I could have clung to the training rule and watched them slam into a tree or something worse? Then I could at least find solace in knowing that my Sila had been kept - come what may.
1 Like
It’s difficult to pass judgment or determine what is best for the person (and others) concerned, from the outside. After all its the person in the story who needs to decide. They must decide ideally with everybody’s best interests at heart, however this decision will be influenced by many factors such as values, what the cost is, what’s to be gained, etc. The ability to reflect vs reacting without thinking things through, will probably play a part in this. Culture, religion, law, influences from friends and family all play a role in making a moral decision. Ideally a kalyanamitta will show the best way forward.
With metta
2 Likes
If a small child is about to touch something hot or is playing with something dangerous I just ‘see’ whats happening and act. Likewise, with an intoxicated person etc. We don’t need to consult religious or legal codes of conduct to act with intelligence and compassion in a dangerous situation.
Sometimes religious guidelines can be a helpful lense to look through to understand what’s going on and at other times they seem to increase our stupidity. This is related to the problem of indoctrination, conditioning, a mindless habituation, ideology. A religious or secular myopia that prevents us from acting appropriately when there is a clear and present danger.
Direct action with regard to climate change - all forms of ecological vandalism - comes to mind. Sometimes, we have to tear-up the rule-book because it gets in the way of doing the right thing for good reasons with wholesome and skilful intentions.
I was walking down a street one day and I was passing a house where the horrible sounds of domestic violence was clearly heard. I stopped because the abuse was so terrible - I was deeply concerned.
A male voice was very aggressive and threatening and there was a female voice that clearly indicated deep distress. There was a clear and present danger to the person being abused.
I decided to walk up the front steps and knocked on the open door. Immediately, the violence stopped but no one answered. I kept knocking until a young woman eventually appeared looking worse for wear. I asked: is there a man in the house and could he come to the door.
She looked into the house to the abuser - who was out of my sight - and looked back at me and said ‘no’. No one else is here! I said: are you sure no-one else is here? She looked back at the person out of sight and, shook her head! I can’t remember what I said then, but I was not angry or disturbed in any way.
The woman was not angry or upset by my presence or request. I said goodbye and walked back to the street but remained there for some time ‘listening’ - the house had become silent. At least, on that occasion a disaster had been avoided.
Hopefully, this unexpected intrusion gave them both a bit of time and space to reflect on what had happened and, learn from it?
In relation to the OP, maybe the majority of American Buddhists are aware of the problems associated with the automatic following of religious tenets, guidelines and, precepts and this feeds into their view about abortion. This may have been harder to consider in pre-modern times.
1 Like
Monks were not permitted to eat fertilized chicken egg . If so, the answer should be no for abortion according to precept and dhamma . As a sotapanna the person will not take birth in the three lower realms again because one will never break the precepts no matter how .
If a person decided to go for abortion due to various reasons but that is different context .
Another point is, most of the people do not have psychic , therefore , it is difficult for one to determine the real situation involve in abortion .
I have seen monks eating cooked chickens so I don’t see why eggs would be off the menu?
If a person goal is liberation , they can argue , debate to whatever extent they like , that is not going to help . Why is it sotapanna
, Sakadagami, Anāgāmi and arahant called noble disciples is because non of them is any where near to or possible with such thinking not to mention a real abortion .
That is a strong opinion, one that would be disturbing for many, if the survey is accurate. But monastics are prohibited from doing many things simply to avoid distressing the laity or local non buddhists, neh? And drawing a line in the sands… that is somewhat harsh, perhaps.
Hi everyone, thank you for all the good posts. As someone who studies religion in general, something that I’m interested in is looking at religion complexly, so not assuming (for instance) that the participants in the study do not know the precepts or aren’t actually ‘Buddhists.’
What I’m more interested in is taking the idea of, how can two seemingly polar ideas and ideals work in tandem with one another without creating dissonance? Where are the gray areas where things are not entirely black and white? If the people in the poll are Buddhists, what does that mean for the proliferation and interpretation of Dhamma?
3 Likes
The discussion has been broad and divergent. Are you thinking of two seemingly polar ideas in particular?
