A Buddhists opinion on organ donation

zidangus

I was watching a program the other night about how people have had their life saved by organ donation, and it urges people to become organ donators. The real life stories that were told really stirred up compassion and a sense of what a great gift it is to help someone to live when I pass away. However, there seems to be a conflict with organ donation and Buddhism, as no one is supposed to touch the corpse of a body for at least 3 - 8 hours after death, as the life force may linger on in the body for sometime, and can be affected by what happens to the corpse[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif].[/FONT] Hence, this may be too late to save any organs that may be used. So I don't really know what to do, I would like to be an organ donor, as I think organ donation is a fantastic way to truly help someone in desperate need, but I am a Buddhist and want to follow Buddhist teachings, when my death comes. Anyone else want to be an organ donator, but finds this same conflict ?

Metta to all sentient beings

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

ShiftPlusOne

Do you have a reference for the 3-8 hours and life force thing?

I don't think there's any conflict at all.

zidangus

ShiftPlusOne wrote: »

Do you have a reference for the 3-8 hours and life force thing?

I don't think there's any conflict at all.

sure, here is one reference, of which there are many.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/viewdeath.html

Metta to all sentient beings

ShiftPlusOne

Oh, my mistake, I meant a sutra reference.

nanimo

This source not withstanding --We are all interconnected here in samsara, and attachment to a body( and all it's parts) that has become unnecessary for you because of death seems silly. Therefore, it ultimately remains your choice. Donate or don't donate as you please.

Personally, I had already chosen to donate my organs after death many years ago. I did this long before I became a buddhist. Now that I consider myself to be buddhist, I look upon it as one last "up yours" to Mara by being compassionate even at death.

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

I have the same idea too, but I also might add something that is a little different though. I don't think it is the donation that is the problem with touching the corpse, it has to do with the idea that if your life lingered and you felt yourself being vivisected it'd be traumatic and would influence your end of life karma. I still agree with you and sending that last hoorah to Mara in the name of compassion, but the vivisection without pain reliever doesn't sound pleasant.

Dazzle

ShiftPlusOne wrote: »

Oh, my mistake, I meant a sutra reference.

Yes, I'd like to see if there's a reference from the Pali Canon about this.

Different traditions vary with their instructions for death and dying.

.

Marcus

I am most definitely going to donate my organs. I really have absolutely no belief in this weird life force lingering tale of which you speak of. It sounds like an old shamanistic tale, which really in my view shouldn't stand in the way of potentially saving someones life.

zidangus

Marcus wrote: »

I am most definitely going to donate my organs. I really have absolutely no belief in this weird life force lingering tale of which you speak of. It sounds like an old shamanistic tale, which really in my view shouldn't stand in the way of potentially saving someones life.

Well there are many Masters, which claim that it is essential for the body not to be touched straight after death as it is a very important time (see link about lama Zopa Rinpoche thoughts on this matter ), not least his holiness the Dali Lama, who repeats this in the book "Advice on dying ands living a better life"

http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=457

Metta to all sentient beings

Jason

zidangus wrote: »

I was watching a program the other night about how people have had their life saved by organ donation, and it urges people to become organ donators. The real life stories that were told really stirred up compassion and a sense of what a great gift it is to help someone to live when I pass away. However, there seems to be a conflict with organ donation and Buddhism, as no one is supposed to touch the corpse of a body for at least 3 - 8 hours after death, as the life force may linger on in the body for sometime, and can be affected by what happens to the corpse[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif].[/FONT] Hence, this may be too late to save any organs that may be used. So I don't really know what to do, I would like to be an organ donor, as I think organ donation is a fantastic way to truly help someone in desperate need, but I am a Buddhist and want to follow Buddhist teachings, when my death comes. Anyone else want to be an organ donator, but finds this same conflict ?

Metta to all sentient beings

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

This doesn't really apply to Theravada since the 'orthodox' view is that rebirth is an instantaneous process that occurs immediately after death (i.e., there's no lingering life force to worry about), and there's nothing in the Pali Canon that would preclude organ donation (e.g., see Organ Transplantation and Death Criteria: Theravada Buddhist Perspective and Thai Cultural Attitude).

TheDoctorDonna

Would organ donation be any different than the practice in Tibet of cutting the body up to feed to animals?

As long as a sentient Being will benifit I think it would be alright

Mr_Serenity

I am registered to be an organ donor. If my organs can still be useful after death for someone else then good.

Shutoku

I recall getting into a debate on this topic in some Pure Land Forum once...(maybe e-sangha?)

