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.
Spiritual self righteousness is a worldly identity disguised in Dharma speak.
It is an affliction that all practitioners should include in selfie exams from time to time.
It requires understanding the difference between adhering to the precepts
and becoming attached to ones adherence to the precepts.
For most, the latter is just a pot hole that momentarily breaks their cadence on the path but for others it can become their retirement cottage on a road to hell paved with spiritual attachments.
And we're laypeople. we do our best to adhere to the principles we hold dear.
Precisely! That I why I said on the first page when the "rat house" was first brought up: "That's their decision. It has nothing to do with any of us."
When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all. This is because this sort of unconditional promise is a powerful gift. Take, for instance, the first precept, against killing:
"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans."
— AN 8.39
If you make exceptions in your promise to yourself — trying to justify killing in cases where you feel endangered or inconvenienced by another being's existence — your gift of freedom is limited, and you lose your share in limitless freedom. Thus the gift of freedom, to be fully effective, has to be unconditional, with no room for exceptions, no matter how noble they may sound, of any kind.
...
This is why the Buddha listed virtue as one of a person's greatest treasures. Kings and thieves can steal your material belongings and even take your life, but they can't take your virtue. If it's uncompromising, your virtue protects you from any true danger from now until you reach nirvana."
I firmly believe that what AN 8.39 says is actually and literally true. Uncompromising virtue protects one from danger. When one is being protected like that, it's not possible to be devastated by personal tragedy to begin with. It's karma. It goes much deeper than "rats are cute". There is no way I would give up that holy, divine protection, just for some protection from the rain! Doing that would be like trading the hope diamond for a piece of dog poo!
But like vinlyn said, that is "for me". But what I do think is interesting is that if I said "I would just kill them" no one would have said anything...there would be no controversy and no debate if I had said "I would just kill them!". Which is really quite strange, given that this is supposed to be a Buddhist forum. But then I say "I wouldn't kill them" and people come out of the woodwork to criticize that...Can't people see this is completely backwards? Honestly!
Keep it up @seeker242 ! I have faith there are people who live the way you do.
I'm impressed you are vegan, I'm slowly moving that way! The Buddha would not kill the rats, if you say you would do the same. I truly respect you! I would listen hard to what you say if you lead by example
@seeker242 said:
But honestly, I don't understand why, on a Buddhist forum, people are criticized for saying they would keep the precepts? That makes no sense! You would think keeping the precepts would be encouraged on a Buddhist forum... Is this still even a Buddhist forum??? I don't know!!
No one has been more criticized on this forum than I because of my rule-like view of Precepts. So good luck to you on that one.
In Buddhism, there are no rules. Fine, so live with that freedom. Every time I hear someone preaching vegetarianism, I'm gonna vomit back up to them the no rules line....cause you (royal you) can't have it both ways.
Many people don't agree with the what sentience means. But hey, no rules, and I guess no definitions.
When it comes down to it, Federica hit the nail on the head with one simple sentence: "we do our best to adhere to the principles we hold dear". And everyone has slightly difference principles that they hold dear.
The precepts are very important, but don't commit, unless you know you can uphold them! It's a big ask.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@anataman Yes, asking anyone to know anything (especially knowing boldly) is a big ask, and for them a bigger task. I'm sure many people get married without knowing if they'll spend the rest of their lives together, and the rest are exercising wishful thinking. The biggest thing is... if you mess up, clean up. Then reflect and learn your mistake, so as not to make it again.
I'm not sure if this is going to make much sense... but what I find wholesome about Buddhism is the paradox of truth, where ones views on a certain subject might be in conflict with another's but they seem to be both expressing the "right" view ...Hence why we often give an insightful or awesome recognition to both views....
* The word Samma means 'proper', 'whole', 'thorough', 'integral', 'complete', and 'perfect' - related to English 'summit' - It does not necessarily mean 'right', as opposed to 'wrong'. However it is often translated as "right" which can send a less than accurate message. For instance the opposite of 'Right Awareness' is not necessarily 'Wrong Awareness'. It may simply be incomplete. Use of the word 'right' may make for a neat or consistent list of qualities in translations. The down side is that it can give the impression that the Path is a narrow and moralistic approach to the spiritual life. I use variant interpretations so you consider the depth of meanings. What do these things mean in your life right now?
Thank you all for maintaining a respectable manner, that is, not getting this thread closed (which btw I've found most helpful and interesting) ...
It's a case of humans over populating the world, we most certainly are clashing with nature.
We just don't like to share. I guess it's just the way the world is
I killed a mosquito by mistake the other day, knee jerk reaction. I did feel bad whosever I didn't intend to kill it.
The middle way can be used in relationship to everything. So instead of exterminating everything that's a threat to humans or just a possible threat. We could try live along side nature? I said try!
@chaz with that logic lets exterminate cars. Or vending machines. They are more of a threat than the dogs. And kill far more. But as humans we allow people to drive with a risk of killing innocent people. We don't mind that risk. Look at how many people in car accidents.
Guys we are all following the same path, let's walk along side each other. Nature is not outside of you. Nature made you and you made nature
@Earthninja said:
chaz with that logic lets exterminate cars. Or vending machines.
Or Tobacco!
Sure.
But vending machinesaren't Black Widow Spiders. They won't overrun your crawl space, breed into the 100's, crawl into your bed at night, bite you, and put you in the hospital for a month. Or your kid.
