The First Precept (Harmlessness/Not Killing)

[Michael Rodgers]

@Alex

I understand that the Buddha did differentiate between different lifeforms in terms of the khammic outcome of harming them - Arahants and ones parents come first, insects last. I believe that killing crickets would be at the lower end in terms of khamic consequence. Nonetheless why do it if it can be avoided at all?

[Sunil Dandeniya]

Very amusing:

an obsolete literalist interpretation of a 2,500 year old text written before there was much in the way of science

I don't think that anybody would object to me having some fun here

Guess it won't be considered :

criticize others

with metta
sunil

[Jerrod Lopes]

Everyone certainly is entitled to their views regardless of anyone else's beliefs or understandings. We all see things in different ways no matter how hard we may try to see it the same way another does. In the end, we can all only do what we can do.

Respectfully and with metta,

Jerrod

[Alex Rogolsky]

Jerrod,

I agree that everyone is entitled to their views, and that discussion of those views should be carried out in a manner which is respectful toward those discussing them, though not necessarily toward the views themselves. To question, disagree with, request clarification of, or even on occasion disdain another person's view is normal in the course of any intellectual conversation, and should not be seen as an attack upon or insult of the person whose view is subject to critical analysis.

The search for knowledge is not easy, and requires that one recognize that one may be completely wrong about everything that one believes, and not attach one's ego to any idea whatsoever. Sensitivity is required, yet no one gets very far without a thick skin.

Best,
Alex

[Jerrod Lopes]

For those interested in the usefulness of the Precept of Harmlessness

I found this article that is concise, yet I find to be very well written and informative regarding how this precept has been translated form the pali and how it is viewed within the different traditions of Buddhism.

It is in that the precepts are training for the realization of enlightenment that they are so important as to be known deeply, truly, and accurately, and followed whenever possible. If nibbana is one's penultimate goal, the precepts become an indispensable tool toward realization of that goal. For someone not necessarily interested in that achievement, the precepts will most likely promote harmony in one's life, but are not required for one to survive.

Jerrod : )

[Alex Rogolsky]

Jerrod,

Thanks. It's an interesting article on some traditionally accepted speculations.

-Alex

[Thomas Nelson]

This is off topic, so I appologize in advance, but one of the things I appreciate the most about Buddhism is the realization that there is no creator god. If you "break the rules" you shall not be cast down to burn in the lake of fire for all eternity. There is, as we all know, the kamma consequences. And we must each decide for ourselves if the act we are about to engage in is "worth it" in terms of the kammic consequences. We are all each individually responsible for our own kamma and our own destiny. There is no creator god "up there", watching over us, commanding his will upon us, and threatening us with eternal hell. One thing is for sure, it is impossible to live a life with zero bad kamma (unless you are fully enlightened, or live in a perpetual state of Jhana). The goal is to strive towards a situation with far more good kamma than bad kamma, then eventually Nibbana. We all have to figure out our paths by ourselves. The Buddha teaches us how to figure it our for ourselves, rather than commanding us to do this or that. This, in and of itself, should remove a large amount of suffering, and it is worth reminding yourself of whenever we have these conversations.

With metta,
Thomas

[Alex Rogolsky]

But aren't the ideas of Karma, Rebirth, and Nirvana just as speculative as the Creator-God hypothesis? I realize that this re-hashes something that's been discussed before under other Forum topic categories, but it seems fair to apply the same standard of skepticism to these central doctrines of Buddhism as it does to apply them to other religions.

Best,
Alex

[Kanchana Lafrentz]

Hello again everyone

Sorry for keeping things slightly off track... This is written with much goodwill and no offense intended to anyone's choice of beliefs. It's nice to feel that one can say, 'I disagree with that...' and feel safe and respected and to know that this is reciprocated; I want to be clear that this is where I'm coming from.

From how I see it, if you can see a place for Kamma and Rebirth, then Nibbana is something that begins to make sense as a concept. And if you can see a place for Kamma, Rebirth is something that becomes a possibility.

