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.
need help
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hi 41bullets,
FIRST SOME HISTORY -
I try as much as possible to avoid KILLING and causing SUFFERING to all sentient beigns, without exception. I even do not consume milk or dairy products to spare the suffering of the dairy cows.. let alone eat meat. These are things I can easily incorporate into my lifestyle, without inconveniencing my non-buddhist family.
BUT -
When termites attacked the wookwork of my house, I applied poison to get rid of the termites and so protect my house. What I have done here is INTENTIONAL killing. I could'nt let the termites take over my house and make my family vacate the premises. Nor do I want someone else to do the killing and inherit the "bad kamma".
I de-worm my dog - again, intentionally killing the worms.
I kill flies INTENTIONALLY and quite often (.. live in a large apartheid-era township.. lots of flies). I can't let these flies to multiply in number and cause disease (and maybe death) to people. There is no humane way of getting rid of flies either.
THEREFORE -
I can quite understand you taking on the job to support your family rather that let them suffer because of your personal religious views. The thing gets even more complicated if your family are not buddhists.
Remember: Oftentimes, it is quite hopeless to look for guidance to persons with rigid views.
With kind regards.
I appreciate that extreme situations such as preventing death may lead to killing.
By all means be flexible in your own code of behaviour.
However, Buddha is not around to be asked if it is OK for you to be flexible with his.
He already knew flexibility was required, which is why the Buddha never issued a rigid code of behaviour to laypeople.
only to monks.
Hmm. I'll leave aside Pratimoksha and Bodhisattva vows, which are rigid codes the OP has not mentioned, but what makes you think the 8FP is open to behaviour which is in contravention of them?
You are claiming above to know what Buddha knew and intended. That's a neat trick.
Where does Buddha specifically teach that the 8FP may be abandoned or amended to suit our samsaric wants if they prove inconvenient?
Buddha's words, as we normally have them translated are:
''There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood.''
Buddha did not in this case need to discriminate between lay and ordained disciples. I can't see many monks at the time working in a slaughterhouse or the slave trade.
As I say, there is no need for fudge and obfuscation.
Why can't a person just admit that he/she cannot manage to abide by the 8FP (or the precepts) at the moment, and possibly seek to return to them in the future.
You don't need to find some sort of flexibility, loophole or permission to be excused from them. Just be honest about it. No harm in that, surely.
Palzang
No fingers pointing, even at the moon!
I am condemning nobody and you will find no post where I am, so please don't ruin your point with exaggeration and over-simplification and unnecessary advice about anger.
As I say, if we abandon something, we abandon it. And with good intention we may resume it.
My point was that there is no need to look for flexibility in the 8FP, just honesty in 'falling off the waggon' if you like, rather than pretending that we knew Buddha meant us to tweak the meaning to suit our dilemmas.
If you know the mind of the Buddha at the time of writing and can find scriptural sources to show that he didn't mean what he wrote in the 8FP then please provide it. I've asked several others on this thread and only received personal criticism for being honest about the doctrine I've read.
So far, I've seen nothing in the scriptures refuting Buddha's teachings on the 8FP. I don't mind who does it, but somebody please provide a quote wherein the Buddha specifically states that the 8FP is flexible; that he did not mean what we now have as his teachings.
Unlike the picture some here are seeking to portray of me in monochrome, I'm very open to learning from the Buddhadharma - and will easily change my mind if there is some evidence which clearly steers that way.
And, keeping to the topic, the OP may be delighted for scritpure which allows him to feel better about his actions in the context of Buddhism.
Palzang
If I may put my two cents in, I find this to be a perfectly reasonable position for a Buddhist to take, and I fail to see the problem with it. I certainly don't think it's as inflexible or dogmatic as some are making it out to be. Everyone's mileage may vary, of course.
You're dodging the issue. Lots of people here have said that the 8FP was intended to be flexible - read back: ''It is a guide to living a better, happier life, not something written in stone.'' (quote Palzang).