In general, various forms or schools of “dialectical thinking” attempts to address this clash of ideas. I’m of the mind that a certain dialectical tension still remains even after the ‘resolution’ of thesis and anti-thesis into a new synthesis. A dynamic tension is the norm.
In dharma terms we might expect a dynamic tension in the middle way. A tension which parallels or accompanies change as a norm and a considerable degree of interrelationships.
1 Like
I don’t think they are polar ideas because there’s to much uncertainty. The unknown can cause worry, concern and, fear. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can also let go and be at peace with the unknown.
I guess there’s more than one answer to this question and if you were thinking of writing a paper - or doing a study - on this topic you may consider including more than one explanation?
You could probably design another survey and do your own research to clarify why that survey came up with that percentage?
You could try to clarify the demographic makeup of the cohort that responded to the question in the survey. What percentage were convert Buddhists and, what percentage were traditional-Buddhists.
It seems naive if those who conducted the survey failed to recognise the difference between those who identify as Buddhists - nominally - and those who actually practice.
To me, to be a Buddhist is not about ethnic identity or, family background. Buddhism i.e the path of practice taught by the Buddha, is not the same as a nominal Buddhist identity.
It would seem that many people self-identify as Christians but they don’t help the sick, feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, welcome the stranger etc. They most certainly do not turn the other cheek!
They may still bury the dead?
I believe that a majority of modern Buddhists would recognise the ambiguity when it comes to the sentient-status of the foetus and, they would not believe that precepts should be treated as commandments received from on-high!
Many Buddhists probably believe that it’s up to women to decide for themselves what they do with regard to their own lives - without being pushed around by others.
Religious bullying is as reprehensible as any other kind. To make someone feel insecure or distressed in a situation where they may feel vulnerable and unhappy is not a Buddhist practice.
A majority of American Buddhists would probably experience a concern for the health and welfare of females in this situation. They would prefer to see people provided with the safest treatment available - conducted by health professionals. This may include assistance offered by professional counsellors.
2 Likes
@Brenna it might be good practice to examine issues not so volatile and personal than these to start with, as an exercise. For examples,
craving and greed are known to Buddhists to be Causes of suffering. Yet our economies and cultures are very capitalist and consumerism driven. Inducements for craving, and for identification with material acquisitions, is rampant in most if not all contemporary cultures. How do Buddhists manage the dissonance between these pressures?
or
the Buddha preached and proscribed for monastics harmlessness to all peoples. Yet in this age, we have robed monastics advocating nationalism, dehumanization of human beings who happen not to be Buddhist, and even the advocacy of personal and community violence, to “protect” Buddhism. How is the dissonance of this handled by Buddhists?
The historical Buddha seemed to have been aware of the practice of abortion in his time; otherwise, he could not have prohibited monastics from advocating it. Yet it seems he never spoke on abortion as breaking the first precept he established; did not advise, warn, or instruct the laity on a Buddhist Position on the matter. 2500 years later, shall we?
A challenging topic; not an unfortunate one, imo; but one which has been associated with assassination murders of doctors and nurses in my country.
May all be happy and coexist in peace.
1 Like
The third training rule
Manussaviggaha Vin iii 68
A monk who kills a human being is expelled.
At one time a woman whose husband was living away from home became pregnant by a lover. She said to a monk who was supported by her family, “Venerable, please find me a method of abortion.” “All right,” he said, and he gave her a method of abortion. The child died. The monk became remorseful … “You have committed an offense entailing expulsion.”
At one time, there was a man had two wives, one who was barren and one who was fertile. The barren one said to a monk who was supported by her family, “If the other wife gives birth to a child, Venerable, she’ll become mistress of the whole household. Please find a method of abortion for her.” “All right,” he said, and he did so. The child died, but the mother did not die. The monk became remorseful … “You have committed an offense entailing expulsion.”
At one time, there was a man had two wives, one who was barren and one who was fertile. The barren one said to a monk who was supported by her family, “If the other wife gives birth to a child, Venerable, she’ll become mistress of the whole household. Please find a method of abortion for her.” “All right,” he said, and he did so. The mother died, but the child did not die. The monk became remorseful … “There’s no offense entailing expulsion, but there’s a serious offense.”
