Karma

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, tifino said:

but then they'd have too eat GM only!

and even Organic results in dead bugs at some time thru the harvesting process

I think they cannot be too picky, although some of them should eat less fat and sugar.

A good health and physical shape is better for the monks too !

Personally i would offer them healthy food if they'd asked me.

[VincentRJ]

54 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by VincentRJ
double post

[VincentRJ]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, it's obvious to me that we all share the karma of killing smaller beings just because we eat food.

I think that the reason because the monks don't produce their own food is to dedicate their time to study and meditation, still i'd guess that growing vegetables is not a forbidden activity for a monk.

 

There's a slightly heretical Buddhist movement in Thailand called Santi Asoke, which has attempted to address some of these puzzling issues in the established Buddhist culture, which seem at odds with the fundamental, egalitarian principles of Buddhism found in the scriptures.

 

One of the issues relates to the ordination of women. Another major issue is the eating of meat, and another major issue is the massive amount of money spent on glittering, gold temples, and the promotion of the idea one can effectively 'buy good karma', or 'gain merit', by donating lots of money to a particular temple organization.

 

The Santi Asoke communities refuse to accept donations. They ordain women. They grow their own food organically. They raise funds by selling their produce at a very low price in the local market. They are strict vegans, eating no products of animals, neither fish nor eggs nor milk. The monks and nuns are allowed to work, and are encouraged to meditate through a process of concentration and mindfulness whilst they are working, rather than sitting down for long periods of time doing nothing.

 

I visited one of their communities a few years ago, and was looking forward to seeing monks and nuns working together in the fields, growing vegetables.

 

Alas! One of the monks who spoke reasonable English explained to me that they were not allowed to work in the fields because they might kill worms and insects. They did other work, like attending to the printer or the equipment used to process the crops grown. The farm workers in the community, who grew the produce that supported the whole community, could not be ordained whilst continuing their work on the farms.

 

This appears to me to be like a hierarchy which is similar to the caste system in India, which the Buddha tried to oppose, but I think was not completely successful in his opposition to it.

[rockyysdt]

44 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

The people do not need a monk in order to be generous. In the village I live in they are all generous to each other in many ways, no matter how little they have.

 

Across from us an old lady, my wife's great aunt is dying. I have been amazed at the comfort, care and generosity the villagers have shown to her and the family at large.

 

There's been one notable absence. Not a single monk has shown up to offer any form of 'spiritual comfort'. They will, of course be there when there's a funeral to attend to. At a price of course!

 

IMO the people have been conned into thinking that they are 'buying good karma' by filling the monks bowls with food. It's no different to the indulgences' that Christian priests used to sell in the pre enlightenment days

 

Regarding your second point. Are worms and insects 'sentient beings'? A worm may have 5 hearts, but I don't think it's been blessed with consciousness, a necessary attribute for sentience.

 

Christian monks are well known for their self sufficiency when it come to food production. Perhaps a few lessons in horticulture would get this Buddhist lot off their butts.

 

 

Basically all humans, regardless of their situation, suffer from the same malaise.

The three poisons of Greed, Aversion & Delusion.

In the state of Samsara it is inescapable.

Even the Buddha himself, well after achieving awakening, continued to suffer from the fruits of his past Karma right up to his food poisoning which led to his death.

 

Importantly the Buddha taught escape through a path of practice.

 

No amount of debate will make any difference.

Practice is the only way.

 

I hope no one falls for the oldest trick in the book.

Judgement by association (Monks conduct).

 

Don't the acts of specific Monks, or anyone else for that matter, have nothing to do with the efficacy of the Four Noble Truths, the Buddhas teaching.

All it shows is that many monks are slave to the three poisons.

The path can be easy, but is found to be extremely difficult to navigate.

This is why very few achieve Awakening.

 

In terms of Monks, there are many who don't waste the gift of public support.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

16 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Alas! One of the monks who spoke reasonable English explained to me that they were not allowed to work in the fields because they might kill worms and insects. They did other work, like attending to the printer or the equipment used to process the crops grown. The farm workers in the community, who grew the produce that supported the whole community, could not be ordained whilst continuing their work on the farms.

 

 

Hi Vincent.

 

The behavior might be correct, but the reason perhaps not.

 

My understanding was that the path required full time practice.

Anything less would not achieve Awakening for most.

 

This is why the Buddha asked the community to support Monks.

