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.
I think kamma must go beyond mere intent to also include responsibility.
You seem to be implying that I don't think 'responsibility' is an important aspect of kamma. Rereading my reply, I'm not sure what I said to give you that idea, but I can assure you that that's not the case. I simply think that the concept of kamma, while quite simplistic in one sense, is actually quite complicated in another. This, I think, is one of the reasons that the precise working out of the results of kamma is one of the four unconjecturables (AN 4.77). Whatever the case, I don't think it's worth arguing about and I'll let my initial reply speak for itself.
Buddhist breaks vow with akusala to harm another. =Karma. Vowless non Buddhist with akusala to harm another =Karma. Vet whether Buddhist or not reaps the outcome of his intent.
And personally I think a Vet is one of the most noble of livelyhoods where those too weak & helpless to help themselves receive the specialized care that vets are trained to provide. Try holding the hand of someone who is dying and physically suffering in anquish and then tell them that the exit they are pleading for is bad karma. I think worrying about accruing possible bad karma and therefore not helping them is the stronger definition of akusala.
In my view, any Vet who uses compassion for their patients and the owners in their practice, and is honest in their business, has nothing to fear from karmic retribution.
How is it that so often a person who wants to be a doctor is considered a worthwhile profession but a vet is not?
And I agree, that a person cannot be held responsible for precepts/vows they have not taken and probably don't even know exists. We are all in different places. What constitutes harm to Buddhists does not even register to harm to some other people. That doesn't mean it isn't still harm, and it doesn't even mean that they aren't responsible for their actions due to ignorance. But it does mean that the rest of us cannot force them to understand things our way.
Was reading in a book today (Tibetan Book of Living and Dying) and found this. It sums up pretty well what I feel about the topic so I thought I would share:
"This has become a very complicated issue. How do we decide whether to being life-support for a person, for instance, after a serious accident? And what if the person is comatose, cannot speak or has been rendered mentally incapable because of illness/ What if it is an infant who is severely deformed and brain-damaged?
There are no easy answers to questions such as these, but there are some basic principles that might guide us. According to the teaching of Buddha, all life is sacred; all beings have buddha nature, and life offers them, as we have seen, the possibility of enlightenment. To avoid destroying life is taken as one of the first principles of human conduct. Yet Buddha also advised very strongly against dogmatism, and I believe we cannot take a fixed view, or an "official" position, or make rules about issues such as these. We can only act with whatever wisdom we have, according to each situation. And always, everything depends on our motivation and on the compassion behind it."
I do think that as humans, we wish there was just an answer. That someone we see as an authority will tell us what the right answers are to these really difficult questions. But I don't think there is meant to be an answer. That if we had all the answers, what would make life worth exploring and experiencing? If we had the answers, no doubt it would very much change the way we interact in our lives, and perhaps that is why we do not have the answers. We can only work with the situation we are in, with the information and wisdom and compassion that we have.
If being a parent has taught me one thing, it's that once you are in a situation, a lot of the ways you thought you would deal with things goes right out the window. Because you aren't just dealing with yourself, you are dealing with other beings who might not fit into your perfect puzzle. Pets fit in there, too. We have a lot of ideas about how our pets, children, grandparents, etc should live and how they should die. But they have their own ideas, too, and we have to listen to them and accept them regardless of whether they go against what we believe. And I do believe animals can, and do let us know when they want to go. I read somewhere (probably this same book) that we have to give permission to let go, to die. That the consciousness cannot leave the body without being let go. Whether a horrible accident or a death from old age, we have to give permission to die. Some of us are ready to go before others want us to, and we wait for their permission to let go. Pets do the same I think. When they are ready to go, we are only causing them harm in refusing to allow them to do so.
Of course not. It would wholesome if the vet just cures but if a vet kills, it should be unwholesome. Unwholesome to a small extent. It is not that bad, is it?
I still say it's all about his motivation, state of mind and heart when he's doing the killing. And of course, this would assume he wouldn't kill gratuitously, but only to alleviate unbearable suffering. Wouldn't it be crueler to allow the animal to struggle miserably through cancer or some other awful diseases?
Part of the key would be to maintain mindfulness. Once the killing becomes perfunctory--just part of the job, so to say, then the karmic consequences shift. A life should never be taken lightly. The precepts do allow a life to be taken, though. At least, a Mahayana interpretation of the precepts and the Bodhisattva Vow does.
Comments
Buddhist breaks vow with akusala to harm another. =Karma.
Vowless non Buddhist with akusala to harm another =Karma.
Vet whether Buddhist or not reaps the outcome of his intent.
And personally I think a Vet is one of the most noble of livelyhoods where those too weak & helpless to help themselves receive the specialized care that vets are trained to provide.
Try holding the hand of someone who is dying and physically suffering in anquish and then tell them that the exit they are pleading for is bad karma. I think worrying about accruing possible bad karma and therefore not helping them is the stronger definition of akusala.
And I agree, that a person cannot be held responsible for precepts/vows they have not taken and probably don't even know exists. We are all in different places. What constitutes harm to Buddhists does not even register to harm to some other people. That doesn't mean it isn't still harm, and it doesn't even mean that they aren't responsible for their actions due to ignorance. But it does mean that the rest of us cannot force them to understand things our way.
"This has become a very complicated issue. How do we decide whether to being life-support for a person, for instance, after a serious accident? And what if the person is comatose, cannot speak or has been rendered mentally incapable because of illness/ What if it is an infant who is severely deformed and brain-damaged?
There are no easy answers to questions such as these, but there are some basic principles that might guide us. According to the teaching of Buddha, all life is sacred; all beings have buddha nature, and life offers them, as we have seen, the possibility of enlightenment. To avoid destroying life is taken as one of the first principles of human conduct. Yet Buddha also advised very strongly against dogmatism, and I believe we cannot take a fixed view, or an "official" position, or make rules about issues such as these. We can only act with whatever wisdom we have, according to each situation. And always, everything depends on our motivation and on the compassion behind it."
I do think that as humans, we wish there was just an answer. That someone we see as an authority will tell us what the right answers are to these really difficult questions. But I don't think there is meant to be an answer. That if we had all the answers, what would make life worth exploring and experiencing? If we had the answers, no doubt it would very much change the way we interact in our lives, and perhaps that is why we do not have the answers. We can only work with the situation we are in, with the information and wisdom and compassion that we have.
If being a parent has taught me one thing, it's that once you are in a situation, a lot of the ways you thought you would deal with things goes right out the window. Because you aren't just dealing with yourself, you are dealing with other beings who might not fit into your perfect puzzle. Pets fit in there, too. We have a lot of ideas about how our pets, children, grandparents, etc should live and how they should die. But they have their own ideas, too, and we have to listen to them and accept them regardless of whether they go against what we believe. And I do believe animals can, and do let us know when they want to go. I read somewhere (probably this same book) that we have to give permission to let go, to die. That the consciousness cannot leave the body without being let go. Whether a horrible accident or a death from old age, we have to give permission to die. Some of us are ready to go before others want us to, and we wait for their permission to let go. Pets do the same I think. When they are ready to go, we are only causing them harm in refusing to allow them to do so.
Part of the key would be to maintain mindfulness. Once the killing becomes perfunctory--just part of the job, so to say, then the karmic consequences shift. A life should never be taken lightly. The precepts do allow a life to be taken, though. At least, a Mahayana interpretation of the precepts and the Bodhisattva Vow does.