And the ONLY way to be rid of them is exterminate them.
Life is paradoxical. The path isn't black and white. Sometimes your karma sux and you just have to roll with it.
@vinlyn said:
When it comes down to it, Federica hit the nail on the head with one simple sentence: "we do our best to adhere to the principles we hold dear". And everyone has slightly difference principles that they hold dear.
Agreed! Which is why I think it's quite strange to see criticism of principals that the Buddha himself taught as wholesome. The only principals worthy of criticism are the ones that do harm!
@seeker242 said:
Agreed! Which is why I think it's quite strange to see criticism of principals that the Buddha himself taught as wholesome. The only principals worthy of criticism are the ones that do harm!
It may be that very strict holding of principals is a form of killing tolerance, the bigger picture, the growth of wisdom and so on.
By your own words I criticise you as a murderer of the most precious principles of dharma, the cessation of suffering in samsara.
It may simply be incomplete
That may be the case and it is why we have compassion for ignorance, rats, rat killers, infestations of mindless dogma and so on . . .
I agree that @seeker242 and @Earthninja are totally entitled to their opinion, but life would be plain sailing if we could just go about it without EVER having to compromise our precepts.
If your lives are anything like mine -chances are they are, since mine has nothing of extraordinary- you'll often find yourselves at the crossroads between what you feel you should do (or would like to do) and what you actually can do about a situation.
It's easy to judge from outside, rather harder to be the stars in the film.
In the case of the monks, I totally agree that they were in a position where they could not refuse the help they were receiving.
My criticism goes towards the people that donated the house.
You can't donate a house that is overrun with rats, as you would be a joke by donating clothes to the poor that are totally tattered and full of holes. That is false charity.
As to the damage to the environment, the adjective 'ruthless' has come up at least twice in the thread. All this transplantation of species to foreign environments is unfortunately Nature's adamantly ruthless manipulations for natural selection. At first sight it may seem contrived but since it's happening, it's one more trick of Nature to get things done her way. We don't have to like it -not that Nature bothered to ask, anyway- but that's the way it is. Whenever possible, we have to look for solutions. But dinosaurs got wiped out too and no empire lasts a thousand years.
@vinlyn I don't think my age our or country reflect my opinion. Or maybe it does. I'm 25 and live in Australia however I've spent most of my life in Africa. Does that help? Now I'm curious.
The Buddhist population of the UK at that time was tiny.
The managers of the trust scoured the UK looking for a place big enough to use as a base which was affordable..no easy task. Basically it came down to remote locations and houses in not good condition.
They looked at one in Wiltshire, several in Wales and several in Scotland...the monks were meanwhile living in rented accomodation in twos and threes and adapting to living in the west
I suspect that each of the places they looked at would have problems of some sort..because they were derelict or semi derelict..that was what the budget dictated.
They decided on the Scottish one..it was within budget. In was in a peaceful location.
The area reminded the monks of the Tibetan uplands.
It came with a problem, as almost certainly each of the other houses would have.
I invite anyone reading this to look at google images at the result of the monks decisions..
google Samye-Ling and Johnstone House ..which is the name of the original old house that still stands in the grounds of the large complex that has grown around it.
It is a place that has brought the light of Dharma to tens of thousands of people in Europe as a result of tough decisions.
The fact is that from those tough decisions enormous good has come.
More was done for Dharma than I and most of us, will achieve in several lifetimes.
The fact is the observation of the First precept is always a compromise..even for those who observe formal precepts, and remember these were Vajrayana monks for whom things are a little different anyway.
Its always a compromise because ( apart from anything else ) Nematodes..
But that's for a different thread...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well slap me about but you all know me - I have to say it:
@seeker242 said: Agreed! Which is why I think it's quite strange to see criticism of principals that the Buddha himself taught as wholesome. The only principals worthy of criticism are the ones that do harm!
>
School Head Teachers, merit criticism if however wholesome they are, they're doing a bad job. If a School pricipal is doing harm than, hell yeah! Don't criticise them - fire them!
PrincipLES however, are a completely different matter.
And it's not a question of how wholesome they are.
It is a question of how wholesome WE can be.
There is nothing wrong in what the Buddha teaches.
None of his principles do harm.
Your criticisms of others are an indication of two things:
One, you deplore and condemn the wrestlings of others in attempting to the best of their ability to do the best they can with the lot they have been dealt;
Two, your continued insistence is an indication that you believe you are right, you want to be right, you want us all to agree with you and confirm that you are right.
Well you're not, and we won't.
But hold on: That doesn't make us 'right' either.
But what it does show is that flexibility does not always make life easy.
However: being rigid is going to bring its own set of problems.
And if one does not permit a bit of flexibility to play within our lives, we're in for a painful time, when that rigidity is put under strain.
PRINCIPAL: Head of an establishment.
PRINCIPLE: Personal moral viewpoint.
I think it goes even further than that @federica, on a number of forums seeker242 has quoted with approval his teacher saying that meat eaters and homosexuals are going to hell states as a result of their meat eating and homosexuality.
And that those who disagree with this are not really Buddhists.
In other words he sees himself perhaps uniquely as the only Buddhist on the New Buddhist forum.
Hence " is this still a Buddhist forum ???? ".
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2014
@Citta said: The fact is that from those tough decisions enormous good has come.
