Welcome home! Please contact
lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site.
New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days.
Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism and mercy killing.
Comments
What is the difference between dying now and dying 10 years from now? The actions of thought, speech and body that will be performed as well as the experiences gained. If one is not going to be able to do anything for themselves or others at all, and their experience for those next 10 years or beyond will be only pain, why would we be so intent on keeping them alive? For what purpose, so that they can suffer? We have this misguided idea about death. Given the right circumstances, assisting someone with dying is not a bad thing.
That site says that euthanasia is "misguided compassion", but I say that's a load of bunk and that it's a lack of clarity to say so (that is, if the person is unable to do anything and will suffer perpetually until their body gives out).
Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda is separating the karmic effect from the motivation
the actual karmic effect is what your mind thinks & feels after the action has occurred
for example, you rob a bank and afterwards your mind is worried. or you go to war and kill people and when you return home, afterwards, your mind has troubled memories & images
where as Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda is attributing an arbitary karmic effect, completely disconnected from the action, as though an independent arbitor, such as "God", has deemed this action deserves a certain retribution
Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda himself is playing the role of judge, jury & executioner
Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda has disconnected the karmic effect from the mind-heart and thus has fallen into the sphere of superstition
as for the five criteria he listed, these come from the monk's Vinayana and exist for the purpose of monk's practice & the image they present to observers
imo
regards
What in nature shows us that a suffering animal doesn't have the right to die, or that it's somehow wrong? There in fact are no such "rights" in nature. So we recognize that all minds seek to be happy, to avoid suffering, and this is what we recognize in all life that leads us to act compassionately toward others. No one has shown any real reason why we forcefully keep someone alive who is in a state of constant suffering and desires death, have they?
Do we not put a cat/dog out of its misery that gets hit on the road and is still alive, suffering and unable to move or do anything? We do this all the time, creating different rules for humans than for other life, different value systems that in fact are mind-made and self-serving. Why is it right to kill a prisoner for crimes they no longer can commit (due to being in jail) that definitely does not want to die, but not right to let someone die who wants death because they are suffering now and will continue to suffer? I just don't know sometimes why we're so mixed up...
the Vinaya rules of the monks forbid mercy killing of animals
whilst such an act must only be confessed and does not result in being disrobed, the concept of mercy killing has obviously existed for over 2,000 years in India
/\ Amelia
Secondly, mercy killing for animals is very different from human beings.
Millions of animals are killed for meat anyway.
If you have a pet and you aren't willing to have it cared for -- just willing to put it down when it gets sick -- then you shouldn't have the pet to begin with.
Human medical progress is much more advanced than pet medical progress.
I would only cultivate resentment for those who keep me alive, and when I finally die, will my emotional and mental health reflect those feelings? I think so.
Since when has a personal decision become "killing youself". Who has given the power to make someone live for your own emotional well-being?
You will have done me no favor!
How do we know that our dying may not propel someone else down the path or help them learn compassion thru assisting in caring for us or our families?
How are we to decide that we are not ourselves being given further opportunies to wake up?
Isn't the very desire to escape suffering a form of selfishness?
isn't the belief that we can control things just a form of grasping?
Buddhism teaches that human life and it's consciousness is an extremely rare occurrence to be treasured and used towards enlightenment.Therefore to throw it away shows a tremendous lack of gratitude and a huge display of ignorance that will effect our future incarnations.
If we truly recognize the suffering in this life a result of karma, then are we not refusing to make choices that will exhaust that karma and make better choices.
.
are you stating these medical people, such as doctors & nurses, are killing people because they are administering overdoses of morphine instead of allowing the cancer sufferer to die a natural death?
now imagine when the Buddha was alive. such medicines did not exist. the scriptures report some monks committed suicide due to their unbearable & debilitating pain
the Buddha declared their actions were blameless
:-/
This is a questionable assumption.
Pain is not suffering.
Some people suffer from chronic pain.
Does that mean they are constantly suffering?
The assumption that a dying person is suffering is also questionable.
Some people feels no pain, does that mean they never suffer?
Lets not forget that Buddha suffered from severe headaches.
In regard to your view of suffering, a dear friend of mine developed throat cancer. For months on end, until his body actually began shutting down, he was in intense, nearly constant pain.
I read it in a book. The author said its in the sutta. I cant remember the name of the sutta.
And as person who gives morphine frequently in my profession ,the administration of pain killing drugs that may cause death is not the same as euthanasia..You might as well say giving someone food that has bones is assisting death because some people choke on them.The primary purpose is to relieve pain, despite the fact that deaths occur.
it seems to me that great deal of Buddhist teaching is oriented towards learning to die and that it is viewed as a very powerful and crucial moment.Combined with the teachings that teach us to lessen attachment to our body's desires ,and the need to exhaust karma,it is hard for me to imagine it is something that would be generally acceptable.And I cannot deny that I hope for such an option should my pain be great.
Yet recently I broke a rib.Even breathing was quite painful.However I realized that at times in my life my emotional pain has been as bad or greater .Imagine a mother who loses her child-I would think her emotional pain would qualify as severe long lasting pain.Why would we consider that pain any less worthy of "mercy" than someone who has long term physical pain? but of course we wouldn't.We would talk about impermanence ,karma and the nature of life being suffering.