 

In terms of a hierarchy, the caste system was rigid.

No one could be elevated once born into a given caste.

On the other hand, one can make themselves available for either ordination or freelance practice.

Women can also practice the Four Noble Truths.

I don't think Monks have exclusive access to Awakening.

 

Those who remain as citizens might either have dependents or other compelling reasons not to take the plunge.

Ego is most likely an impediment for most?

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Hi Vincent.

 

The behavior might be correct, but the reason perhaps not.

 

My understanding was that the path required full time practice.

Anything less would not achieve Awakening for most.

 

This is why the Buddha asked the community to support Monks.

 

Hi Rocky,
That's fine if one excludes the concept that killing worms, insects, ants and so on, creates bad or negative karma.

 

The significant questions here are, "Do the Buddhist rules which forbid the killing of all living, or sentient creatures, include primitive creatures such as ants, cockroaches, spiders, worms, rats, and so many types of insects and microbes that live in the soil?"

 

"Is there some cut-off point where the killing of a dog results in a significant degree of bad karma, the killing of a snake results in a less significant degree of bad karma, the killing of a mouse or rat results in perhaps the minimum amount of bad karma, and the killing of a cockroach results in no bad karma at all?"

 

"Or, is there always a gradual diminution of the degree of bad karma, so the more primitive the creature, the less significant the bad karma, all the way down to bacteria, which would presumably be the cut-off point?"

 

"If the unintentional killing of an ant results is a very tiny amount of bad karma, does the unintentional killing of 5,000 ants and other insects during the normal course of farming, for a period of say one year, result in the same degree of bad karma which results from the killing of one dog?"

 

I have no objection to anyone spending most of his time meditating, or studying philosophy, or pure mathematics, or theoretical physics, and so on, if some organization or system is prepared to support him.
What I object to is the immorality and irrationality of someone's progress in developing good karma, being dependent upon other people's accumulation of bad karma, as they continue to kill thousand of insects during farming practices, whilst producing food which is essential for the life of everyone.
 

[rockyysdt]

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Hi Rocky,
That's fine if one excludes the concept that killing worms, insects, ants and so on, creates bad or negative karma.

 

The significant questions here are, "Do the Buddhist rules which forbid the killing of all living, or sentient creatures, include primitive creatures such as ants, cockroaches, spiders, worms, rats, and so many types of insects and microbes that live in the soil?"

 

"Is there some cut-off point where the killing of a dog results in a significant degree of bad karma, the killing of a snake results in a less significant degree of bad karma, the killing of a mouse or rat results in perhaps the minimum amount of bad karma, and the killing of a cockroach results in no bad karma at all?"

 

"Or, is there always a gradual diminution of the degree of bad karma, so the more primitive the creature, the less significant the bad karma, all the way down to bacteria, which would presumably be the cut-off point?"

 

"If the unintentional killing of an ant results is a very tiny amount of bad karma, does the unintentional killing of 5,000 ants and other insects during the normal course of farming, for a period of say one year, result in the same degree of bad karma which results from the killing of one dog?"

 

I have no objection to anyone spending most of his time meditating, or studying philosophy, or pure mathematics, or theoretical physics, and so on, if some organization or system is prepared to support him.
What I object to is the immorality and irrationality of someone's progress in developing good karma, being dependent upon other people's accumulation of bad karma, as they continue to kill thousand of insects during farming practices, whilst producing food which is essential for the life of everyone.
 

 

I think that to live without some form of killing is impossible.

 

It's much better to focus on developing ones awareness, both sitting and active daily mindfulness.

 

With such Awareness then turn your attention to Mind, Body & Feelings.

 

I think it's more important to be aware of the impact of body, thoughts, and feelings on ones ego.

 

Then better understand the motivation of ones actions.

 

A Monks diet will depend on their environment.

 

The Monks at Wat Suan Mokkh have vegetarian food prepared for them and for retreatants.

 

Monks who rely on Alms must be greatful to eat what is given.

 

More importantly the aim and focus should be on developing ones practice.

Karma and Vipaka will be inevitable regardless.

 

In terms of the nuances, such as the accidental killing of worms and amoebas, who would know?

Governing your life by what micro organisms you might stand on will ultimately become your hindrance.

Keeping it to a minimum will aid practice, but it will still occur.

Karma will only influence Vipaka, but should not hinder ones who faithfully practice .