>
For every Action there is an Equal and Opposite Reaction.
As mentioned in another thread, Gandhi's tireless and selfless dedication to bringing autonomy to India and freedom from the oppressive might of the Empire, was an heroic and valiant task which he accomplished wonderfully.
However, the devastating effect his actions had, as they spread like ripples on a pond, were almost inhuman. Many British cotton workers literally starved to death, when their trade was sharply brought to an end.
And here: The culling and elimination of so many lives,the killing and destruction of an invasive and prolific colony of wild rats was something nobody truly wanted to really do; but it resulted eventually in one of the most central, important and significant bases for Buddhism in Europe. if not the world.
There's a lesson for us all here, and it's important to really, really take it in, and take it on board: Whatever we do, for ourselves, to improve our own Kamma, and perform meritorious deeds, someone, or something, somewhere, will "Suffer" as a result.
Whatever we ponder on doing, that is "Right" for us, whatever it may be - some-thing/-one else is going to get a kick in the pants.
It's how it works. Unfailingly.
Honestly.
So be mindful: when you know that following the Buddha's words to the letter, because they are wholesome, and 'Right', is admirable, commendable and frankly, if you can 100% do it, 100% of the time, bloody miraculous, remember what your wholesome and right actions are doing, somewhere else.
@federica said:
Well slap me about but you all know me - I have to say it:
Two, your continued insistence is an indication that you believe you are right, you want to be right, you want us all to agree with you and confirm that you are right.
Of course I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu is right. Of course I think The Buddha is right. Of course I think "do not kill" is right... That is what the Buddha taught! Of course the Buddha is right.
As far as the house, like I said before...which you completely misunderstood..."That's their decision. Has nothing to do with any of us." And then I said "What I meant was how they decide to follow the precepts or not, has no bearing on how you or I decide to follow the precepts. Following or not following the precepts, in some particular manner, is one's own decision, not someone elses." How exactly does that criticize other people? I didn't even comment on their behavior...Honestly...
your continued insistence is an indication that you believe you are right
Well you're not
You are telling me that how I decide to live my life is wrong? Come on now...That's ridiculous. How I decide to live my life is none of your business. Who are you to tell me that how I live my life is wrong? Come on now...That's ridiculous.
But, if you are going to ask me what I would do, and I tell you, don't criticize it just because you don't like it. That's ridiculous... Did I even criticize the monks behavior? No, I didn't. What I said is what I would do... But you come in and say "No no!, you wouldn't do that!"...Honestly, that's ridiculous...
@Citta said:
I think it goes even further than that federica, on a number of forums seeker242 has quoted with approval his teacher saying that meat eaters and homosexuals are going to hell states as a result of their meat eating and homosexuality.
And that those who disagree with this are not really Buddhists.
In other words he sees himself perhaps uniquely as the only Buddhist on the New Buddhist forum.
Hence " is this still a Buddhist forum ???? ".
And I'm the one criticizing people? LOL, please...
Are you saying seeker242 that you have never quoted in a context that demonstrated approval Master Hsuan Hua saying that " meat eaters and homosexuals are hell bound...? "
Before you answer I should tell you that I have the references to hand......
Those that publicise such judgemental views cannot realistically expect to escape a critical examination of their own views.
Still hung up and those old and incorrect strawman arguments I see. What does that have to do with rats? Answer: Nothing...
Those that publicise such judgemental views
Sorry, I did not realize that trying to actually live Buddha's teaching is considered "such judgmental views"...
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited June 2014
I'm stepping into the middle of it, but if the Buddha said homosexuality was sinful (more sinful than heterosexuality), he was wrong. He wasn't a god or a perfect being, he was a (human) teacher of enlightenment. Bad stuff and wrong stuff gets mixed in with the good in religions, because people aren't perfect. Likely he didn't say it at all, and it was just attributed to him or interpreted incorrectly by a Buddhist lineage. Most likely it'd be a cultural attribution, like the Tibetan stance the Dalai Lama espoused, which wasn't because of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is the only one I've ever heard of that is anti-homosexuality. That is all.
@seeker242 said:
Still hung up and those old and incorrect strawman arguments I see. What does that have to do with rats? Answer: Nothing...
Sorry, I did not realize that trying to actually live Buddha's teaching is considered "such judgmental views"...
You and I both know @seeker 242 that Hsuan Hua was basing his teaching on the Surangama Sutra and that only certain highly conservative Chinese groups accept the authenticity of that 'sutra'
No Theravada school accepts it. No mainstream Mahayana school accepts it. No Vajrayana school accepts it..they all reject it as a 9th century forgery.
And whereever sentiments are found on any Buddhist forum to the effect that " homosexuality leades to hell states " that it is " always wrong to kill anything in any circumstances , no ifs or buts " and that " meat eating leads to hell states " and other absolutist statements of a similar kind, then 99% percent of the time statements attributed to the Buddha in the Surangama Sutra are at the root of it.
However the vast majority of Buddhist schools think that the Buddha had NOTHING to do with the Surangama Sutra.
@Citta said:
You and I both know that Hsuan Hua However the vast majority of Buddhist schools think that the Buddha had NOTHING to do with the Surangama Sutra.
And what exactly does that have to do with killing or not killing rats in a house? NOTHING!
Because followers of the Surangama Sutra cannot admit any situation where causing the death of any sentient being might be an unfortunate necessity.