Apparently some traditional Chinese Pure Land teachers are opposed to organ donation.
I (a Shin buddhist...as most probably know by now) am emphatically in favour of it.

Personally I think that any spiritual objection is really more in the realm of superstition, and even if there were some problem I would think the good karma of organ donations would be a positive thing.

I for one would have a difficult time explaining to someone whose child's life could be saved with an organ donation, that it wasn't possible because there is some ancient idea that a corpse cannot be touched for 8 hours because there might, maybe be some life force lingering issue.
The saving of the child's life is not a theory, but a tangible reality...it has to trump some speculative theory on life force lingering, at least in my opinion.

Jason

Mr Serenity wrote: »

I am registered to be an organ donor. If my organs can still be useful after death for someone else then good.

I am as well, although my organs may be useless with my genetic blood disorder and all.

zidangus

Jason wrote: »

This doesn't really apply to Theravada since the 'orthodox' view is that rebirth is an instantaneous process that occurs immediately after death (i.e., there's no lingering life force to worry about), and there's nothing in the Pali Canon that would preclude organ donation (e.g., see Organ Transplantation and Death Criteria: Theravada Buddhist Perspective and Thai Cultural Attitude).

Your point is accepted,
Anyway I have been searching for material on this subject and I found a really good article, which talks about this conflict, here is an excerpt from the article( the link is given below)

"This raises the question of whether or not it is advisable to donate one's organs after dying. The usual answer given by the Tibetan lamas to this question is that if the wish to donate one's organs is done with the motivation of compassion, then any disturbance to the death process that this causes is far outweighed by the positive karma that one is creating by this act of giving. It is another way in which one can die with a positive and compassionate mind."

http://www.buddhanet.net/deathtib.htm


Hence, in effect the act of compassion far outweighs any distress that organ donation would cause.
So after reading up on this a lot recently, I think will put my name down as an organ donor also. Thanks to all of you for all your comments


Metta to all sentient beings











Metta to all sentient beings.

nanadhaja

As you can see,different schools of buddhism have different views on organ transplants.This is due to how they view what happens at the time of death.As a theravadan,I would have no objection to organ donation and would see at as a great act of dana(of course with some of the rubbish I have put in my body over the years the recipient may not feel the same way)I see that people who practice other forms of buddhism have posted of their concerns about this and they too are relevent.
I guess it is up to you to decide.
With metta

The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza

nanadhaja wrote: »

As a theravadan,I would have no objection to organ donation and would see at as a great act of dana(of course with some of the rubbish I have put in my body over the years the recipient may not feel the same way)

Same here, I see it as a good opportunity to generate merit before you die.

yildun

Hi
If everything is interconnected inter/is
Then the organs are not yours to donate.
slainte

Chrysalid

The_Fruit_Punch_Wizard wrote: »

I don't think it is the donation that is the problem with touching the corpse, it has to do with the idea that if your life lingered and you felt yourself being vivisected it'd be traumatic and would influence your end of life karma. I still agree with you and sending that last hoorah to Mara in the name of compassion, but the vivisection without pain reliever doesn't sound pleasant.

I wouldn't worry about that. Think about it, when you have an operation all they do is render you unconscious with a gas, but otherwise you are still alive and your brain is still whirring yet you experience nothing.

When you die, as in brain death, the disruption to your consciousness is far greater than that caused by anaesthetic. Your cells will still be alive when they remove organs (otherwise what would be the point?) but you'd have zero awareness.

yildun wrote:

Hi
If everything is interconnected inter/is
Then the organs are not yours to donate.
slainte

Nor to keep.

Jeffrey

I'm an organ donor. Maybe the merit (good karma) from donating outweighs the distress you would experience in the after death stages due to disturbance of your body. In other words shortrun longrun case.

nanimo

Yes, you are right, Yildun. They are not "mine" to donate because of interconnection, but by that same reasoning they are not anyone else's either and would likely go to waste. Thus, I remain with my notion of "donating" because it will potentially help someone in need. So, whether one would make merit by it or not, it's a good act.

howarda

Maybe the Buddhist teaching on not disturbing the body for a specific period after death is more practical. We've all heard of people being thought dead and mistakenly being buried alive here in the West. They probably had similar things occur in ancient Buddhist societies.

yildun

hi
Here in Ireland you can leave your body to science .
(which I have done) The cadaver is used to help Medical
students for a maximun of three years then cremeted/intered
at the colleges expense.
So when I die I am going to medical College
hihi
slainte

Mindfull

hi
Here in Ireland you can leave your body to science .
(which I have done) The cadaver is used to help Medical
students for a maximun of three years then cremeted/intered
at the colleges expense.
So when I die I am going to medical College
hihi
slainte

how

From my zafu, organ donation is a Bodhisattva action.
While there is nothing that Buddhism hasn't codified in some way, your own understanding of the 4 noble truths is far more important than any Buddhist death rituals or body recommendations.

