ThinkAloud, you might want to take another look at philosophy. Aristotle, for example, suggested there were four types of cause. Formal cause or the 'modern' mechanistic universe, is but one. There is also material, efficient, and final cause. Point of view is very important, as is being able to understand on multiple levels.

You might think of a solar system running for countless millenia as "control" and I could understand that view. But to suggest that there is a creator controling it is anthropomorphizing natural laws.

If it helps you feel better to think about beginings in theological terms, have a controlling God in the sky looking over your shoulder, please embrace Him. I mean embrace Him. Make Him an absolute part of you to the point that it would be impossible to see the line where you end and God begins. This would be wonderful non-duality. And it would also be a Buddhist practice of sorts.

Be well.

DrGuy, Our precept is do not kill. Yet, we also vow to free beings from suffering. Quite a dilemma. Life is like that. Never simple. None of us should have an answer. What we do is live. We do the best we can living in a messy universe.

If a person were suffering so badly that their life was a living hell and this hell creates multiple hells for the loved ones surrounding him or her, how is it nurturing to maintain that life? Still, we do indeed learn from pain, don't we? And learning to somehow change our relationship to suffering can make that suffering a great teacher. Lessons are lost if we avoid suffering completely, deny its existance, or otherwise attempt to escape it.

So there is no easy answer and I believe that each and every religious point of view, if it is compassionate, would struggle with this very personal question. I think this struggle is the struggle of being human.

Be well.

Very profound. IN this debate there has been a lot of discussion about how Buddhism is so very different than Christianity - and it is in many ways. Yet in some, they are a lot alike.

Thank you for your answer. It is not a definitive answer, but then most of us (including me) do not have one for questions of this sort.

Regarding suicide and euthanasia-----

SO DAIHO POSTS:

Dr Guy POSTS:

Again, for me, when I do not have answers or sometimes even proper perspective to profound questions, I turn to wisdom, guidance and knowledge of the Church. This is what the Catechism has to say on these:

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God wo has given it to him. It is God who remains the Sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for His honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not our to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor becasue it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2276 Euthanasia

Those whose lives are diminished or weakined deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as noramal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living GOd, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only forseen and tolerated as inevitable. Pallitave care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Hello L: This is an odd sort of passage, in my view. It seems to say that eliminating suffering is not in keeping with the moral dignity of a person. I cannot abide in this, nor do I believe a loving and compassionate God would. Suffering is messy, it is often absolutely horrific. I cannot believe God wold consider it "murder" to end a person's suffering under such conditions. But then, religions such as yours are deotological and leave little room for compassionate action that goes against the rules. The problem I have with this is that it leaves no room for human discretion on the one hand and leaves us at the mercy of a rule-based ethic on the other. Even the rabbis of old in the Jewish tradition, so legalistivc as they were, recognized the need for case by case analysis and some degree of relativism.

Still, a consistent moral point of view is an asset to us.

Be well.

No it is not. The controller is God not the laws. HE created them, can (and sometimes does)overrides them and at some point will make them vanish and start the process of new laws for the Hereafter.

I understand that you chose to ignore that. If that is what makes you feel your inner peace i wish you well.

Dear ThinkAloud,

Thank you. It appears you are satisfied with what you believe to be true. I do not chose to ignore (a favorite phrase of yours, it seems) what you believe. I just plainly think it is incorrect.


Be well.

SO DAIHO POSTS:

Hello So Daiho,

You say your problem with this is that it leaves no room for human discretion...which comes back to your saying that Buddha asks that we seek our own truth, doesn't it?

If, in Buddhism, suicide is unacceptable and the first of ten grave precepts, Do not kill is adhered to, then where is there room for human discretion or seeking your own truth in these instances?

That leaves the person making the call to kill the person who is suffering using his own discretion and seeking his own truth and thus this is where grave danger lies....at least for the Christian....it's called moral relativism and also playing God.

You can take all religions and find similarities (compare Native American beliefs to Buddhism, as an example).  However, after studying many religions, from everything that I have read/studied/etc., the actual "church" beliefs of Christianity are very different from Buddhism.  Christianity looking for enlightenment?  no, Christians "know", they don't need to be enlightened.  They also do not meditate - they pray to Christ and God.  Not the same at all.  Christianity and Buddhism have a lot of the same morality, but the spirituality and goals for belief are quite different.

And, if you have truly studied Buddhism, you know that the real definition of Nirvana does not exist.  The definition of Nirvana will not be known until one experiences it.