So leaving, Rebirth and Nibbana aside for now...I'd just like to say something about Kamma...the thing that makes the other two possible.

Kamma or Karma (in the Romanised Sanskrit spelling) is a term that gets bandied about a lot. Buddhism, New Age, Hinduism and I think Sikhism. Christianity says that as you sow so shall you reap.

It's a term that sometimes has a sense of mysticism and magic attached to it. Mystery even. Some power that suddenly manifests and deals us blows or glows that we sometimes label bad or good luck.

I find that this way of conceptualising Kamma is problematic. Sometimes I have found myself talking to someone about some topic or other and find the word kamma come up now and then...it is only much later that I realise that how I've been viewing the word was fundamentally different to how the other person was viewing it. Once I remember saying to someone, 'oh it's probably your good kamma that such and such happened' to which he replied, 'thank you'! He was viewing it as something personal, bound up with self, an achievement to proud of that was earned that made him special and good. Whereas, I was noting that he may have done something that caused certain effects.

As I said, let's leave aside Rebirth for a bit. Let's just look in this life. Actually let's make it even more specific, more focused and more real and experienced... Let's focus on this moment right now. As you read this what are you feeling or experiencing? Revulsion? Doubt? Irritation? Interest? Approval? Whatever it is, how does it make you feel? Your view, perception, feeling are colouring...no, 'creating' your world, your moment, right now. So wait a bit and watch. No really, just for a few moments, close your eyes. ..... Does it change? Does it have an impact on the next moment? Does it translate to a sensation in your body? Will it impact on the rest of your hour, your day, your interactions with others over similar topics. Your private thoughts and interactions with yourself. That moment, of viewing, feeling...has an effect on other things, other moments.

We don't live in a vacuum. Right now for us influences the next right now for us. Sometimes my ways of being as a child, turned into habits. That was cause and effect. Kamma. Sometimes these habits meant I did certain things or found myself attracted to or repelled by certain people. Kamma.

But what I like to now call 'ordinary memory' is fuzzy and unreliable. Through not knowing clearly I can make all kinds of further skillful or unskillful kamma depending on how I perceive the kamma that's arising right now. (However, because I try and remind myself of and operate with a view of 'anatta', I sometimes remember that this is forgivable and understandable because I am limited by the extent to which I have cultivated (made deliberate kamma) wisdom, peace and integrity.)

I suggest that thoughts and feelings can be viewed as mental acts. Their effects can be felt in how they create further thoughts and feelings. To me it's not such a stretch to see that these (kammic) mental states inform our speech and our actions.

It's also not such a stretch for me to view the possibility of this body dying and the mental component stupidly carrying on cos it really doesn't want to be snuffed out. Surely you've had moments where you've been startled to the point of intense fear? When someone sneaks up on you? When you're involved in a car accident? When you find out that your physical body has some nasty, unpleasant imbalance. Sudden, inexplicable, sickening fear. I'm going to lose something dear that is me, that is mine. Tis a sick and sickly, sickening feeling. If I look closely, I see holding. Holding, literally for 'dear life'. Why wouldn't I consider the possibility that when the body drops and dies, the mental process continues 'holding on for dear life' and that whatever was it's habitual way of being would manifest again in some other form? Much like a star explodes and then it's particles start re-forming in some other way, contributing to building some other world.

I'd like to point out that *where* we look, in terms of concepts and views, will shape the directions we send our minds and will thus shape the world as we experience it from within our beings. Albert Einstein is credited as saying that 'imagination is everything...the preview of life's coming attractions'. If we can't imagine something extraordinary, that is unproven, then we will never *look there* and thus will never give ourselves the opportunity of seeing those potential 'coming attractions'.

Remember also, Buddhism does not say, prove to others, it says, prove it to yourself. This is an internal study.

But if you revere the information gleaned through the modern scientific method; then perhaps it is worth remembering that to actually 'prove' something scientifically/mathematically, is a very difficult thing to do. I understand that it is easier, though still hard, to 'disprove'.