You have an opinion that flexibility exists in the 8FP, however this time you dress it up as 'adjusted to meet the demands' - in other words it is permitted to follow it as one wishes. I see no difference here.
I have asked for a source from Buddha to prove the assertion that such flexibility was intended with direct reference to the 8FP. I've provided quotes to back up what the 8FP states on the issue of Right Livelihood. It's not rocket science. Over to you to provide a refutation backed by scriptural reference (see thread 'How to Disagree').
If, however, we accept that the 8FP is not able to flex to meet our wishes, we can simply own up to having decided to abandon all or part of it, and to try to adhere to the 8FP in future. There's no God waving damnation for this, so what's the problem? Don't seek to change the Buddhadharma, seek to change yourself.
I know based on my reason and experience that the approach I outlined to the OP is an approach which ends suffering. You may know the same thing about what you told him; that's fine.
The Precepts are NOT divine commandments BUT Training rules [sikkhapadam] that we voluntarily undertake to keep to our best abilty [samadiyami].
First Precept: not to kill living beings.
The negative phrasing of the precepts is noteworthy. ["Thou shalt not" is fundamental religious terminology, as religions make a strong case that society cannot tolerate certain behavior if it is to function well and nurture the good life for its members .]
The First Precept also lends itself to a positive reading, the development of Metta-Karuna [Loving Kindness], the positive interpretation of the First Precept which encourages love, compassion and kindness to all living beings. Buddhism teaches the interdependence of all living things, there must not be callous disregard for animal life or human beings.
As Buddhists, we must understand WHY we want to keep the Precepts and do it VOLUNTARILY rather than being dictated to by an external force threatening fire and birmstone to those who disobey or lapse. The aim of the Buddha Dhamma is to enable us to evolve to be BETTER and Wiser people, to do that the change must come from WITHIN and with Insight. We keep the Precepts because we want to, not because we are ordered to.
The Buddha taught three criteria for making moral judgments.
The first is to act towards others the way we would like them to act towards us.
In the Bahitika Sutta, Ananda is asked how to distinguish between praiseworthy and blameworthy behaviour.
He answers that any behaviour which causes harm to oneself and others could be called blameworthy while any behaviour that causes no harm (and which helps) oneself and others could be called praiseworthy.
Behaviour can be considered good or bad according to the consequences or effects it has and whether or not it helps us to attain our ultimate goal of Nibbana.
When asked how after his death it would be possible to know what was and was not his authentic teaching, the Buddha replied: "The doctrines of which you can say: 'These doctrines lead to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming, higher knowledge, awakening and to Nibbana' - you can be certain that they are Dhamma, they are discipline, they are the words of the Teacher."
This utilitarian attitude to ethics is highlighted by the fact that the Buddha uses the term kusala to mean 'skillful' or 'appropriate' or its opposite, akusala, when evaluating behaviour .
The other thing that is important in evaluating behaviour is intention (cetana). If a deed is motivated by good (based upon generosity, love and understanding) intentions it can be considered skillful. Evaluating ethical behaviour in Buddhism requires more than obediently following commandments, it requires that we develop a sympathy with others, that we be aware of our thoughts, speech and actions, and that we be clear about our goals and aspirations .
Yes, these general points are OK as far as it goes, but we are not discussing the precepts per se.
The discussion so far has been aboiut the 8FP and Right Livelihood. The Buddha's words on it are clear. Do you have a direct quote from Buddha which directly refutes what has been quoted from his teachings about Right Livelihood?
It is one thing for us to strive, with good intention to live according to Buddha's teachings, and to fall short due to our human weaknesses and conditions. We do our best. It is quite another thing to seek to 'rewrite' the teachings as flexible and to assume that we know that Buddha intended us to treat them as such. I can find no words other than the clearest teaching not to earn a living through killing and poisoning.