With correct intent, the ego will finally fall away.

 

 

We are conditioned beings governed by time.

Beings in a state of Samsara.

Our final goal can never be understood except through personal experience.

Edited November 28, 2018 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

That's all fine, Rocky, but the subject of the thread is the morality of a Buddhist lay person asking a non-Buddhist to kill a problematic and dangerous dog, in order that the Buddhist could avoid the consequences of negative karma.

 

The issue is not really whether karma exists and is an actual process, but is the moral issue of someone who believes and accepts that karma is real, but who seems willing to pass on what he believes are the bad effects of karma, to another person..

 

This is one reason I raised the analogy of Buddhist monks refusing to do any gardening in case they kill worms and insects, and are 'effectively' passing on the bad effects of karma to others who might be Buddhists of a lower order, or even non-Buddhists.

 

If the actual or main reason that monks are not allowed do any gardening is because they don't have the time, and because they are advised to sit down and meditate most of the day, then the problem is solved. Karma is not an issue regarding the inadvertent killing of such lowly creatures as worms and ants.

 

However, the other reason I raised the issue is because the Santi Asoke monks, who are willing to face charges of heresy in order to reform the traditional Thai Sangha, and who do spend a lot of their time working, rather than sitting doing essentially nothing, are still unwilling to work in the garden in case they kill creatures that live in the soil.

 

I have therefore assumed that this prohibition of monks working in the fields is very deep-seated, and is related to a belief that killing even lowly creatures like worms and ants will produce negative karma.

[rockyysdt]

14 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

That's all fine, Rocky, but the subject of the thread is the morality of a Buddhist lay person asking a non-Buddhist to kill a problematic and dangerous dog, in order that the Buddhist could avoid the consequences of negative karma.

 

The issue is not really whether karma exists and is an actual process, but is the moral issue of someone who believes and accepts that karma is real, but who seems willing to pass on what he believes are the bad effects of karma, to another person..

 

This is one reason I raised the analogy of Buddhist monks refusing to do any gardening in case they kill worms and insects, and are 'effectively' passing on the bad effects of karma to others who might be Buddhists of a lower order, or even non-Buddhists.

 

If the actual or main reason that monks are not allowed do any gardening is because they don't have the time, and because they are advised to sit down and meditate most of the day, then the problem is solved. Karma is not an issue regarding the inadvertent killing of such lowly creatures as worms and ants.

 

However, the other reason I raised the issue is because the Santi Asoke monks, who are willing to face charges of heresy in order to reform the traditional Thai Sangha, and who do spend a lot of their time working, rather than sitting doing essentially nothing, are still unwilling to work in the garden in case they kill creatures that live in the soil.

 

I have therefore assumed that this prohibition of monks working in the fields is very deep-seated, and is related to a belief that killing even lowly creatures like worms and ants will produce negative karma.

 

Hi Vincent.

 

From memory the story went that the Buddha came to the realization that the amount of effort required to achieve Awakening wouldn't be possible for working people.

Unlike today, farming would have involved back breaking toil from sun up to sun down for many months of the year.

A huge impediment to practice.

 

This is why he gave the laity the Brahmavihara, the sublime attitudes, also called the 4 immeasurables.

Metta  (benevolence),  Karuna  (compassion), Upekkha (equanimity), & Mudita (sympathetic joy).

Quote:  boundlessness, infinitude, a state that is illimitable". When developed to a high degree in meditation, these attitudes are said to make the mind "immeasurable" and like the mind of the loving Brahmā

 

My understanding is that the average requirement for a Monks meditation practice might involve 8 hours a day.

This would progress for longer periods up to perhaps 20 hours or more in the final stages.

Meditation is something very difficult to carry out if the subject is tired, as one would end up experiencing marathons of sleep.

 

If engaged in conduct which passes responsibility to others, I'd say ones motives would be far from noble.

It's delusional if a Monk were to consciously request another to do his dirty work.

Such acts would not only reveal ones heart, but is suggestive of the existence of a considerable blind spot (Delusion).

Edited November 29, 2018 by rockyysdt

[Peterw42]

On 11/28/2018 at 9:12 AM, wgdanson said:

Does this not depend on which team you bat for. In the Christian bible, the word Karma never appears. Is it in the Koran? Dunno. 