DairyLama

So when I die I am going to medical College

It's one way of getting free tuition

zombiegirl

I'm an organ donor and I'm pretty unconcerned about it. I would rather risk potentially disturbing my life force than not help someone else's life with things I will no longer need.

Well there are many Masters, which claim that it is essential for the body not to be touched straight after death as it is a very important time (see link about lama Zopa Rinpoche thoughts on this matter ), not least his holiness the Dali Lama, who repeats this in the book "Advice on dying ands living a better life"

http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=457

Metta to all sentient beings

With all due respect, a lot of the stuff from the provided link above sounds like a lot of hooey dogma to me. Creating a magnet of Buddha's relics to pull the consciousness out of the body?

At the end of the day, you need to do what you feel comfortable with, but me? The only thing I am sure about is that my organs COULD potentially help someone and that's a good enough risk for me.

vinlyn

Well, the whole Buddha-relic thing is quite interesting. I would hate to estimate how many Buddhist temples I have been to in Thailand (at least dozens) who claim that in their chedi is some bone of the Buddha, and when pressed on it they usually say that Buddha's bones could replicate themselves.

I'm glad Buddhism doesn't have the magic that Christianity has.

Ficus_religiosa

I'm a donator... Don't see why not

Beej

I've been saying for a several years that i wanted a viking funeral for myself because i guess i think that it has a poetic 'ring' to it. I've expressed this to people that I'm close to because its really them that have to deal with my bag of bones when I'm gone, so I figured that telling them my final wishes was the responsible thing to do. But after reading this thread I remembered that the DMV has it on record that I wished to be an organ donor, which will likely create a conflict between the two aforementioned parties.... it appears that I might have some ammending to do, or those close to me might be stretched creatively to make this happen accordingly. Hehehe....

KhmerBuddhist

In Dana (giving), one must do so free from attachment. Sure one can donate organs, but it is unskillful because as noted earlier, there is the possibility of the soul lingering for 3-8 hours, so to speak. This is giving with attachment.

There are cases I heard and or read where the soul has a shock in an accident and got displaced and disoriented. It will take sometime to come back into the body. If paramedics at the scene of the accident saw the driver liscense as organ donor, they won't hesitate to dissect for the organs due to viability factor. By which time, if the soul finds its way back to the body, it'd be too late.

If it's not a person's time to go, he is forced to return to his body (I have a grandfather who experienced this phenomenon). Until his body in the physical world is absolutely dead, unfunctioning, and or cremated, then the soul is released to take on another form with respect to its karmic force.

To give is commendable. To give unskillfully has its merit, but not its full potential. It is uncertain how the soul migrates in moments of stress. If one's organs are cut up to save another person, while it is commendable, there is the greater benefit of saving one's personal life first. If one is to do dana of giving, there are billions of things out there that one could choose to do that are more skillful where it obstructs neither the giver nor the recipient in terms of attachment. In such way, the effects has a better outcome. This is not to say one shouldn't donate one's organs, but before one does anything, consider the skillfulness of the action first.

The Buddha Shakyamuni had demonstrated the unskillfulness of this phenomona in one of his many lives. One should take his lives and study them for the wisdom they contain as he is The Teacher.

Cloud

There's no soul in Buddhism, KhmerBuddhist.

vinlyn

There's no soul in Buddhism, KhmerBuddhist.

You've both stated things as absolute facts.

KhmerBuddhist

@Cloud,
ah, we differ in this opinion.

KhmerBuddhist

@Vinlyn,

Fact or not, this is what I believe. I don't force my belief on others, just sharing my perception. No one has to believe what I say.

Cloud

@vinlyn, That there's no soul in Buddhism is indeed a fact, which is why I stated it as such ("in Buddhism").

vinlyn

@KhmerBuddhist, I respect that you see the difference between "fact" and "this is what I believe".

Cloud

@vinlyn, If nothing else, respect the difference between beliefs and Buddhist teachings. Buddhism does not teach a soul, it in fact teaches not-soul/not-self (Anatman/Anatta). That is all I was pointing out. What someone believes is something different. I wasn't even saying KhmerBuddhist's beliefs were wrong, only simply that there's no soul in Buddhism. That's a fact.

vinlyn

I respect that there are different views in the world about a soul. I respect that most Buddhists do not believe in a soul.