We agree that there is no fire and brimstone awaiting 'sinners' so why can't people just own up to their failure to meet the 8FP (and precepts too, if you like) instead of seeking to find an escape clause. It's easy - yesterday I lied to someone, so I failed to keep my lay vows and my adherence to the 8FP. Today I regret this and will strive to do better - rather than wriggle around assuming I know Buddha didn't really mean what he said. Can't see why that is a problem if we are compassionate, but seeking to escape from our responsibility by obfuscation and invention is just self-cherishing and ultimately negative.
The Buddha was well aware of human frailties. Being pragmatic he did not give us the 5 commandments. They are precepts.
One could of course debate if the job of killing pests and vermins to put food on the table for one's family is considered "trifle". Sometimes there are no choices available. When circumstances are better he should quit asap and find a more wholesome job.
Sometimes the choices are very difficult, but they are always there.
At the extreme there is the choice to kill to stay alive, or to die.
Some of the vows include phrases such as 'even at the cost of my life' but I think few would take that option these days, if they ever did.
Yes, I think we are all agreed that giving up such a livelihood asap is best for a Buddhist, it's really a discussion about how soon that should be, and that's down to how seriously one regards the issue and the balance of family welfare against the death of other beings.
It's a decision I've had to make myself, and thankfully will never have to do so again, but ironically it had as much to do with vegetarian principles as Buddhist ones.
You're acting as if the OP is just willy-nilly choosing what precepts to follow and simply disregarding the ones he doesn't like. And you're acting as if others here are supporting such behavior. The Noble Eightfold Path isn't a set of commandments to be followed rigidly, without question. They're teachings. We strive to live them as best we can but sometimes the harsh realities of life brings us into conflict with these teachings. That's Samsara. The OP has already stated that this isn't his idea job and that he aims to get another as soon as he can. The economy is in the toilet right now so he may well have no other options available to him. The OP is faced with a situation that results in suffering to other beings no matter which option he chooses. If he continues his line of work than these pests suffer. If he quits than he and his family suffer and possibly other people are burded with taking care of them. I do not believe for one second that the Buddha would advise him to place the well being of termites, roaches or rats above that of his children.
Why do you continue to speak of vows when there is no indication that the OP has made such vows?
The laws of karma do not follow dogma but follow psychological reality or natural law.
The precept is a training rule to be used with wisdom. For example, if a robber enters my home and will murder my family, it is not 'killing' if I take the robber's life. It is 'protection'. If having a child will endanger a woman's life, it is not 'killing' to terminate that pregnancy. It is protecting the woman's life.
The Dhamma is known via insight. For example, the 3rd precept of sexual misconduct. The suttas say (DN 31) it is the duty of a parent to arrange the marriage of their children. The suttas also say sexual misconduct is the have sexual relations with a person in the care of their parents. The teaching on sexual misconduct lists what to refrain from. It is an extensive list.
But when we read it today, in a different culture, where parents do not arrange the marriage of their children, we think we can have sex with anyone as long as they are not on the Buddha's list, even though our sexual behaviour may lead to harming ourself & others.
So, because of a variation in the interpretation of the suttas, and a change of social customs and cultural attitudes, reflection upon the consequences is necessary... and consideration of the far-reaching permutations of those actions, even if no direct intention is immediately evident....
Not arguing...just discussion to clarify.....
In defending the family, which is the primary intention, we strike out, knowing the result of our action could cost the intruder his life.
in saving the life of the mother, which is the primary intention, we know we are taking the life of an unborn child.
In both cases, the primary intention is valid and we hope, sound, but we know the actions designed to fulfil this intention are in and of themselves, unskillful.
I have absolutely not a ruddy clue what you're saying here.
Which would be...which one?
I don't believe so. A phobia is a psychological condition, and as such, not open to normal logic. therefore the person's intentions are distorted by their suffering from a mental condition..
But I am of the opinion that knowing such a consequence exists, and not finding an alternative solution, still garners a Kammic consequence.
but he obviously does, or he wouldn't have asked the question. Would he....?
Interesting interpretation. On the surface, it makes a lot of sense, but I find it a bit problematic upon deeper inspection. What you're talking about isn't just about intention, it's also about perception.