Its the same basic concepts, do unto others etc, reap what you sew, judgement day etc

[Enoon]

On 11/17/2018 at 2:13 PM, Neeranam said:

Rather inappropriate thing to say on a Buddhist forum.

Of course karma exists. I've seen it when spending time in a temple in northern India,  where the Dalai Lama lives. More than half the world believe in it. All Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and many Christians.

 

Limited Offer!

 

Book just one flight with Catholic Air and transfer the AirMiles you earn to the spiritual "carrier" of your choice.

 

(No obligation to join permanently or book further flights)

 

Your usual carrier not offering redemption for the bad things you do?

 

A quick flight with us, choosing the "Penance" option, ensures discomfort and the sense that you have made amends for your wicked deed.

 

The "goodness" earned will be immediately transferred to your account with your usual provider.

 

This offer does not extend to accounts held with WiccaAir, FlyScientology or GoGandalf.

 

 

 

[from the home of CC]

Would it be any more negative than say buying pork sausages from the butcher? Is a pig a higher being than a dog?

 

I think if you killed the dog and made sausages from it and supplied the monks on their morning run everything would balance out. Of course if you ever eat at a KFC all bets are off (no kai should die from I)

[wgdanson]

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

Its the same basic concepts, do unto others etc, reap what you sew, judgement day etc

Agree with do unto others and reap what you sOw, but who is the Judge on Judgement Day please?

[Peterw42]

4 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

Agree with do unto others and reap what you sOw, but who is the Judge on Judgement Day please?

Isn't the basic premise, good go to heaven, bad go to hell, isnt that a judgement call.

 

I like to think its Samual L Jackson reciting Ezekiel 25:17., lol

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

 

Hi Vincent.

My understanding is that the average requirement for a Monks meditation practice might involve 8 hours a day.

This would progress for longer periods up to perhaps 20 hours or more in the final stages.

Meditation is something very difficult to carry out if the subject is tired, as one would end up experiencing marathons of sleep.

 

Oh my gosh! Sitting for 8 to 20 hours a day! Haven't you heard, Rocky, that too much sitting is bad for the health? ????

 

Perhaps this is the main reason for monks walking each morning with their alms bowls. It's the only exercise they get. However, they probably need more exercise than that, and a bit of gardening might help them live longer and healthier and give them a better chance of achieving enlightenment. ????

[rockyysdt]

42 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Oh my gosh! Sitting for 8 to 20 hours a day! Haven't you heard, Rocky, that too much sitting is bad for the health? ????

 

Perhaps this is the main reason for monks walking each morning with their alms bowls. It's the only exercise they get. However, they probably need more exercise than that, and a bit of gardening might help them live longer and healthier and give them a better chance of achieving enlightenment. ????

This is why "walking meditation" and regular "sweeping" are of benefit.

 

Anything repetitive assists with the clearing the mind of thought.

The physical aspect also assists in getting the cardio going.

 

The Monks at Wat Suan Mokkh also exercise by rapidly swinging their arms  backwards and forwards, above neck height, several hundred times.

Their regime includes regular walks through the forest (bushland).

Physical activity is definitely a good practice.

 

Monks, Wats, and Sanghas are like people.

No two are the same, nor are their practices, and their motives.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

The Monks at Wat Suan Mokkh also exercise by rapidly swinging their arms  backwards and forwards, above neck height, several hundred times.

Their regime includes regular walks through the forest (bushland).

Physical activity is definitely a good practice.

 

That's interesting. I've never observed ordained monks doing such exercise as swinging their arms backwards and forwards hundreds of times. Are you referring to the permanent residents at Wat Suan Mokkh who live in little huts in the forest, rather than the visitors who pay for 10 day retreats?

 

By the way, how do you cope with the hard beds? Checking their site, I came across the following:

 

"The private room for your use is small, con­tain­ing just a hard bed with a simple straw mat, a blanket, a mosquito net, and a wooden pillow".

 

I've slept on a hard floor before, but never used a wooden pillow.

[rockyysdt]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

That's interesting. I've never observed ordained monks doing such exercise as swinging their arms backwards and forwards hundreds of times. Are you referring to the permanent residents at Wat Suan Mokkh who live in little huts in the forest, rather than the visitors who pay for 10 day retreats?

 

By the way, how do you cope with the hard beds? Checking their site, I came across the following:

 

"The private room for your use is small, con­tain­ing just a hard bed with a simple straw mat, a blanket, a mosquito net, and a wooden pillow".