Other Buddhist schools ( which are the vast majority ) see it as an unfortunate necessity in some clearly defined circumstances.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@seeker242 said: @federica said: your continued insistence is an indication that you believe you are right
Well you're not
>
>
You are telling me that how I decide to live my life is wrong? Come on now...That's ridiculous. How I decide to live my life is none of your business. Who are you to tell me that how I live my life is wrong? Come on now...That's ridiculous.
>
Don't you dare ever selectively quote me - or anyone else for that matter, again.
I clearly followed my statement above with the words:
But hold on: That doesn't make us 'right' either.
>
I think YOU are the one telling us that how we live our lives is wrong. All we're telling you is that we are of the opinion that such stringent, inflexible views are unskilful, and cannot always be adhered to, easily.
But, if you are going to ask me what I would do, and I tell you, don't criticize it just because you don't like it. That's ridiculous... Did I even criticize the monks behavior? No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. Through insinuation of how your actions would have been so much more thoughtful and correct, you patently sought to criticise them.
What I said is what I would do... But you come in and say "No no!, you wouldn't do that!"...Honestly, that's ridiculous...
>
No, I never said you wouldn't do that. I suggested that under severe pressure and in a real situation, I suspected you might well not be able to adhere so strongly to such ideologies....
Do not twist people's words, @seeker 242: Otherwise I may well have to call a halt to this entire discussion.
It is the subject. At least its the subject that the rest of us are discussing rather than seeing a propaganda opportunity for our particular lifestyle choice.
@federica said:
Don't you dare ever selectively quote me - or anyone else for that matter, again.
I clearly followed my statement above with the words:
You clearly said to me "you are wrong". This is not "selective quoting". It doesn't matter that you said that after it. Who are you to tell me how I live my life is wrong?
I think YOU are the one telling us that how we live our lives is wrong.
Me telling you how I would live my life = how you live your life is wrong? That's is your own personal psychological projection. That is you twisting my words. If I wanted to say how you live your life is wrong, I would say "how you live your life is wrong"...
Yes, you did. Through insinuation of how your actions would have been so much more thoughtful and correct
Like I said, that insinuation is of your own doing.
Do not twist people's words
But it's perfectly ok for people to twist my words, just like you are doing? Alright then...That sounds reasonable...Talk about a double standard...
@seeker242 I can't claim to know what you truly would or would not do in any given situation. But perhaps, neither can you. I think it's very easy to say we would do exactly this or that in any situation, but without a very heavy level of training, our biological responses still tend to take over, and when our very survival is at risk, our brains do not even function in a way that we perceive as normal. That is why people so often don't behave in ways we think are normal when really stressful situations are at hand. We see things on the news and think "geez, I would have totally reacted differently" when in fact we very well may not have because our brains just do not work in a manner we can often fully control. Living in such stressful situations as ongoing poverty affects the brain quite a lot, so you can't say that in a position of poverty with a family and being offered a free home, that you would turn it down. Because you don't know that because you don't have the brain that is making that decision. When faced with a decision such as dying or killing an attacking tiger, you think you wouldn't kill the tiger, but there is a good chance your biological responses will kick in, causing you to fight back even if your logical brain wouldn't have chosen that option.
Rats> I read an interesting article the other day about rats and how they experience regret (based on scientific study). It was interesting. More and more we find out animals are more like us than we like to believe.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2014
Yes. I saw that study.
That was focused on Lab/domesticated rats. I'm not sure the study was either comprehensive, or accurate enough to categorically include wild rats....
@seeker242, I would advise you, as Moderator, to quit this tit-for-tat arguing, and just accept that however 'right' you believe yourself to be, what happened, happened.
Others also have a Right to think and act as they see fit, and neither you nor anyone else has the right to condemn them outright. Here and/or elsewhere.
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you choose to make intractable statements.
@Citta: We need to knock this line of argument and discussion on the head.
I think this is quite enough.
@Earthninja said:
vinlyn I don't think my age our or country reflect my opinion. Or maybe it does. I'm 25 and live in Australia however I've spent most of my life in Africa. Does that help? Now I'm curious.
About?
In re you, the age was predictable. I was wrong completely on the location(s). Interesting that you live in Africa! Didn't expect that at all. It's very interesting and I admire you for that and stepping out of your comfort zone.
@federica said:
Well slap me about but you all know me - I have to say it:
School Head Teachers, merit criticism if however wholesome they are, they're doing a >bad job. If a School principal is doing harm than, hell yeah! Don't criticize them - fire >them!
Well, now you've hit a sore spot with me, and not just because I was a principal.
What is this gripping compulsion westerners have nowadays to fire everyone? Of course, if someone does something totally egregious, that may require firing them virtually on the spot.
Otherwise, they should be counseled, offered a period to improve, resources to improve, and if they can't, then fire them.
@seeker242 said:
Still hung up and those old and incorrect strawman arguments I see. What does that have to do with rats? Answer: Nothing...
I shudder to think the number of times on this forum you have resorted to the strawman defense. Frankly, my suggestion is to stop debating on how to debate and debate the content.
@seeker242 said:
Not exactly, It's just changing the subject so you can score rhetorical points.
Again, please stop debating how to debate. Debate the content.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@vinlyn said:What is this gripping compulsion westerners have nowadays to fire everyone? Of course, if someone does something totally egregious, that may require firing them virtually on the spot.