Lets take the example of a robber. Even though one gives the act of killing the label "protection," the intent to take the robber's life is still present, regardless of how it's framed or the underlying motivation behind the act itself. Taking this to its logical conclusion, we could say that Islamic honour killing, for example, isn't really killing either, it's "protecting" the family's honour.
Using the same logic, it'd also be considered morally acceptable and not a breach of the first precept to drop bombs on a village because one is only "delivering" the bombs to their intended location. But let's be honest, even though the person dropping the bombs only intends to "deliver" their payload, they know full well that the bombs will take the life of anyone who's in the village. The same applies to pest control as well.
Perhaps you have more insight into this than I do, but I have a hard time seeing how the intentional taking of life is somehow made morally blameless simply shifting our perception from "killing" to something else. Either way, it still seems to go against the principle of ahimsa.
good.
Glad I wasn't the only one...........
This seems like a very dangerous slippery slope to me. Where do we draw the line? Would there be less risk of kammic consequence, for example, if we don't relate to people as sentient beings (e.g., eugenicists who euthanized people they considered less than sentient, feebleminded, etc.)?
I mean, I suppose it's possible since kamma is basically psychological in nature, and a person's perceptions and overall mental state must be taken into consideration, but I find it a frightening thought that the kammic consequences of killing could be so easily circumvented.
Knowing that through meritorious deeds, you can overcome negative accrued kamma, but that through non-meritorious deeds, you accumulate more negative kamma, thereby prolonging your circulation in Samsara.
To a lesser degree, often people who spend their days working in factories slaughtering chickens or animals have some derangement of mind (but not as great as those who return from war or who murder people). This is because chickens are cute and loveable and there is alot of blood being shed. In short, there is more natural empathy towards chickens than insects.
The law of karma follows natural law or psychology.
We have all killed insects and do not suffer from great effects if any.
However, our killing of insects is a kind of insensitivity and often unnecessary. For example, to kill a mosquito biting us or to kill a cockroach in our home is usually the result of a lack of compassion and fear about nothing. So on a more spiritual level rather than on a moral level, we refrain from killing insects to develop greater compassion, sensitivity and freedom from fear.
But still, as the Buddha taught in a post above, there are the results of karma which are just "trifling".
Whenever we kill an insect, there is an effect. But it is just trifling. This is because insects are naturally dangerous (but our modern world via medicine & technology has negated their danger). Even the Buddha said insects are dangerous.
Now regarding the pest control industry, generally, it is a necessity. If I own a home or have a family, naturally I do not want my home to be the victim of unwelcome and dangerous visitors.
Kind regards
Protecting the live's of innocent people is not the same as protecting a delusion about 'honor'.
This is why our judicial system imprisons those who commit honor killings but does not imprison those who act in self defense.
Our judicial system is logical.
The post above is playing with words rather than focusing on intention.
My children have hair lice. My intention is to free their hair & body of discomfort and so they can return to school to continue their education.
This is not the same as dropping bombs on a village half way across the world due to my greed and economic aspirations.
As I said, the social law does not imprison people who act in self-defense.
This is because their intention is not to kill but to save.
we're talking about Kamma, not a criminal record....
(And actually, you're wrong. Self-defence is not the pardonable offence in Law you think it is.)
Again, more assumptions about what I think 'as if' you know - I am commenting, not acting. I 'act' as if Buddha meant what he taught and so far there have been no quotes which directly show Buddha refuting his teaching not to engage in a livelihood which involves killing and poisoning.
Your example is faulty IMHO - the balance is between the death of the insects and rodents and the welfare of householders. 'Death' is not the same as 'welfare'.
I wrote about the vows in response to two posts by pegembara, but as the OP has not specified whether he took vows or not, it's fine to discuss them in this context. However, the main thrust is Right Livelihood as specified by the Buddha in the 8FP.
There was a comment about insects not being sentient - I advise anyone who thinks that to examine the example of bees dancing in the hive and communicating a route (to the flowers) to other bees, or explain how ants in the rainforest work in such co-operation in passing food along to the nest. Beings which were not sentient simply could not do so. Stung by a wasp? It reacts to a threat. It may be stretching the point to call it self aware, but it is certainly sentient.