The Buddha also committed a kind of "suicide", albeit not in the usual way. The Buddha had the power to live longer, another twenty years, but decided to relinquish life to a natural illness rather than to prolong his life using his spiritual power.
Although the Buddha died of natural causes (rather than by his own hand), he could have lived longer. Note: The Buddha was concerned about "comfort".
The whole purpose of the Buddha's path is to 'escape' suffering. In the Pali, the word is 'nissaraṇa'. For example, when individuals go to live in the monastery, they are often accussed of being "selfish". Then when Buddha taught about giving up "self", he was accused of being a "nihilist". The baseless accusations go on & on.
Your posts say little about what enlightenment really is and, at the same time, are immersed in beliefs about reincarnation.
There is nothing wrong with believing in reincarnation but such beliefs & theories are so far from the reality of enlightenment. Therefore, your comments about enlightenment add little, if nothing, to your rationale.
Reincarnation beliefs have no relevence to enlightenment. Reincarnation beliefs serve the purpose of nurturing morality. Therefore, the questions here are exclusively moral questions (imo). By moral, that means relative to intention or motive and the moral consequences of acting out those motives.
This thread is about euthanasia. It is not about suicide for people suffering in general.
For us who are suffering from deep mental anguish & psyche pain, it is best we seek crisis counselling or even consider taking refuge & placing our trust in the Buddhist teachings. The Buddha's teachings were taught from a mind of compassion and are effective in providing the relief & solution we need.
If anything is "misleading", it is your continued accusations. I said in my previous post, the baseless accusations go on & on. We become judge, jury & executioner, accusing others of being "selfish", "ungrateful", "misleading", etc.
The Buddha did not say what you have asserted he said. Please prove it. If you cannot prove it then you have "slandered the Tathagata". The Buddha gave a number of discourses about when he is "slandered".
In recent times, there was a monk named Nanavira, who held similar superstitious views as yours. Nanavira, an Englishman, deludedly believed he was a "stream-enterer". When he contracted a serious illness in Sri Lanka (which could have been cured), he chose to commit suicide. He believed he would be reincarnated as a stream-enterer. Nanavira believed if he returned to England for medical treatment, his mind would become polluted and lose its "stream-entry". Given the mind of Nanavira was immersed in so much superstition, it is not possible it had penetrated stream-entry. Instead, the mind of Nanavira was immersed in 'self-views' about "his"incarnation, similar to how your mind is immersed in 'self-views' about "our incarnations".
What the Buddha actually said in the suttas was the monk was blameless because he ended his life without desiring or grasping at (upādiyati) another life. (MN 144)
So the monk was not blameless, but following the Buddha's rationale, it is you that is not blameless because your posts exhibit your mind grasping at another life or "incarnation".
Welcome to New Buddhist
This view is misleading. What is being referring to is only certain "Buddhist" views or sects, that have an emphasis upon & supersition about the last moment being "crucial". Please show where the Buddha himself mentioned the last moment being "crucial"? If you can, then you may possibly amend my understanding.
If I spend my whole life loving others and being charitable (but remain unenlightened) and then at the moment of death my mind thinks about my dog or my cat that I loved, this does not mean I will be reborn in an animal realm amongst cats & dogs.
Further, the "body" does not have "desires". It is the mind that "desires". What exactly are you attempting to say here?
Further, what is this "exhausting" karma being referring to. Please show where the Buddha himself described such a thing, in the manner being inferred?How exactly do you propose this karma is to be exhausted?
The Buddha taught one ends karma by ending "self-view"; by ending the view that "I myself is the recipient of karma". Yet you continue to post about "incarnation". What are you trying to impart here? You sound caught up in your job and your personal experiences. Impermanence ,karma and the nature of life being suffering? Your views are all over the place, mixing up the mundane with the ultimate; the psychological with the ontological.
When the Buddha & arahants recognised their life-cycle was over, where they could no longer function, where they would just be a burden upon others, they relinquished their life.
The headache story appears to be an often told story in Mahayana tradition to illustrate the effects of karma.
Once Buddha got a terrible headache and his students asked why. Buddha said, "In a past life I was a little boy, and they drained a pond. I went to the empty pond and started playing with a fish lying there in the drained pool, flopping it up and down and hurting it. Now that karma has matured and I’m experiencing a bad headache as a result."
The euthanasia question is complicated. Personally, i don't know what i'd do if put in the position. But possibly in some cases, yes, i'd support it.
http://www.meditationexpert.com/yoga-kung-fu/y_headaches_and_meditation.html
This is just a fairy story. Where is the link to a sutta or sutra?
There is no record of this in the Pali. When the Buddha got sick in the Pali, he reflected on the seven factors of enlightenment and never attributed sickness to old karma.
Anyway, whatever your story, this does not support what you said earlier, to quote: "Buddha suffered from severe headaches".
No point believing in reincarnation if we are just going to manufacture stories about Buddha.
:scratch:
3. Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (thus): "My good man, what use is this wretched, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life," or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in communion.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch04.html also, you did not answer the question asked of you, above