not morality merely being good for âgoodness sakeâ.
2 Likes
No.
You have to keep the precepts 100% of the time.
If you break it even 01% , it is your Kamma.
I am not saying that I keep precepts 100% all the time but I know I am the owner of my Kamma.
I have no problem with people who break precepts but I have a problem with people who try to justify the breaking of them.
1 Like