Now, to move this on, I think there is some confusion about what is accidental and deliberate killing. Taking a job which involves poisoning and killing is deliberate. You can't fudge it by saying that the intention is to clean the house or prevent disease. If you plan to kill, carry out the killing and then plan to kill some more, then you have 'deliberated' over the act and carried it out.
It's more vague when we come to 'accidental' killing which we have not planned and completed with forethought. In the days of Buddha there was much less opportunity to kill accidentally - the main difference for an individual being transport, the main difference for society being industrialisation of manufacture and farming.
We can probably avoid buying products which we know to be derived from the worst excesses of ecological plunder, but it's hard to avoid food, for example, which has not involved pesticides etc. For such reasons, I know Jains who have their food flown from family in India.
Which brings me on to transport. There is some irony in flying food from India to avoid deliberate killing in its production - what of the millions of insects killed by the plane?
If we travel these days, we do not intend to kill. However, if we sit and deliberate about a car journey, we know that it is virtually impossible for us to avoid killing - previous experience of bugs on the windscreen tells us as much. Knowing that, does it then become a deliberate act. Is 'deliberate' dependant on knowing with certainty that we will kill, or should we act on the basis of probability?
Well, I work on the basis of intention and certainty.
If I intend to kill and put down poison, if there are consequent deaths I have completed a deliberate act of killing. So the OP to me is in the worst position of all.
If I think I am likely to kill some beings but don't know for sure, then I think I am partly to blame if I go ahead - I have to live with that or reduce it by becoming a Jain with a mask and whisk living a very basic life indeed.
If I have no idea, as with walking down a path, if I may accidentally kill something, I regard that as the best situation to be in with regard to not killing.
In terms of livelihood, I apply the same, pretty crude, measures.
We all do what we can, and we may all fail to follow the 8FP to an extent every day. My position is that we should not seek to change the 8FP and seek to excuse ourselves, we should just accept that we are imperfect and do the best we can.
There's simply no need for the pretence of clairvoyance in asserting that we 'know' Buddha meant the 8FP teachings to be flexible - no need at all. That's my position being expressed, by the way, not an accusation against other members.
To me, Buddha's counsel of perfection in the 8FP is an aspiration we should strive to achieve, not a bit of advice we can bend to suit our lifestyles.
I think you may also be playing with words here.
Your overall desire is the welfare and education of your children. Your wish is to remove the head-lice which are interfering with that.
But you cannot blind yourself to the immediate act - you know your actions will kill the lice, you intend to kill them, and carry it out.
The grand plan behind the action is not irrelevant, of course, but it does not remove the intention of the immediate action.
Do you subscribe to the post-mortem-rebirth understanding of dependent origination? Because the passage you said you didn't understand refers to the this-life version of it.
I have not read this thread and its contents in full and am not responding to the OP but this comment did get my attention, five
It is not (necessarily) about judicial forces, but neither is karma just about 'self concepts', like you are saying above.
Kamma just is the way of the world. It is nothing special. But there is cause and effect. The way of the world.
Best wishes,
Abu
The results of karma are actually called kamma vipaka, and the full results of karma are known only by fully awakened Buddhas. (classified by the Buddha as one of the four imponderables)
However undeniably cause and effect are part of the karmic web or system, if you like.
Actions, speech etc -- karma -- karmic causes and events.
Dependent origination is the link of process itself. Mental volition is just one link in this chain. Why you seem to conflate the two or insist on its relationship to so called psychological evolution is not understandable to me.
There are many scriptures on sites such as Access to Insight which will outline these much better.
On a personal note, I found the whole point overanalysed, intellectualised and not very accurate from a Buddhist theoretical perspective :P
I am not interested in arguing so FWIW, just thought I'd add my oar in to these concepts, which seem rather too erroneous.
Best wishes, and Happy New Year, five !