>
Otherwise, they should be counseled, offered a period to improve, resources to improve, and if they can't, then fire them.
Well naturally, I was merely covering the problem with a summary...
There is obviously a proper procedure to follow, and certainly, any member of staff, at whatever level, merits being represented, and they deserve to have the fairest treatment possible.
Of course, this safeguards both sides.
You're quite right; knee-jerk responses to perceived ineptitude are in themselves, unprofessional, and should be avoided at all costs.
seeker242, I would advise you, as Moderator, to quit this tit-for-tat arguing, and just accept that however 'right' you believe yourself to be, what happened, happened.
Others also have a Right to think and act as they see fit, and neither you nor anyone else has the right to condemn them outright. Here and/or elsewhere.
My comments from the first page:
"What I meant was how they decide to follow the precepts or not, has no bearing on how you or I decide to follow the precepts. Following or not following the precepts, in some particular manner, is one's own decision, not someone elses."
It seems to me like people just ignored that part...Why is that?
@vinlyn said:
Again, please stop debating how to debate. Debate the content.
Debating a red herring is not how you debate! A person who knows how to debate does not allow the subject to be changed! Addressing faulty arguments, is itself, proper debate tactic. This is learned in debate 101.
@seeker242 said:
Debating a red herring is not how you debate! A person who knows how to debate does not allow the subject to be changed! Addressing faulty arguments, is itself, proper debate tactic. This is learned in debate 101.
You just did it again. The topic is not debate. It is a Buddhist-related subject. And most of us are pretty much sticking to that, with a minor detail here and there.
Comments
Hmmm
Spiritual self righteousness is a worldly identity disguised in Dharma speak.
It is an affliction that all practitioners should include in selfie exams from time to time.
It requires understanding the difference between adhering to the precepts
and becoming attached to ones adherence to the precepts.
For most, the latter is just a pot hole that momentarily breaks their cadence on the path but for others it can become their retirement cottage on a road to hell paved with spiritual attachments.
Precisely! That I why I said on the first page when the "rat house" was first brought up: "That's their decision. It has nothing to do with any of us."
Although, I do agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu when he talks about lay precepts. This is from an essay he wrote called "Getting the Message". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html
I firmly believe that what AN 8.39 says is actually and literally true. Uncompromising virtue protects one from danger. When one is being protected like that, it's not possible to be devastated by personal tragedy to begin with. It's karma.
It goes much deeper than "rats are cute". 
There is no way I would give up that holy, divine protection, just for some protection from the rain! Doing that would be like trading the hope diamond for a piece of dog poo!
But like vinlyn said, that is "for me". But what I do think is interesting is that if I said "I would just kill them" no one would have said anything...there would be no controversy and no debate if I had said "I would just kill them!". Which is really quite strange, given that this is supposed to be a Buddhist forum. But then I say "I wouldn't kill them" and people come out of the woodwork to criticize that...Can't people see this is completely backwards? Honestly!
Keep it up @seeker242 ! I have faith there are people who live the way you do.
I'm impressed you are vegan, I'm slowly moving that way! The Buddha would not kill the rats, if you say you would do the same. I truly respect you! I would listen hard to what you say if you lead by example
No one has been more criticized on this forum than I because of my rule-like view of Precepts. So good luck to you on that one.
In Buddhism, there are no rules. Fine, so live with that freedom. Every time I hear someone preaching vegetarianism, I'm gonna vomit back up to them the no rules line....cause you (royal you) can't have it both ways.
Many people don't agree with the what sentience means. But hey, no rules, and I guess no definitions.
When it comes down to it, Federica hit the nail on the head with one simple sentence: "we do our best to adhere to the principles we hold dear". And everyone has slightly difference principles that they hold dear.
The precepts are very important, but don't commit, unless you know you can uphold them! It's a big ask.
@anataman Yes, asking anyone to know anything (especially knowing boldly) is a big ask, and for them a bigger task. I'm sure many people get married without knowing if they'll spend the rest of their lives together, and the rest are exercising wishful thinking.
The biggest thing is... if you mess up, clean up. Then reflect and learn your mistake, so as not to make it again.
Kia Ora,
I'm not sure if this is going to make much sense... but what I find wholesome about Buddhism is the paradox of truth, where ones views on a certain subject might be in conflict with another's but they seem to be both expressing the "right" view ...Hence why we often give an insightful or awesome recognition to both views....
This according to John Allen : http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/8foldpath.htm
* The word Samma means 'proper', 'whole', 'thorough', 'integral', 'complete', and 'perfect' - related to English 'summit' - It does not necessarily mean 'right', as opposed to 'wrong'. However it is often translated as "right" which can send a less than accurate message. For instance the opposite of 'Right Awareness' is not necessarily 'Wrong Awareness'. It may simply be incomplete. Use of the word 'right' may make for a neat or consistent list of qualities in translations. The down side is that it can give the impression that the Path is a narrow and moralistic approach to the spiritual life. I use variant interpretations so you consider the depth of meanings. What do these things mean in your life right now?
Thank you all for maintaining a respectable manner, that is, not getting this thread closed (which btw I've found most helpful and interesting) ...
Metta Shoshin
edited into oblivion
It's a case of humans over populating the world, we most certainly are clashing with nature.