At one time, there was a man had two wives, one who was barren and one who was fertile. The barren one said to a monk who was supported by her family, “If the other wife gives birth to a child, Venerable, she’ll become mistress of the whole household. Please find a method of abortion for her.” “All right,” he said, and he did so. Both died. … Neither died. The monk became remorseful … “There’s no offense entailing expulsion, but there’s a serious offense.”
On one occasion a woman who was pregnant said to a monk who was supported by her family, “Venerable, please find me a method of abortion.” “Well then, crush it,” he said. She crushed it and caused an abortion. The monk became remorseful … “You have committed an offense entailing expulsion.”
On one occasion a woman who was pregnant said to a monk who was supported by her family, “Venerable, please find me a method of abortion.” “Well then, heat yourself,” he said. She heated herself and caused an abortion. The monk became remorseful … “You have committed an offense entailing expulsion.”
Interesting reading. It seems monks of the past may have been very creative in murdering each other. In the sections regarding abortion… once again, the question arises, when does a human being begin? in all the cited origin stories, it appears this defining event had been passed. Or am i misreading?
Let’s also talk about this part: 133Bu-Pj.3.5.21 On one occasion a fertile woman said to a monk who was supported by her family, “Venerable, please find me some medicine to help me not get pregnant.” “All right,” he said … “There’s no offense entailing expulsion but there’s an offense of wrong conduct.” What was the wrong conduct?
One more question: how applicable to lay morality and lay practice are vinaya rules, in your opinion? Are you suggesting the scrupulousness of a monastic life should be adopted in this era by lay Buddhists as well?
I’m wondering if this is the right question? Maybe we could ask something like: “when does suffering begin?” Although I don’t think that we can clearly answer this at the moment with regard to a fetus, we do have a clear indication (i.e. scientific evidence) that single celled creatures such as e-coli display signs of ‘suffering’, ‘remembering’ and ‘fear’. So we might wish to tread cautiously with regard to the point at which a fetus gains these characteristics. That being said, I’m still pro-choice for all the good reasons stated above by others.
The only way to answer this is by finding out when you were “activated”, and in my case it was before this mother and father
1 Like
I was activated after this mother and father. I just appeared fully grown in their living room one day. Mother cried a lot because she had been looking forward to raising a baby the normal way.
6 Likes
Does human being life begins at conception the so called zygote ? If yes, can one abort a zygote in Actuality ? Or does one abort a fetus or a few months baby ? One only can abort a fetus or baby when you find out one already pregnant . With the “Thought” of abortion a person already had in mind wanted to kill !
And does this constitute breaking the first precept ? Answer is clear .
Although the above mentioned monastic vinaya are not meant for lay people but the question is , if with the vinaya definition , it is clear that the abortion of a fetus or a baby is killing !
Therefore , our concerns is, whether abortion violates the first precept and
not otherwise .
Do e-coli also have consciousness arising that conditions feeling? Do their feelings condition craving? Does craving condition clinging then, becoming etc.? Do e-coli have a mental-continuum? They have memories, does this mean they have minds that remember things? Unfortunately, for sentient e-coli - germs and viruses - it’s OK to kill them. They are not protected species in the Dhamma penal code.
“They experience these feelings by repeated contact through the six sense-bases; feeling conditions craving; craving conditions clinging; clinging conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, sadness and distress.” - Walsh
I can’t even tell if any of those things that you mention apply to you @laurence let alone e-coli. I only have your word for it. Which, of course, is worthless if I accept that you may have the ability to lie also. Unfortunately our inner world is our inner world, so we all have to make do with whether we perceive suffering in others. It is our perception of a suffering individual that should guide us, not our holy books. As our perception changes, so should our kamma.
If you wish to look further into this exciting new science that is showing us how far suffering extends in this world perhaps start by using Google to search e-coli and memory, and then you could maybe add keywords such as chemotaxis and nanobrain. It will answer some of your questions, but we have a long way to go in this area.
1 Like
It’s interesting to hear about those who can remember that they were activated - alive and moving - before they appeared in this present lifetime. Can you also remember when you appeared on the scene this time round? Was it when the little tadpole wriggled into the egg and dissolved or, was it a bit later on - when your senses and brain became integrated? If it was before that - what was it that made you cotton-on to the fact of your existence or, have you forgotten the details?