Abu
Yeah, the stuff about the full results of karma being imponderable don't really seem relevant, from a practical perspective. That's just another form of authoritarianism. The personal experience of karma seems much more useful, from the perspective of Buddhist practice. From that perspective, the relationship to psychological evolution is central.
Whilst I agree that we ourselves cause much of our own discomfort, I would take issue with you that putting the Dharma into practice, which is what I presume you mean by "Buddhism" in this context, is "not in the slightest bit uncomfortable". It can be a very steep and stony path in places, as the OP demonstrates.
The problem here is the internal one. Of course, it would be 'better' not toi cause the death of any living being; of course it would be 'better' to live 100% in accordance with the Noble Eightfold Path. Part of the lesson of the First Noble Truth is that we will be forced to compromise, to massage our increasingly delicate consciences.
As we grow in understanding and awareness, we surely come to realise that a genuine aspect of dukkha is the onset of scruples, of over-scrupulous attention to what we get 'wrong'. This a genuinely painful and obstructive aspect in the practice, a stage on the journey. This is a time when a teacher or "soul friend" can be of great help and support.
It is, of course, all there in the "Ox-herding Pictures": once we have seen the hoof-prints, we follow them through thorn bushes and rushing streams. It is, also, in the story of the stringed instrument: tighten too much and the whole instrument may break, over-loosen and no note sounds either.
When doctors swear to "Do no harm", they know that they intend to do mortal harm to viruses and bacteria. Are we to imagine that our farmers do not have to kill pests? We who benefit by these actions, recovering from illness or buying our farmed food, owe a great debt of gratitude to those who undertake the harder, nastier jobs. If, on the basis of some over-zealous person telling them that they are breaking some rule or other, they all stopped clearing up our messes, dealing with our infections and maximising crop yields, we would soon be starving and waist-deep in our own excrement, crawling with bugs and rats. Not a happy Dharma outcome, methinks.
In addition, of course, there are practical considerations, such a feeding, housing and clothing ourselves and (if we have them) a family. It is easy to take the moral high ground when we are quite certain that we have 'got it right' ourselves and have a job, a home, etc. That is far from a reality for all-too-many people across the world, including in our own back yards.
It is also easy, when so fortunate, to confuse our 'wants' with our 'needs' and seek to find a way of abandoning only those actions and objects we don't cling on to.
It is when we are challenged with life-changing decisions that we are truly tested. If the effort of abandoning killing, in this case, causes us discomfort, we may be too attached to our lifestyle to embrace the teaching. if we examine other actions, such as abandoning 'intoxication' instead of 'intoxicants', becuase we like a few beers, we see we may be on the slippery slope of tweaking the Dharma to fit our lifestyle, instead of the other way around.
We sometimes need reminding that we should not seek to change the Buddhadharma to match our 'wants', we should seek to change our minds and our behaviour to match Buddhadharma. It is only in seeking to apply the Buddhadharma that we can verify for ourselves whether it is effective and worthwhile - you can't do that by changing it into something else which is easier for us to adhere to. You don't get better at snooker by making the table smaller and the pockets bigger, because then the game becomes pool.
Yes, my point exactly.
Commenting is an action, therefore you are acting. :tonguec:
Sorry, but when faced with the choice of maybe killing some insects or myself and my family being homeless a few insects are going to die. And yes, this is a very real possibility in today's climate. Most families are a paycheck or two away from homelessness. I'm sure you're a perfect example of a living embodiment of the dharma, but do be mindful of the situations of others before expecting them to live up to your standard.
The OP has made no mention of such vows so it must be assumed that he has not made such vows. If I am speaking to a Jew I do not assume that he might have taken the Nazirite vow when he has given no indication of having done so, even if someone else brings it up.
I don't think anyone here has denied that the OP's job entails deliberate killing. Not sure where you're getting that idea. But the OP very possibly has little choice in the matter at this moment. That's life, that's Samsara. When various creatures exist in the same space more often than not it involves suffering to one, if not all those creatures. These pest enter someones home than that person will seek to have them removed. The OP must feed his family so he does the removing. Vice-versely if he does not his family suffers. And if the householder does not act to have them removed then these pests damage the house, destroy food supplies and spread disease, and thus the householder and his family suffer.
