- This topic has 19 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
In the post – Buddhist Explanations of Conception, Abortion, and Contraception :
- Any procedure to remove the live gandhabba after this “real conception” is equivalent to killing a human. The exact time of the removal procedure does not matter. It could be a month before the birth of the baby or just a day after the gandhabba came into the womb.
I am a little conflicted on the above statement. How can we say that killing an embryo, which is an entity that isn’t necessarily aware of its existence (or at least can’t feel pain when removed) is equivalent to killing a grown human? Carrying a fetus in a womb for 9 months is a sheer burden and giving birth not only puts the baby’s but also the mother’s life at risk. Not to mention the fact that raising a child isn’t easy, especially nowadays. Isn’t harming oneself also an apunna kamma and discouraged?
If a female accidentally becomes pregnant, should she be encouraged to forcefully bear the burden out of fear of the contrary being “immoral”? Additionally, how to view cases like a 12 year old girl being pregnant due to rape, for example? If I was a doctor, I don’t think there’s a chance I’d let her take the risk of giving birth.
-
Until a gandhabba merges with it, a zygote (produced by an egg and a sperm) is “lifeless.”
- However, with the merging of a gandhabba, that zygote becomes alive—as alive as you and me.
- A gandhabba has a hadaya vatthu (seat of the mind) and five pasada rupa. That is the essence of a “living being.”
- The mind of the gandhabba is in the “bhavanga” state until the baby’s brain is developed and it can receive sensory inputs. Even inside the womb, it starts receiving sensory inputs gradually as the brain develops.
- Consider someone becoming unconscious for a few minutes. That person is not aware of anything, and no thoughts arise. Can we say that the person is not alive during that time? What determines “life” is the existence of a hadaya vatthu (seat of the mind) and five pasada rupa.
Taryal asked: “If a female accidentally becomes pregnant, should she be encouraged to forcefully bear the burden out of fear of the contrary being “immoral”? Additionally, how to view cases like a 12 year old girl being pregnant due to rape, for example? If I was a doctor, I don’t think there’s a chance I’d let her take the risk of giving birth.”
- That is a separate issue. Either way, those are hard and agonizing decisions. That is why life is suffering.
- That child did not get pregnant without a cause. It is a kamma vipaka. How one handles a kamma vipaka is a separate issue.
- Why would one come down with cancer (even if they took care of their health all their lives) or get into a car accident (even though it is not their fault)? There are an uncountable number of examples. Those are possible because we are born with this physical body.
-
“However, with the merging of a gandhabba, that zygote becomes alive—as alive as you and me.“
But it doesn’t have a brain yet and can’t receive any sensory input. From the perspective of those who choose to abort, it is just a microscopic lump of cells that knows nothing about the world, including itself. With that being said, will their minds release javana citta equivalent to that of killing a human with well defined organs and nervous system?
Dr. Lal wrote:
- That is a separate issue. Either way, those are hard and agonizing decisions. That is why life is suffering.
- That child did not get pregnant without a cause. It is a kamma vipaka. How one handles a kamma vipaka is a separate issue.
- Why would one come down with cancer (even if they took care of their health all their lives) or get into a car accident (even though it is not their fault)? There are an uncountable number of examples. Those are possible because we are born with this physical body.
That’s the thing. Killing the embryo would mean forcefully removing the gandhabba but letting a woman/child face the burden of unwanted pregnancy would also be immoral. In all honesty, if I had to deal with something like this, I would take the former route. This is why I am typically against abortion ban. One’s vipaka is one’s own responsibility and we can get into situations where we have to commit acts that can be akusala. Killing someone invasive to save others would be another example.
-
-
-
When one is infected with parasites, it’d be advised to take medicine to kill them too. Even if a tapeworm may not be on par with a human life, it is a sentient being that wants to live. I know about pet owners who decided to put down their pets because they were suffering from disease. The “intention” of aborting a human embryo in an unwanted pregnancy would be to protect the mother’s life & well-being, AND the baby from future suffering. So I remain unconvinced that their minds will release javana citta equivalent to the strength of “murdering” a human that is already living independent of their mother. Regardless, it is safe to say that it is not possible to live in this world without harming other beings, including humans.
-
Yes. Kamma generation is a tricky subject.
- I suggest reading the posts “How to Evaluate Weights of Different Kamma“ and “What is Kamma? – Is Everything Determined by Kamma?“
- We can discuss further after that.
-
“When one is infected with parasites, it’d be advised to take medicine to kill them, too”—the value of worms is much less in karmic terms, and being human is extremely rare, the same with pets. As Buddha taught us, “It’s not the way we like it.” You can not even out everything because you want something to be according to your logic. You are trying to bend it with tunnel vision of ignorance. Buddha explained how it is in the big picture, if you see the big picture it’s clear that it is like that.
You put extreme examples but it does not take away that the cell is a living being, just because it does not look like that to you it does not mean it is not. If you see a small sapling of the tree, it is still a tree even if it has no branches or it does not look like it.