We just don't like to share. I guess it's just the way the world is
I killed a mosquito by mistake the other day, knee jerk reaction. I did feel bad whosever I didn't intend to kill it.
The middle way can be used in relationship to everything. So instead of exterminating everything that's a threat to humans or just a possible threat. We could try live along side nature? I said try!
@chaz with that logic lets exterminate cars. Or vending machines. They are more of a threat than the dogs. And kill far more. But as humans we allow people to drive with a risk of killing innocent people. We don't mind that risk. Look at how many people in car accidents.
Guys we are all following the same path, let's walk along side each other. Nature is not outside of you. Nature made you and you made nature
Or Tobacco!
Sure.
But vending machinesaren't Black Widow Spiders. They won't overrun your crawl space, breed into the 100's, crawl into your bed at night, bite you, and put you in the hospital for a month. Or your kid.
And the ONLY way to be rid of them is exterminate them.
Life is paradoxical. The path isn't black and white. Sometimes your karma sux and you just have to roll with it.
Earthninja, I'm just curious -- and feel free not to answer, if you wish --
how old are you and where do you live?
Agreed! Which is why I think it's quite strange to see criticism of principals that the Buddha himself taught as wholesome. The only principals worthy of criticism are the ones that do harm!
It may be that very strict holding of principals is a form of killing tolerance, the bigger picture, the growth of wisdom and so on.
By your own words I criticise you as a murderer of the most precious principles of dharma, the cessation of suffering in samsara.
That may be the case and it is why we have compassion for ignorance, rats, rat killers, infestations of mindless dogma and so on . . .
OM YA HA HUM
@vinlyn I'm happy to answer but why do you want to know?
Just trying to figure out where you're coming from.
I agree that @seeker242 and @Earthninja are totally entitled to their opinion, but life would be plain sailing if we could just go about it without EVER having to compromise our precepts.
If your lives are anything like mine -chances are they are, since mine has nothing of extraordinary- you'll often find yourselves at the crossroads between what you feel you should do (or would like to do) and what you actually can do about a situation.
It's easy to judge from outside, rather harder to be the stars in the film.
In the case of the monks, I totally agree that they were in a position where they could not refuse the help they were receiving.
My criticism goes towards the people that donated the house.
You can't donate a house that is overrun with rats, as you would be a joke by donating clothes to the poor that are totally tattered and full of holes. That is false charity.
As to the damage to the environment, the adjective 'ruthless' has come up at least twice in the thread. All this transplantation of species to foreign environments is unfortunately Nature's adamantly ruthless manipulations for natural selection. At first sight it may seem contrived but since it's happening, it's one more trick of Nature to get things done her way. We don't have to like it -not that Nature bothered to ask, anyway- but that's the way it is. Whenever possible, we have to look for solutions. But dinosaurs got wiped out too and no empire lasts a thousand years.
@vinlyn I don't think my age our or country reflect my opinion. Or maybe it does. I'm 25 and live in Australia however I've spent most of my life in Africa. Does that help? Now I'm curious.
@dharmamom great post.
The house wasn't donated @dharmamom.
I was obviously unclear.
A trust was set up which raised donations.
The Buddhist population of the UK at that time was tiny.
The managers of the trust scoured the UK looking for a place big enough to use as a base which was affordable..no easy task. Basically it came down to remote locations and houses in not good condition.
They looked at one in Wiltshire, several in Wales and several in Scotland...the monks were meanwhile living in rented accomodation in twos and threes and adapting to living in the west
I suspect that each of the places they looked at would have problems of some sort..because they were derelict or semi derelict..that was what the budget dictated.
They decided on the Scottish one..it was within budget. In was in a peaceful location.
The area reminded the monks of the Tibetan uplands.
It came with a problem, as almost certainly each of the other houses would have.
I invite anyone reading this to look at google images at the result of the monks decisions..
google Samye-Ling and Johnstone House ..which is the name of the original old house that still stands in the grounds of the large complex that has grown around it.
It is a place that has brought the light of Dharma to tens of thousands of people in Europe as a result of tough decisions.
The fact is that from those tough decisions enormous good has come.
More was done for Dharma than I and most of us, will achieve in several lifetimes.
It's a gorgeous place indeed...
http://www.samyeling.org/
The fact is the observation of the First precept is always a compromise..even for those who observe formal precepts, and remember these were Vajrayana monks for whom things are a little different anyway.
Its always a compromise because ( apart from anything else ) Nematodes..
But that's for a different thread...
Well slap me about but you all know me - I have to say it:
>
School Head Teachers, merit criticism if however wholesome they are, they're doing a bad job. If a School pricipal is doing harm than, hell yeah! Don't criticise them - fire them!
PrincipLES however, are a completely different matter.
And it's not a question of how wholesome they are.
It is a question of how wholesome WE can be.
There is nothing wrong in what the Buddha teaches.
None of his principles do harm.
Your criticisms of others are an indication of two things:
One, you deplore and condemn the wrestlings of others in attempting to the best of their ability to do the best they can with the lot they have been dealt;
Two, your continued insistence is an indication that you believe you are right, you want to be right, you want us all to agree with you and confirm that you are right.
Well you're not, and we won't.
But hold on: That doesn't make us 'right' either.
But what it does show is that flexibility does not always make life easy.
However: being rigid is going to bring its own set of problems.