And that perfection is not possible (remember, not even the Buddha was perfect in his life), thus these teachings must be tempered with the realities of our life and the situations that life places us in.
If acts of killing are committed out of greed, hatred, and delusion, they are indeed very severe violations of the first precept (and also right action and right livelihood). If the violations are performed out of compassion, then they may constitute another form of the 'Bodhisattva Way.' Take the example of a sociopath who, wielding knives and guns, is on a rampage to kill many innocent people. What are we supposed to do? Do we just stand by and watch him destroy the lives of innocent people? Of course not. Sometimes, out of compassion to save the many innocent victims, we may have to first kill the sociopath. This is markedly different from killing someone out of greed, hatred and delusion.
This is just my opinion... take it for what's it worth.
But in doing so I would be very aware of the consequences for myself of deliberately killing a person. I wouldn't look to the 8FP to change and accommmodate me.
( I actually train in martial arts and would be able to defend against a knife etc without damaging the attacker. Guns do not respect such things, however.
We use a similar phrase : ''anger, attachment and ignorance'. 'Attachment' is maybe broader than 'greed' as it may be an emotional attachment to a person, for example.
It is self-cherishing to be attached, angry etc. and I think you have introduced a timely reminder of the basis for evaluating our motivation.
I can definitely see your point and find myself in agreement with you in the general sense. For example, I agree with you when you said in a previous post that there's no problem with being honest about not living up to the precepts and 8Fold Path at times and intending to fulfill those guidelines more skillfully in the future.
But I wanted to clarify something else. You've mentioned a couple of times that you see some of the responses in this thread as attempts to change the Buddhadhamma.
I would certainly never change the Buddhadhamma to suit myself. I just disagree with your idea of how to apply it to one's life and disagreeing with you does not require any changes to the 8Fold Path at all. You seem to see the precepts and Path as black and white rules to be followed to the letter and I see the precepts and Path as being more flexible than that and I choose to follow the wise and discerning spirit of the 'law' rather than the letter of it. I'm not changing anything unless your interpretation is the only correct one.
I think it's safe to say that most posters on this thread would agree that the poisoning of living beings as a job is not Right Livelihood in the ideal sense and most posters advised Forty1 to find more suitable work as soon as possible.
I also think it's safe to assume that the Buddha knew life in samsara is rarely ideal. Since his teachings are concerned solely with the understanding and cessation of suffering I often ask myself how much suffering would the Buddha advise me to inflict upon myself concerning things over which I have little or no control and how much flexibility of mind and wise discernment would he advise me to develop in order to live my life as ethically and fruitfully as possible.
It has often been my experience that rigidity of moral thinking has the tendency to cause suffering because it can so easily become mixed up with ego and clinging attachment. That's why I think it's better to look at situations like the one Forty1 described in the original post from as many different perspectives as possible in order to arrive at the wisest decision possible.
I know I've said this before but I want to reiterate that training in the Buddhadhamma is a gradual process for many of us and we have to start where we're at. It's a long and often arduous trip and we are prone to backsliding before the teachings finally take hold. It's a step by step process for sure but a 'three steps forward, two steps back' kind of process. We need to develop as much flexibility of mind as we can in order to endure the long road ahead of us with its many pitfalls and complicated circumstances.
No one has advised Forty1 to 'tweak' the Dhamma to suit his lifestyle nor to 'change the Buddhadharma to match [his] 'wants''. He has been given the advice from most posters here to find a different job as soon as he is able and to not inflict unnecessary suffering upon himself in the meantime while performing his current job. I think that's wise and measured advice.
Please re-read what you quoted from my post:
''It is only in seeking to apply the Buddhadharma that we can verify for ourselves whether it is effective and worthwhile - you can't do that by changing it into something else which is easier for us to adhere to.''