In extreme examples, those are very unfortunate for people who experience them and we understand that but emotionally charged arguments will not make truth non-truth. If people value mundane life they will abort or make any sacrifices on all levels of life for the sake of an illusionary sense of pleasure. If you are put in a bad situation you either make it worse for the future or somehow manage it, normal people have no option of Dhamma so obviously they generate more kamma with wrongdoings.
Your arguments are just questions of value. Puthujjana will always choose the option of a sense of pleasure under false views to the extreme version of sacrificing everything for the outcome of comfort and not having problems. Ariya will always value Nibbana even if it costs him his life because in the long term, you will be free permanently from sansara.
I think Vinaya is very good for measuring potential wrongdoings and their weight even if you are not a monk.
People need to understand that society and the way people act are based on distorted sanna so obviously, there will be shortcomings one way or another even if we have a pretty developed society in terms of material-objective truths that help up advance in terms of science and technology, but without Dhamma it can turn wrong way easily.
Having someone with an understanding of Dhamma + strong 4th jhana you could verify most things like that by yourself and experience of it.
-
Taryal wrote: “So I remain unconvinced that their minds will release javana citta equivalent to the strength of “murdering” a human that is already living independent of their mother.”
- That statement is correct. When I wrote my comment, I thought you had written the opposite. That is why I recommended those two posts, which also convey the same idea that you did. Taking a human life is a billion-fold worse than killing an animal. Along the same line, taking the life of an Arahant (which is an anantariya kamma) is a billion-fold worse than killing an average human.
- Of course, we must refrain from taking any life.
P.S. Probably Christian read Taryal’s comment the same way I did.
-
The “intention” of aborting a human embryo in an unwanted pregnancy would be to protect the mother’s life & well-being, AND the baby from future suffering. So I remain unconvinced that their minds will release javana citta equivalent to the strength of “murdering” a human that is already living independent of their mother.
I think this is a really bad argument, if you kill something for the comfort or sense of pleasure it’s even worse javana citta. Your logic would apply in the sense that I have no problem killing anyone because somebody is bothering me and killing that person will make me feel go away isn’t it the worst kamma to make?
This is why we need to verify our logic from a lot of angles especially if it is infected with mundane ignorance.
I understand there are extreme situations like “the child will be dead anyway so let’s save the mother” as the best choice in a given situation, but Dhamma perspective is different from than mundane perspective and logic that often falls in the big picture of the world.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
I think this is a really bad argument, if you kill something for the comfort or sense of pleasure it’s even worse javana citta. Your logic would apply in the sense that I have no problem killing anyone because somebody is bothering me and killing that person will make me feel go away isn’t it the worst kamma to make?
This thread has got me confused. Who said anything about pleasure? I was referring to unwanted pregnancies – accidental (like failed contraception) & forced (like rape), not the ones where you impregnant yourself due to negligence only to abort the fetus. It would be easy for someone to say something like, “Don’t have sex if you don’t want the risk.” But this is totally ignorant about the true nature of human existence. Even a sakadagami craves sex.
Christian wrote: “I understand there are extreme situations like “the child will be dead anyway so let’s save the mother” as the best choice in a given situation, but Dhamma perspective is different from than mundane perspective and logic that often falls in the big picture of the world.”
An unwanted pregnancy is already an extreme situation. Why should a woman be encouraged to carry what’s practically a parasite in her womb for 9 months straight and risk not only her own but also the fetus life while giving birth, if she doesn’t want to go through that BS in the first place? If your sister was raped, would you let her give birth against her consent? I do not care if it is a “vipaka”. We are all guilty of committing innumerable moral and immoral actions anyway.
Dr. Lal wrote: “If Taryal was referring to aborting a pregnancy, I agree with Christian. Aborting a pregnancy is taking a human life, as I pointed out in previous comments. It is done with intention.”
Yes, but would you say that the “intention” here is the same as murdering a human who is already living independent of the mother and poses no harm to her? I know that intention is contextual. For instance, a policeman killing a criminal does so with a different intention than the opposite. If a wild animal kills its parent, that would not be an anantarika kamma, would it? The mental state and thus “intention” of an animal is different and not as potent as that of a human, since there is no such thing as “absolute morality” (as I understand it). This is why I said: “So I remain unconvinced that their minds will release javana citta equivalent to the strength of “murdering” a human that is already living independent of their mother.”
-
Let me address Taryal’s comment regarding my comment. By analyzing that last part of Taryal’s comment, I think we can clarify a few issues.
Taryal: “Yes, but would you say that the “intention” here is the same as murdering a human who is already living independent of the mother and poses no harm to her?”
- Here, “intention” is a critical word. The Pali word is “cetanā.” However, as in many cases, we must understand that by “cetanā” the Buddha always referred to “sañcetanā” or “intentions with raga, dosa, moha embedded.” See, for example, “Sattaṭṭhāna Sutta (SN 22.57).” Also see “Nibbedhika Sutta (AN 6.63)“: “Cetanāhaṁ, bhikkhave, kammaṁ vadāmi. Cetayitvā kammaṁ karoti—kāyena vācāya manasā.” OR “with (defiled) intention, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and mind.”