Thus it is a remarkable thing to consider that Albert Einstein disproved, Sir Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion. I suggest he did so because he did not merely uphold the theories of the time; he is also supposed to have said that imagination is 'more important that knowledge' and that 'information is not knowledge'. If he hadn't been open to the possibilities that existed beyond Newtonian science, he would never have disproved those Laws of Motion.

So I suggest not waiting for *external* proof or evidence; but remaining open and exploratory. I'd reiterate, this is an internal experiment. Personally, I'm not waiting for someone else to tell me that it's okay to look *here* or *there*.

But if you're scientifically minded, surely, in the best 'traditions of science' one should not decide to discount anything that hasn't be irrefutably proved or disproved. 300 hundred years ago, some of todays science would have been unthinkable. Who's to say that someone down the track will not find a scientific way of providing *external* evidence or even a proof of rebirth?

If such a person who has the capability to achieve something so remarkable exists, they are certainly hampered if they are living in a community which values current information and thought over imagination, possibilities and the extraordinary. So imagine that it's possible so that you might look in the right places; you might be the one who provides the *external* evidence; or you might be even luckier (kammically speaking of course - well if you're going to look in certain places, the result will be that you see certain things) and provide yourself with the internal evidence. Or alternatively you can choose to not even look, waiting for someone else to approve your directions...and you run the risk of enacting a self-fulling prophesy (kammically speaking) of sorts...you'll create the very world that you believe exists...one where there can never be any kamma, rebirth or nibbana...you'll never let yourself look, so of course you'll never see.

Thank you for this opportunity to post these thoughts.

With Goodwill and good wishes.

[Alex Rogolsky]

Kanchana,

I'm all in favor of speculation as long as it is understood to be what it was originally understood to be: speculation.

Frequently, humans have invented speculative systems (religions, ideologies, etc.) to which they have committed belief based upon their appreciation of the complexity or beauty of these systems, or because their speculations have satisfied various deep emotional needs or desires. Their justifications for accepting speculations as facts have often been just as specious (sometimes elaborately so), unproven and/or irreproducible, such as: "God told me that such and such is true" or "You'll get your proof of Heaven and Hell after you die", or "Meditate properly and you'll come to believe in Rebirth, and if you don't, then you're not meditating properly", or "We must fight this brutal class war and revolution in the present so as to bring about a workers' utopia at some undetermined future time", etc., etc., etc..

Now I'm all in favor of self-analysis as well, and certainly there are many indications that meditation promotes health in various ways. I meditate quite a bit myself, and while I view it as beneficial, it has not led me to acceptance of any dogmas. I also agree that there is plenty of room for expansion of our current scientific knowledge. However, as valuable and necessary as any speculation about the Unknown is, it can not constitute knowledge until it is questioned and probed by annoying skeptics like me, and tested and put on trial using the tools of empirical science. Certainly, our current scientific knowledge may be primitive compared to what we may come to know in the future, but the manner in which it will advance remains basically the same. Knowing something to be true requires proof, not merely self-delusion, no matter how powerful or how emotionally satisfying that self-delusion may (temporarily) seem.

It is natural and understandable that humans desire a fair and merciful Universe in which there is the possibility of redemption or elimination of suffering, and belief in a universal law that accomplishes this, such as Karma (and the associated speculations about Rebirth and Nirvana), are similar to belief in an ominipotent parent-God. It's an emotionally satisfying thing in which to believe, as long as doubt is denied or swept under the rug.

And this is the basic problem: that anyone who commits to a marriage with faith is also doomed to engage in a lurid affair with doubt. As someone who has been multiply divorced from different faiths and who is now permanently shacked up with doubt, I say unto you: "Believing in fairy tales does not work" (although one may get a temporary rush out of shooting the messenger).