 

I've slept on a hard floor before, but never used a wooden pillow.

Hi Vincent.

 

Ajahn Po personally taught us his technique.

 

He indicated regular exercise was frowned upon at the Retreat, but advised that arm swinging was permissible.

 

The concrete bed is a bit of a problem.

You keep adjusting yourself to find a more comfortable position, only to eventually realise there isn't one.

Each attendee is also given a blanket.

The trick is to pad out critical body areas with the blanket and the bag in which the mosquito net is supplied.

 

The wooden pillow is another story.

It can't be fluffed up.  

[VincentRJ]

19 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Hi Vincent.

 

Ajahn Po personally taught us his technique.

 

He indicated regular exercise was frowned upon at the Retreat, but advised that arm swinging was permissible.

 

Hi rocky,
If one is doing just a 7 day or 10 day retreat now and again, a lack of exercise for such brief periods is not a major issue. However, if one is an ordained monk leading a lifestyle with little exercise for many decades, that would very likely have negative health consequences. A good long walk each day with an alms bowl should be very beneficial.

 

If the walk is very short, then some additional exercise would be advised. Swinging one's arms is better than nothing, but doing exercise which is also productive in additional ways is surely better, such as using one's arms to pull up weeds, or push wheelbarrows full of mulch or carrots. ????

 

When visiting Mae Hong Son in northern Thailand a few years ago, I got up very early one day to take photos of the monks climbing up and down the hundreds of steps which lead up to Wat Phra That Doi Kong Mu, which is situated on a hill overlooking the city of Mae Hong Son. I'd already walked up those steps during the day to take photos of the view, and I thought it would be very interesting to see a line of monks with alms bowls walking down those steps, then back up again.

 

Alas! I discovered there is a small road which meanders up the hillside at the back of the temple. The monks, or at least the vast majority of them, are collected in vans and driven down to the city where they do a brief walk with their alms bowls, then climb back into the vans to be driven up to the temple.
I saw only one monk climbing up the steps.

 

I guess we've strayed off topic. Apologies to the moderators.
 

[rockyysdt]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Hi rocky,
If one is doing just a 7 day or 10 day retreat now and again, a lack of exercise for such brief periods is not a major issue. However, if one is an ordained monk leading a lifestyle with little exercise for many decades, that would very likely have negative health consequences. A good long walk each day with an alms bowl should be very beneficial.

 

If the walk is very short, then some additional exercise would be advised. Swinging one's arms is better than nothing, but doing exercise which is also productive in additional ways is surely better, such as using one's arms to pull up weeds, or push wheelbarrows full of mulch or carrots. ????

 

When visiting Mae Hong Son in northern Thailand a few years ago, I got up very early one day to take photos of the monks climbing up and down the hundreds of steps which lead up to Wat Phra That Doi Kong Mu, which is situated on a hill overlooking the city of Mae Hong Son. I'd already walked up those steps during the day to take photos of the view, and I thought it would be very interesting to see a line of monks with alms bowls walking down those steps, then back up again.

 

Alas! I discovered there is a small road which meanders up the hillside at the back of the temple. The monks, or at least the vast majority of them, are collected in vans and driven down to the city where they do a brief walk with their alms bowls, then climb back into the vans to be driven up to the temple.
I saw only one monk climbing up the steps.

 

I guess we've strayed off topic. Apologies to the moderators.
 

No really.

 

You're very much on topic.

 

Whether Monk, or Lay, all are subject to Karma/Vipaka.

 

Repetitive habits will most likely have the strongest impact.

 

Your observation of the Monks being bussed is an example of Karma (action) which will eventually bear fruit (Vipaka).

 

The thing about Karma/Vipaka, is that it will continue to operate whether the subject is deluded or not.

 

 

In terms of the OP's question about a dog.

 

Monks rules:  Pacittiya Rule Number 61. Should any bhikkhu knowingly deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed.

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

The thing about Karma/Vipaka, is that it will continue to operate whether the subject is deluded or not.

 

Just like our genes I suppose. ????

 

Monks rules:  Pacittiya Rule Number 61. Should any bhikkhu knowingly deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed.

 

Considering the situation in the original post, the significant point is that the dog was annoying and considered to be potentially dangerous. As I recall, only once in my entire life have I been bitten by a dog, and oddly enough, that was in a Buddhist temple (in Loei, Northwest Thailand).