And if one does not permit a bit of flexibility to play within our lives, we're in for a painful time, when that rigidity is put under strain.
PRINCIPAL: Head of an establishment.
PRINCIPLE: Personal moral viewpoint.
I think it goes even further than that @federica, on a number of forums seeker242 has quoted with approval his teacher saying that meat eaters and homosexuals are going to hell states as a result of their meat eating and homosexuality.
And that those who disagree with this are not really Buddhists.
In other words he sees himself perhaps uniquely as the only Buddhist on the New Buddhist forum.
Hence " is this still a Buddhist forum ???? ".
>
For every Action there is an Equal and Opposite Reaction.
As mentioned in another thread, Gandhi's tireless and selfless dedication to bringing autonomy to India and freedom from the oppressive might of the Empire, was an heroic and valiant task which he accomplished wonderfully.
However, the devastating effect his actions had, as they spread like ripples on a pond, were almost inhuman. Many British cotton workers literally starved to death, when their trade was sharply brought to an end.
And here: The culling and elimination of so many lives,the killing and destruction of an invasive and prolific colony of wild rats was something nobody truly wanted to really do; but it resulted eventually in one of the most central, important and significant bases for Buddhism in Europe. if not the world.
There's a lesson for us all here, and it's important to really, really take it in, and take it on board:
Whatever we do, for ourselves, to improve our own Kamma, and perform meritorious deeds, someone, or something, somewhere, will "Suffer" as a result.
Whatever we ponder on doing, that is "Right" for us, whatever it may be - some-thing/-one else is going to get a kick in the pants.
It's how it works. Unfailingly.
Honestly.
So be mindful: when you know that following the Buddha's words to the letter, because they are wholesome, and 'Right', is admirable, commendable and frankly, if you can 100% do it, 100% of the time, bloody miraculous, remember what your wholesome and right actions are doing, somewhere else.
Having the equal and opposite effect.
Of course I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu is right. Of course I think The Buddha is right. Of course I think "do not kill" is right... That is what the Buddha taught! Of course the Buddha is right.
As far as the house, like I said before...which you completely misunderstood..."That's their decision. Has nothing to do with any of us." And then I said "What I meant was how they decide to follow the precepts or not, has no bearing on how you or I decide to follow the precepts. Following or not following the precepts, in some particular manner, is one's own decision, not someone elses." How exactly does that criticize other people? I didn't even comment on their behavior...Honestly...
You are telling me that how I decide to live my life is wrong? Come on now...That's ridiculous. How I decide to live my life is none of your business. Who are you to tell me that how I live my life is wrong? Come on now...That's ridiculous.
But, if you are going to ask me what I would do, and I tell you, don't criticize it just because you don't like it. That's ridiculous... Did I even criticize the monks behavior? No, I didn't. What I said is what I would do... But you come in and say "No no!, you wouldn't do that!"...Honestly, that's ridiculous...
And I'm the one criticizing people? LOL, please...
Are you saying seeker242 that you have never quoted in a context that demonstrated approval Master Hsuan Hua saying that " meat eaters and homosexuals are hell bound...? "
Before you answer I should tell you that I have the references to hand......
Those that publicise such judgemental views cannot realistically expect to escape a critical examination of their own views.
Meat eaters are hell bound?! @Citta please don't tell me those worm friends of yours are classed as meat.
Our vegan friends fail to acknowledge that their every meal contains living animals..
When faced with the facts they usually change the subject.
A favourite tactic is to say that the other person is simply ' arguing for the sake of it..'
Which leaves them free to not respond to factual debate.
Still hung up and those old and incorrect strawman arguments I see. What does that have to do with rats? Answer: Nothing...
Sorry, I did not realize that trying to actually live Buddha's teaching is considered "such judgmental views"...
I'm stepping into the middle of it, but if the Buddha said homosexuality was sinful (more sinful than heterosexuality), he was wrong. He wasn't a god or a perfect being, he was a (human) teacher of enlightenment. Bad stuff and wrong stuff gets mixed in with the good in religions, because people aren't perfect. Likely he didn't say it at all, and it was just attributed to him or interpreted incorrectly by a Buddhist lineage. Most likely it'd be a cultural attribution, like the Tibetan stance the Dalai Lama espoused, which wasn't because of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is the only one I've ever heard of that is anti-homosexuality. That is all.
You and I both know @seeker 242 that Hsuan Hua was basing his teaching on the Surangama Sutra and that only certain highly conservative Chinese groups accept the authenticity of that 'sutra'
No Theravada school accepts it. No mainstream Mahayana school accepts it. No Vajrayana school accepts it..they all reject it as a 9th century forgery.
And whereever sentiments are found on any Buddhist forum to the effect that " homosexuality leades to hell states " that it is " always wrong to kill anything in any circumstances , no ifs or buts " and that " meat eating leads to hell states " and other absolutist statements of a similar kind, then 99% percent of the time statements attributed to the Buddha in the Surangama Sutra are at the root of it.
However the vast majority of Buddhist schools think that the Buddha had NOTHING to do with the Surangama Sutra.
Check it out.
And what exactly does that have to do with killing or not killing rats in a house? NOTHING!
It has everything to do with it.
Because followers of the Surangama Sutra cannot admit any situation where causing the death of any sentient being might be an unfortunate necessity.