Best,
Alex

[Jerrod Lopes]

What is greatly speculative is the assumption that everyone is subject to the same doubt, confusion and ignorance as everyone else. It would be equally ignorant to speculate that everyone had the same knowledge as everyone else. Science was not the forerunner of society. We would be nowhere without those who decided to do something, to try a thing, to bring something about, rather than sit in a lab or university or on a rock and speculate about it. The Buddha himself did something of a scientific approach, however, to his experience in searching for enlightenment. He tried things, calculatingly (so it is recorded anyway), until he reached his goal of supreme understanding. Of course some speculation is nearly always required when attempting new things. But not every understanding is speculation. Some are, and some lead to knowledge. Having an open mind and daring to keep it open as has been said by Kanchana is key. It is the mind that is concerned here after all.

Jerrod

[Jerrod Lopes]

But aren't the ideas of Karma, Rebirth, and Nirvana just as speculative as the Creator-God hypothesis? I realize that this re-hashes something that's been discussed before under other Forum topic categories, but it seems fair to apply the same standard of skepticism to these central doctrines of Buddhism as it does to apply them to other religions.

Best,
Alex

To those without any knowledge of them, yes, certainly.

Jerrod

[Alex Rogolsky]

Jerrod,

There's a difference between having an open mind and wholly accepting something as true without sufficient proof. With regard to the immeasurable, imponderable Unknown, having an open mind means admitting that any number of things may be possible (virtually anything that can be imagined and many things that can not be) while not attaching one's self to any single possibility until there is hard evidence that it is at least probable.

I make no claim of being more knowledgeable or more ignorant about "Ultimate Reality" (if there is such a thing) than anyone else, but I see no more reason to believe a 2,500 year old written narrative about one man's coming to enlightenment than to credit any of the other miracle stories found in the various holy books of the world. Certainly it "may be so" - it's just as possible as any of the other stories, but that is as far as an open mind may go without closing itself to every other possibility. And if someone walks out of the desert and tells me that he has seen a burning bush that was not consumed, or that he has meditated for months and has attained enlightenment, certainly it may be that he is telling me the truth, but unless he is wearing a shining halo or does something similarly convincing, I will view his story will be just another possibility to file near the others (e.g.: that he may be lying, deluding himself, tripping, or crazy).

"Science" is simply knowledge, and in fact it actually means "knowledge" if you look at its etymology. Obviously, advances in human knowledge were essential to the development of society. The pursuit of knowledge, in one form or another, has probably been around for at least as long as humans have, and universities and labs are among the modern means of carrying on the process that began with discovering how to use fire or make a spear point. Speculation may be the first step to attaining it, but baselessly idolizing speculations is nothing more than a diversion from and obstacle to the pursuit.


Best,
Alex

[Jerrod Lopes]

Alex,

What I've been trying to say is that I would like you to stop asserting that your experience is everyone's experience. There's nothing wrong with expressing doubts or saying "I don't understand this thing", but indicting an entire religion and basically saying all of its followers who posses some knowledge or profess a belief are deluded is quite another. Generalizing from the position of one belief system or a conglomeration of several is also no way to investigate another. To compare and contrast is an activity unto itself, but not the only skillful means to learn about a thing or process. Simply put; you very much seem to be saying that you're right and Buddhists are simpletons and have been duped. I would then suggest that you not spend so much time associating with them as you won't be able to save them all, and likely have a hard time saving any, and from the frequency of your adamant posts I can't help but think this is bothering you greatly. I know. I've tried to liberate a few Christians and a Muslim or two, several Jews, not to mention scientists, but no luck. Of course my word by no means has any kind of force behind it, intentionally, realistically or otherwise. But it is what I think to be kind advice. It is difficult to see one so bothered by something like Buddhism. If you feel it is false or deluded I can see how. But this is not really the best place to try and win any to the cause. But of course, you are valued and welcome here nonetheless. I just ask that you set aside your beliefs for a moment and think a little bit more about considering Where you figuratively are, and whom you are speaking about/to. It's completely up to you though.

Be well,

Jerrod : )

[Sunil Dandeniya]

Isolation. Fear. Sadness