 

The temple seemed to have a number of 'resident' dogs, frequently barking. I ignored them, and whilst standing upright, photographing a stupa, with my eye glued to the camera, a dog crept up behind me and bit me on the calf muscle of my leg.

 

I immediately turned around, and saw the dog scampering away as the other 'temple-resident dogs' chased it. It seemed that the dog that bit me was an outsider that had crept into the temple; an annoying and dangerous dog like the one mentioned in this thread.

 

This type of situation raises a moral dilemma. Let's say the Buddhist, although realizing the dog is dangerous, refuses to kill it because of the imagined effects of karma on his own life. He has the opportunity to kill it, but doesn't, and nobody else kills it.

 

Some time later, a very young child wanders out of her parent's house and garden, curious about the outside environment, and encounters this dangerous dog which viciously attacks the young child.  The child is unable to defend herself and eventually dies, perhaps bleeding to death before her body is eventually discovered in a ditch.

 

How would that Buddhist man feel, who had refused to kill the dog when he had the opportunity? Would he justify the death of the young child as the result of her own bad karma, and perhaps reason if he had killed the dog, the child would still have died from some other cause, because of her karma.

 

Sorry to choose such a sad and unpleasant example, but bad things do happen.
 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Just like our genes I suppose. ????

 

 

 

 

Considering the situation in the original post, the significant point is that the dog was annoying and considered to be potentially dangerous. As I recall, only once in my entire life have I been bitten by a dog, and oddly enough, that was in a Buddhist temple (in Loei, Northwest Thailand).

 

The temple seemed to have a number of 'resident' dogs, frequently barking. I ignored them, and whilst standing upright, photographing a stupa, with my eye glued to the camera, a dog crept up behind me and bit me on the calf muscle of my leg.

 

I immediately turned around, and saw the dog scampering away as the other 'temple-resident dogs' chased it. It seemed that the dog that bit me was an outsider that had crept into the temple; an annoying and dangerous dog like the one mentioned in this thread.

 

This type of situation raises a moral dilemma. Let's say the Buddhist, although realizing the dog is dangerous, refuses to kill it because of the imagined effects of karma on his own life. He has the opportunity to kill it, but doesn't, and nobody else kills it.

 

Some time later, a very young child wanders out of her parent's house and garden, curious about the outside environment, and encounters this dangerous dog which viciously attacks the young child.  The child is unable to defend herself and eventually dies, perhaps bleeding to death before her body is eventually discovered in a ditch.

 

How would that Buddhist man feel, who had refused to kill the dog when he had the opportunity? Would he justify the death of the young child as the result of her own bad karma, and perhaps reason if he had killed the dog, the child would still have died from some other cause, because of her karma.

 

Sorry to choose such a sad and unpleasant example, but bad things do happen.
 

I think some dogs get mistreated, that's why they become aggressive.

I see 'karma' in a Western way, as the 'law of action and reaction', we have a choice, do we want to feed love, or will we succumb to fear ?

I have been bitten by dogs in the past, but i don't hate those dogs, it just had to happen.

[rockyysdt]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Just like our genes I suppose. ????

 

 

 

 

Considering the situation in the original post, the significant point is that the dog was annoying and considered to be potentially dangerous. As I recall, only once in my entire life have I been bitten by a dog, and oddly enough, that was in a Buddhist temple (in Loei, Northwest Thailand).

 

The temple seemed to have a number of 'resident' dogs, frequently barking. I ignored them, and whilst standing upright, photographing a stupa, with my eye glued to the camera, a dog crept up behind me and bit me on the calf muscle of my leg.

 

I immediately turned around, and saw the dog scampering away as the other 'temple-resident dogs' chased it. It seemed that the dog that bit me was an outsider that had crept into the temple; an annoying and dangerous dog like the one mentioned in this thread.

 

This type of situation raises a moral dilemma. Let's say the Buddhist, although realizing the dog is dangerous, refuses to kill it because of the imagined effects of karma on his own life. He has the opportunity to kill it, but doesn't, and nobody else kills it.

 

Some time later, a very young child wanders out of her parent's house and garden, curious about the outside environment, and encounters this dangerous dog which viciously attacks the young child.  The child is unable to defend herself and eventually dies, perhaps bleeding to death before her body is eventually discovered in a ditch.