Other Buddhist schools ( which are the vast majority ) see it as an unfortunate necessity in some clearly defined circumstances.
Well you're not
>
>
>
Don't you dare ever selectively quote me - or anyone else for that matter, again.
I clearly followed my statement above with the words:
>
I think YOU are the one telling us that how we live our lives is wrong. All we're telling you is that we are of the opinion that such stringent, inflexible views are unskilful, and cannot always be adhered to, easily.
Yes, you did. Through insinuation of how your actions would have been so much more thoughtful and correct, you patently sought to criticise them.
>
No, I never said you wouldn't do that. I suggested that under severe pressure and in a real situation, I suspected you might well not be able to adhere so strongly to such ideologies....
Do not twist people's words, @seeker 242: Otherwise I may well have to call a halt to this entire discussion.
Not exactly, It's just changing the subject so you can score rhetorical points.
It is the subject. At least its the subject that the rest of us are discussing rather than seeing a propaganda opportunity for our particular lifestyle choice.
Bump.
I clearly followed my statement above with the words:
You clearly said to me "you are wrong". This is not "selective quoting". It doesn't matter that you said that after it. Who are you to tell me how I live my life is wrong?
Me telling you how I would live my life = how you live your life is wrong? That's is your own personal psychological projection. That is you twisting my words. If I wanted to say how you live your life is wrong, I would say "how you live your life is wrong"...
Like I said, that insinuation is of your own doing.
But it's perfectly ok for people to twist my words, just like you are doing? Alright then...That sounds reasonable...Talk about a double standard...
If only we could do a video chat, we could sort this matter out quickly. I think a lot of these debates are due to misunderstandings.
I know my own clumsy mobile phone way with words has caused some people to misunderstand me. I then have to follow up with a long clarification.
Maybe agree to disagree?
well I'm off to meditate clumsily! Enjoy your night guys !
@seeker242 I can't claim to know what you truly would or would not do in any given situation. But perhaps, neither can you. I think it's very easy to say we would do exactly this or that in any situation, but without a very heavy level of training, our biological responses still tend to take over, and when our very survival is at risk, our brains do not even function in a way that we perceive as normal. That is why people so often don't behave in ways we think are normal when really stressful situations are at hand. We see things on the news and think "geez, I would have totally reacted differently" when in fact we very well may not have because our brains just do not work in a manner we can often fully control. Living in such stressful situations as ongoing poverty affects the brain quite a lot, so you can't say that in a position of poverty with a family and being offered a free home, that you would turn it down. Because you don't know that because you don't have the brain that is making that decision. When faced with a decision such as dying or killing an attacking tiger, you think you wouldn't kill the tiger, but there is a good chance your biological responses will kick in, causing you to fight back even if your logical brain wouldn't have chosen that option.
Rats> I read an interesting article the other day about rats and how they experience regret (based on scientific study). It was interesting. More and more we find out animals are more like us than we like to believe.
Yes. I saw that study.
That was focused on Lab/domesticated rats. I'm not sure the study was either comprehensive, or accurate enough to categorically include wild rats....
@seeker242, I would advise you, as Moderator, to quit this tit-for-tat arguing, and just accept that however 'right' you believe yourself to be, what happened, happened.
Others also have a Right to think and act as they see fit, and neither you nor anyone else has the right to condemn them outright. Here and/or elsewhere.
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you choose to make intractable statements.
@Citta: We need to knock this line of argument and discussion on the head.
I think this is quite enough.
About?
In re you, the age was predictable. I was wrong completely on the location(s). Interesting that you live in Africa! Didn't expect that at all. It's very interesting and I admire you for that and stepping out of your comfort zone.
Well, now you've hit a sore spot with me, and not just because I was a principal.
What is this gripping compulsion westerners have nowadays to fire everyone? Of course, if someone does something totally egregious, that may require firing them virtually on the spot.
Otherwise, they should be counseled, offered a period to improve, resources to improve, and if they can't, then fire them.
I shudder to think the number of times on this forum you have resorted to the strawman defense. Frankly, my suggestion is to stop debating on how to debate and debate the content.
Again, please stop debating how to debate. Debate the content.
>
Otherwise, they should be counseled, offered a period to improve, resources to improve, and if they can't, then fire them.
Well naturally, I was merely covering the problem with a summary...
There is obviously a proper procedure to follow, and certainly, any member of staff, at whatever level, merits being represented, and they deserve to have the fairest treatment possible.
Of course, this safeguards both sides.
You're quite right; knee-jerk responses to perceived ineptitude are in themselves, unprofessional, and should be avoided at all costs.
My comments from the first page:
"What I meant was how they decide to follow the precepts or not, has no bearing on how you or I decide to follow the precepts. Following or not following the precepts, in some particular manner, is one's own decision, not someone elses."
It seems to me like people just ignored that part...Why is that?
Debating a red herring is not how you debate! A person who knows how to debate does not allow the subject to be changed! Addressing faulty arguments, is itself, proper debate tactic. This is learned in debate 101.
You just did it again. The topic is not debate. It is a Buddhist-related subject. And most of us are pretty much sticking to that, with a minor detail here and there.
And some old chan masters views about homosexuality...have nothing whatsoever to do with rats...Stick to the topic if you want to debate it.
>
It seems to me like you're doing the same to my Moderator recommendation.
Why is that?
Why is that?
I have a tendency to respond to people who address me. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.