At no point do I criticise or accuse other members posting here of doing so, yet a few have taken it personally for some reason. I gave an opposing view, backed with scriptural references. Remember the thread on 'How to Disagree'?
I keep saying this, but for some reason a few others think I am getting at them personally. I'm not. Neither do I make any claims to be any better at achieving the 8FP than anyone else. We all recognise that we are going to fall short of perfection. The thing is to be careful not to second-guess the teachings through a motivation which is self-cherishing.
I have, however, faced this saituation at work and was forced to resign becuase I refused to train slaughterhouse staff in management. So I'm not being 'do as I say not as I do' about this.
All my family suffered for a while, but no killing was supported and we all felt better about that.
Here's what I wrote earlier:
''If, as you say 'we have all given him responses within our own understanding and interpretation of the Buddha's teachings' then it would be useful and polite to back that advice up with the source of Buddha's teachings upon which you are basing that advice.''
I quoted the teachings, it's hardly my fault if others claimed to be giving advice based on Buddhism, yet offered no evidence of that.
I also wrote:
''There's simply no need for the pretence of clairvoyance in asserting that we 'know' Buddha meant the 8FP teachings to be flexible - no need at all. That's my position being expressed, by the way, not an accusation against other members.
I agree with you that we should be flexible etc. Hope that helps.
If several people are misinterpreting what I am writing, it is probably my style which is at fault, so I'll shut up now.
And isn't the original post of this thread an evidence of the fact, that you have to strive to get a right livelihood? Because if you don't, your job will disturb and distract you. It will harm your concentration and the development of an enlightened mind.
The OP is suffering because of his livelihood. So in my opinion the only advice can be to look for another job and to try the best to avoid such conflict in the future. Maybe he should consider to reskill, to relocate or something like that. But I'm sure that he's already thinking about such solutions.
At the same time I see no need for him to quit this job immediately and as a result to bring his family suffering. This would disturb and distract him even more and would get him even more off the path he is willing to follow.
Or is my thinking to simple?
No, I'd say it's perfectly simple.
So you would not treat headlice? You do not take medications which fight illnesses, own disinfectants, brush your teeth? You don't make sure to cook and handle your food properly? You don't wash your hands, vaccuum, dust? I imagine you do; ultimately the intent behind all of these actions is to kill, too. However, it's easier to justify it when you're killing things you can't see, right? Did the Buddha advise against these things as well, or does it start to sound a little eccentric, removed from reality, removed from the Dhamma? Take care of yourself first and foremost, mindfully, causing as little harm (not just death, but harm) as possible.
"Being pragmatic he did not give us the 5 commandments." :thumbsup:
Dhamma Dhatu provided plenty of sutta quotes as you requested. Is there a sutta where he addresses the OP's specific problem? Probably not. That means, we do not have him supporting your view, or our own. We have the teachings we have, and ourselves, and that's it. You continue to suggest that you speak for the Buddha and know what he would advise, and everyone else is just handing out their own opinion without any consideration of the Buddha's words....
...and that's the only problem here.
That's great, Yeshe. How did you and your family struggle? Is your situation precisely the same as the OP's? Do you know what would happen to him and his family if he took your advice and quit his job right now? If you were able to quit, that's fantastic. Some people aren't able to do the same.
Nice rant and totally unrelated to anything I have posted. The relevant suttas you ask for re. Right Livelihood are those directly related to the 8FP, which I quoted if you read back.
I did not claim to represent the Buddha -I quoted his teachings, nothing more. What is this nonsense about bacteria - we are writing about sentient beings.
Dhamma Dhatu quoted aspects of the Dhamma which were general, not specifically related to 8FP by Buddha, which is what I requested.
I recounted my own experience because it was relevant. The extent to which suffering was caused was significant - there, are you happier now? Why not challenge members who are offering advice on the basis of no personal experience?
Your post seems full of anger and frustration, which is why I wrote:
If several people are misinterpreting what I am writing, it is probably my style which is at fault, so I'll shut up now.
As you did not read this either, I'll assume your rant was just as baseless. Goodnight.