 

How would that Buddhist man feel, who had refused to kill the dog when he had the opportunity? Would he justify the death of the young child as the result of her own bad karma, and perhaps reason if he had killed the dog, the child would still have died from some other cause, because of her karma.

 

Sorry to choose such a sad and unpleasant example, but bad things do happen.
 

Hi Vincent.

 

You raise an unanswerable question.

 

There are many situations in life which may require some kind of unpalatable action.

Society is structured to allow us to leave such unpalatable actions to others.

 

We have military, law enforcement, abattoirs, dog pounds, government, houses of ill repute, the list goes on.

These structures are filled with those who undertake to perform unpalatable actions on behalf of the rest.

 

There is no easy answer other than to follow the Buddhas teachings.

In this case, abstain from any kind of employment which may cause you to brake the 5 precepts.

 

Regarding ignoring the wild dog which may in the future take life, it depends how much of a concern it might be to you.

You could do a crowd funding exercise to establish a home for wayward canines, where such animals would be safe from society and in which they could receive kind treatment. Maybe they could be run by people who wish to explore their brahmaviharas, Metta, Upekkha, Mudita, & Karuna.

Or, you could adopt it and eventually retrain its distemper.

Or, even establish whether it is lost and return it to its owner.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I think some dogs get mistreated, that's why they become aggressive.

I see 'karma' in a Western way, as the 'law of action and reaction', we have a choice, do we want to feed love, or will we succumb to fear ?

I have been bitten by dogs in the past, but i don't hate those dogs, it just had to happen.

Hating anything, for whatever reason, is against the fundamental principles of Buddhism. A perhaps justifiable reason to kill, or euthanase a stray or feral dog, is compassion for the potential victims of that dog if or when it bites someone, and compassion for the dog itself, which has probably been abandoned by its owner, is suffering and struggling to find enough food to survive, or is maybe the offspring of abandoned dogs and is therefore truly feral or wild.

 

I don't think being bitten by a dog has to happen. It's not like sticking your bare hand in a fire.
 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, rockyysdt said:

Regarding ignoring the wild dog which may in the future take life, it depends how much of a concern it might be to you.

You could do a crowd funding exercise to establish a home for wayward canines, where such animals would be safe from society and in which they could receive kind treatment. Maybe they could be run by people who wish to explore their brahmaviharas, Metta, Upekkha, Mudita, & Karuna.

Or, you could adopt it and eventually retrain its distemper.

Or, even establish whether it is lost and return it to its owner.

 

Hi Rocky,

The number of stray or feral dogs in Thailand appears to be a huge problem. There are hundreds of thousands of them. It would seem to me to be a huge waste of resources to establish homes for them, especially considering how many homeless humans there are on the streets in Thailand.

 

Here's a story of a New Zealand teenager who is now struggling with her ambition to become a vet, as a result of the fear generated by an attack by feral dogs.

 

"A Kiwi teen's idyllic holiday in Thailand turned to a nightmare after she was set upon by pack of stray dogs while running alone at a popular beach.
Sarah Calley, 16, narrowly escaped a mauling at the teeth of 12 feral dogs and only escaped by diving into the sea, where she was forced to tread water until the animals lost interest.
Taken to a nearby hospital, Calley was given several painful injections, including rabies shots.
Her skin had not been torn open but she had deep puncture wounds on the back of her leg.
A week before Calley was attacked in January, the dogs also bit five other tourists, according to a report in the Phuket News."
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/thailand-terror-kiwi-teen-attacked-pack-dogs

 

Also, a major concern is not just the physical severity of the bite, but the risk of getting rabies.

 

"Every year, in Thailand, there are a couple of hundred deaths from rabies, as well as thousands of people getting treatment for dog bites."
https://tastythailand.com/what-to-do-if-you-are-bitten-by-a-stray-dog-in-bangkok-thailand/

[rockyysdt]

Good call.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

 

Good call.

 

 

Glad at least someone agrees. ????

[rockyysdt]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Glad at least someone agrees. ????

 

 

There are many positions (jobs) in life which the Buddha advised to avoid.

 

As the OP so aptly put it, "what share of Karma is apportioned to us benefactors?

[HAKAPALITA]

Beloved by the Weak Type.!.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[rockyysdt]

23 hours ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Beloved by the Weak Type.!.

Are you sure this applies?