- Most people do not even know that taking a life can lead to harmful consequences, i.e., kamma vipaka. They don’t believe in kamma/kamma vipaka. That does not mean they did not have (defiled) intention!
- Therefore, ignorance is not an excuse. These are nature’s laws. Kamma vipaka happen not because the Buddha says so, but because it is how nature works. The Buddha only discovered nature’s laws.
- As I said many times above, living life is not easy. That is why we need to get out of the rebirth process. If one is born an animal, they have no way to rationalize why they can be eaten alive by a bigger animal. Some women say, “It is unfair that only women have to carry a baby in the womb.” But it is not a question of fairness; things happen due to causes and conditions.
Trayal wrote: “For instance, a policeman killing a criminal does so with a different intention than the opposite.”
- The policeman will bear the consequences of taking a life. He would also benefit from it if the criminal were about to kill another person. This is why sorting out kamma vipaka is impossible. Most actions involve both aspects.
Taryal wrote: ” If a wild animal kills its parent, that would not be an anantarika kamma, would it?”
- We don’t know with certainty because that has not been discussed directly in the Tipitaka, especially in the suttas. But it is unlikely to be.
- An animal’s mental states are very different from a human’s. Certain types of cittas cannot arise in an animal. So, it is likely from Abhidhamma analysis that an animal cannot do an anantarika kamma.
- Yet, we are talking about humans on this topic.
Taryal wrote: “..since there is no such thing as “absolute morality” (as I understand it)”
- Again, not knowing about kamma/kamma vipaka is not an excuse for humans. They have the capability to understand that taking a life is going to its consequences. People are trapped in the rebirth process because they are unaware of how nature works. Until a Buddha explains, and until one hears and comprehends it, no one would know.
- One could say that is unfair. But this world (nature) does not play by superficial “fairness.” There is a set of rules (Paticca Samuppada), and things happen according to those rules.
- Understanding Paticca Samuppada can reveal “absolute morality.” This will lead to the cessation of this world with all its conflicts and suffering.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
This Sansara is like Hell. Such situations arise due to previous kamma and trap the individual.
If a minor girl is raped and gets pregnant, that was also a part of that process. Now if she kills the baby then again a new kamma is generated. It’s very unfortunate but technically she is trapped now. If she doesn’t abort then she will die but if does then it may generate a kamma of killing a human. In such situations it should be the choice of that person because there is no absolute answer to this. So if abortion takes place then that girl is now safe from death but not from Sansara, so she must practice the dhamma and do meritorious activities so to be free from these tortures and confusions once and for all. If that’s not happening then it doesn’t really matter in the long term if you live or not. But the ignorant mind’s tendency is to stay alive no matter what( except in extraordinary situations). So to be Societally Correct, that girl has the right to abort the baby , but in the Absolute Truth, that doesn’t change anything but would make the things worse depending on her mind’s condition, intention etc.
I do also feel that we need to define what exactly Sancetana or bad intention would be. I heard of a story about Ven. Sariputta where he meets a man crying and feeling sad, he asked him why are you sad?
That man says that he will be going to be born in hell because he is the Executioner of The king on whose command he has to kill the thieves and the criminals but he is forced to do this job as he was once a thief and the king caught him and gave him 2 options, to either be killed or work under him for this job. Fearing death he took this option. Then Ven. Sariputta asked him that do you Enjoy killing those people?
He said no , he doesn’t like what he does. Then Sariputta told him that you won’t be born in hell as your mind didn’t Like imparting that torture on them. That man doesn’t believe Ven. Sariputta and leaves by saying that he would definitely be born in hell. He becomes a Deva after his death.
I don’t know the Sutta please check or else I will try to search it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
I didn’t realize Taryal had closed the thread because I posted my above comment.
- Pathfinder just emailed me saying he could not post. I have now re-opened the thread.
Pathfinder also emailed me saying it is Dhammapda verse 100: “Dhammapada Verse 100“
- I could not open the link Pathfinder emailed me, but the above should give the idea. Thank you, Pathfinder!
As I thought, that person, the executioner (Tambadathika) had attained anuloma nana before he died, i.e., Sotapanna Anugami. That is why he was reborn in a Deva realm.
- We also remember that Angulimala killed almost a thousand people but attained Arahanthood before death. See “Account of Angulimāla – Many Insights to Buddha Dhamma.”
- Thus, as long as it is not an anantariya kamma, it can be overcome.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Jittananto has provided an interesting aspect to the account of Tambadathika: “Bāhiya, Pukkusāti, Tambadathika – All Killed by the Same Cow.”
- Thank you, Jittananto!
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
No Problem. It is better to have its own thread. That way, it would be easier to find in a search with a keyword.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.