 

You're right, we are different from animals- we have much more destructive ways, are selfish in thinking that the Earth is here to use how we want, raise animals simply for food (heck, we're too lazy to hunt), and we eat not to simply survive- but for pleasure.  Let's not even talk about killing for pleasure ("hunting").  Yeah, we're worse than animals, and "we" use a book as the excuse to why it's "ok" to have "dominion".  It's easier to eat a McDonald's cheeseburger when you believe that the cow was put on earth to feed you, but if you spent time with the cow and heard its cries when its calf is taken away you might think differently....if you would allow yourself to.  But, If you simply think that "man" is above "animals", you will never see how harmful humans are to animals.

I like the very basic way that you put this.  I know a few Buddist Christians.  I call it "covering your bases", but to each their own.

To me, I don't think that a true God would have only one path to him.  I think that there are may paths.  I look to Buddism as one of the many ways to learn and be enlightened, though I doubt I will ever truly "know" until the end.  However, I'm pretty much sure at this point that death is like general anesthetic is like- nothing.  No pain, so sorrow, just peaceful non-existence.  So, I live my life as peaceful and helpful as possible and try to enjoy it while it's here. 

 

I agree that you can find similarities but when it comes to the person of Christ there's major differences and for a Christian it's all about Him so they have to part the ways believing that Christ is the dividing line.

Christians are "in the light" as they follow close by the light of all men. There's alot about "light" in scripture, but it always refers to Jesus as the light of all men. "I am come a light into the world that whosover believes on me should not abide in darkness." Jesus.

As far as meditation. It is a big part of the Christian faith as well. Prayer is important but so is meditating on the word of God. "Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and in his law does he MEDITATE day and night." Psalm 1

Good discussion all.

Hello L: As I have said countless times a precept is not a rule, it is a guide, a principle. I also said suicide is unacceptable unless it is in-service to the reduction of suffering in others. Moral relativism is a necessary ethical model in my opinion. In fact, I don't think a person can be moral and not be a relativist, because to be moral requires a human mind and a human mind thinks. Rule based ethics disallow thought altogether and are essentially cookie cutter ethics. So, while it may be possible to have a one size fits all moral code, I do not think it desirable.

Be well.

KarmaGirl posts:

KarmaGirl, the reason why we have dominion over animals is becasue we are superior in nature having the ability to think and reason. Animals operate on pure instinct. For animals in the wild it's survival of the fittest, isn't it? Those that we have domesticated require our care over them for survival.

The Good Book also tells us that becasue we are superior and have dominion, we are to be good stewards of the earth and all that is in it.

Well, there's more to it than this.

Morality requires some guidelines or standards.

So Daiho since you tell us that:



then it should be easy to understand the codes of Buddhism and of Christianity are essentially different...and good reason why the Christian should not practice Buddhism. Pope Benedict has railed against practicing moral relativism and with good reason..it brings chaos and moral confusion to society.

Hello L: I take polite issue with your use of the tern "essentially". I do not think so, since, in essence, all monotheistic religions, as well as most others, aim for atonement with God (in Buddhism's case God as Universe). Regardless of how we think of God, God is not a being properly understood. He is in traditional theological terms "wholly other". Yet I am not convinced that to be wholly other cannot mean that 'Other' is just something we cannot wrap our human brain around. So, we make 'Other' human-like and even the great Jewish theologian Martin Buber fell into it with his "I-Thou" word formulation.

Now, Pope Benedict's words are a good example why people should flee from dogma. There is a reason, in my opinion, why the Church and so many Christians supported fascism, its in keeping with order. Order is a high priority in a deontological ethical framework. This means a hierarchical power structure must be in place, concrete thinking must be highly valued, and action based on compassion must be curbed.

Moral confusion is not what causes chaos. What causes chaos is our unwillingness to face change and make adaptations to new situations.

The idea that a Pope and the Church he leads should be the moral arbiter, ruling with the belief that priests are the actual representatives of, and intermediaries with, God is (I believe) what caused the Protestant rebellion. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, these rebels then replaced a the Pope with a book, and today, seemingly have suggested that the Church and its pastors are not really to be challenged. The result is the same: a deontological system that has great problems with ethical and moral dilemmas.

Personally, I can live with deontology as long as there is a willingness to actually wrestle with the issue. The rabbis did this in the Sanhedrin and created the great Talmudic system of turning scripture over and over, trying to find its true meaning in a given situation. The Talmud is a living discussion with the Torah that continues even today with the modern Jewish responsa.

Buddhism avoids this conflict as it requires us each to discover the truth ourselves through our practice. The phrase "sit on it" is often used by Zen Masters to invite a student to wrestle with an issue, make it his own, and find a solution. This does the exact opposite of the thing many accuse moral relativists of doing, avoiding responsibility. To accept a moral dilemma as one's own, and to accept the precepts to address it as one's own is an awesome task and heavy responsibility. We do not have the ease of turning it over to a higher authority.

Be well.