Cloud

What I said is not about what Buddhists believe, but about what Buddhism teaches. Let's just leave it at that, I'm not going to argue. (That is to say, we are not going to argue.)

vinlyn

Cloud, you responded to my post to another person. Now you tell me not to argue.

Vastmind

...... organ donation is a Bodhisattva action.
While there is nothing that Buddhism hasn't codified in some way, your own understanding of the 4 noble truths is far more important than any Buddhist death rituals or body recommendations.

Disclosure: I will be pushing my own agenda here as an advocate....

Not only do I agree with @how here, but I encourage those who can,
to also be donating blood and platelets. You can help save up to 8 lives
with a single donation. Giving someone the gift of life is an
act of compassion to the fullest!

KhmerBuddhist

@Vastmind,

Wish I could donate blood and platelets. I couldn't meet the criteria.

vinlyn

@KhmerBuddhist...you and I are in the same boat. I once had hepatitis and was told to never give blood for the rest of my life.

Cloud

@zidangus, The thing about 3-8 hours, I'd bet that was because back then they couldn't be as sure as they are today, and didn't have the capacity to revive people (if they could be revived). I've had organ donor on my driver's license since way before Buddhism, figuring if they consider me dead at least I can help someone else. I have to die sometime anyway, right? That's the way I look at it anyway. It should be about our choice to either let them use our organs or not. The ball is then in their court.

Then again I trust doctors to know if I'm dead or not.

And oh hell this thread is from 2010, did anyone notice that? It looks as if zidangus already found his answer up above.

Vastmind

Good news! Those who cannot donate can still be advocates! As I have seen you say
many times @vinlyn, it's all about the actual actions! Walking the walk, right?

There is a HUGE number of the population that CAN donate, but don't.
For many reasons. Alot has to do with knowledge and/or fear.
These barriers can be broken by educated advocates who realize the importance
of such a compassionate act. Just saying.
I warned you with my disclosure. hahaha

vinlyn

Good news! Those who cannot donate can still be advocates! As I have seen you say
many times @vinlyn, it's all about the actual actions! Walking the walk, right?

There is a HUGE number of the population that CAN donate, but don't.
For many reasons. Alot has to do with knowledge and/or fear.
These barriers can be broken by educated advocates who realize the importance
of such a compassionate act. Just saying.
I warned you with my disclosure. hahaha

I very much agree. And while some of us cannot donate blood, we can give financial contributions for similar causes.

KhmerBuddhist

@Cloud,

You are right about the Teaching. When I apply that teaching to my existence, it seems to confuse me. I don't think I could actually find the whole of the Truth. I just know that what is written in Scriptures and what I actually perceived in practice do not seem to meld as much. Thus, discrepancy arise. My interpretation of "No soul/ Atman" may be different.

Or, it could be my use of the English word is not correct. I tend to use words interchangeably and overlook the subtle difference in meaning, for example spirit/soul, Enlightenment/Nirvana. As a disclaimer, I am aware that my interpretation of Buddhism may not be in line with most people because I don't follow the Scriptures as closely. That is, I don't cleave to it as closely in my attempt to understand my world as I practice The Path.

That is why, I try not to correct a person overly much because I don't know the whole of things. I just know what I experience and perceive in sharing my belief, hope to hone in that elusive concept called compassion, at least to myself. It is therapeutic to me to go online and talk or discuss philosophical ideas pertaining to Buddhism. While online forum is a sharing of ideas and experiences so that we can grow together, one must understand that we are no expert in any one field. Thus, don't take my words too seriously.

If it's good, take it. If it's bad, toss it to the side. I am likewise, doing the same as I read everyone's posts in here.

Cloud

@KhmerBuddhist, That's good, and I apologize if I offended you in any way. I didn't mean to say your beliefs are wrong, or even that there is no soul, only that Buddhism does not teach (in fact teaches against) the idea of a soul/self. I like your attitude, "If it's good, take it. If it's bad, toss it to the side." Ajahn Chah had the same.

vinlyn

I think you English is very good, @KhmerBuddhist. I think almost all people tend to overlook subtle differences in meaning on most topics. You're a very good poster.

KhmerBuddhist

@Cloud, no apologies needed. I don't take offense at your posts. In fact, they help trigger my mind to be aware of what I say or said. I am learning. In this, thank you! In forum, I try to remember the phrase you quoted. It helps me avoid pitfalls. Ajahn Chah is a great master!

@Vinlyn, thank you!