Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Hi Melancholy, there is an article by Ajahn Brahm somewhere, where he shows in the suttas it says an embryo is not classed as a person/human/sentient until a certain stage of development is reached.
So your vinaya references above are not relevant.

Thanks, James,

http://www.dhammatalks.net/
When Does Human Life Begin?
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn ... _Begin.pdf


Mike

Arahant Brahm stresses that human life begins when consciousness becomes apparent. At the time of the Buddha this would have been when the mother first feels fetal movements I think. This would place the emergence of human life well past what most people accept.
chownah
EDIT: should be "Ajahn Brahm"......don't know how I gave him a promotion to arahant.
chownah

pilgrim wrote:

polarbuddha101 wrote:he also sincerely believes that levitation is possible

He shares this outrageous belief with the Buddha..

The siddhi I'd really like to attain, is the ability to 'appear and vanish'. I can think of so many situations in which that ability would come in handy

But of course I'd take knowing for oneself that stream-entry had been attained above any number of such neat tricks!

James the Giant wrote:Hi Melancholy, there is an article by Ajahn Brahm somewhere, where he shows in the suttas it says an embryo is not classed as a person/human/sentient until a certain stage of development is reached.
So your vinaya references above are not relevant.

A little knowledge is dangerous. Outspoken monks are easy to criticize for those of us with a little knowledge of Buddhism. When I first encountered Ajahn Brahm I was flabbergasted at some of the things he said. Then I realized that he was coming from a much deeper understanding of the Dhamma-Vinaya than I was.

mikenz66 wrote:Thanks, James,

http://www.dhammatalks.net/
When Does Human Life Begin?
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn ... _Begin.pdf


Mike

Most grateful for the link and reference.
Such instruction will be of immeasurable benefit and comfort to a lady of my acquaintance.

Most grateful for the link and reference.
Such instruction will be of immeasurable benefit and comfort to a lady of my acquaintance.

This all is quite speculative and I wouldn't be so sure that one doesn't kill a human if does abortion even at some early time.

It resonates with me and I personally do not perceive any intended deceit or misleading teaching.

Thank you anyway for your caveat.

cooran wrote:I was at a talk by Ajahn Brahm in Brisbane a year or so ago. He told the same jokes I'd heard from him before, the same stories I'd read in his books - and then he said abortion was o.k. up to about 16 or more weeks. At that point quite a number of the audience walked out.

There is clear support for this conclusion in the Vinaya. This states that a monk or nun should never, for the whole of their life, intentionally kill a human being, ‘even to the extent of causing an abortion’. Similarly, they should not have sexual intercourse ‘even to the depth of a sesame seed’. They should not steal ‘even as much as a blade of grass’. They should not lay claim to spiritual attainments ‘even by saying “I delight in an empty dwelling”’. So abortion is clearly regarded as intentional killing of a human being; yet it is the least serious act of this kind.

However we do not accept that it can be proved that the inception of consciousness takes place only after three or four months. This is an ethically arbitrary date which simply marks the present day limits of scientific knowledge, but tells us nothing about the moral status of the embryo. I would very much like to see a study of the effects of abortion on the emotional landscapes of women, and a comparison between women who decided to have an abortion and women who had unwanted pregnancies but decided to bear a child. How do they feel afterwards? Five years later? Ten years later? How many mothers would, when their child had grown up, say that they wished they had had an abortion?

- When Life Begins, Bhikkhu Sujato

As advised by the Buddha, this is the third advice I heard just after receiving my higher ordination, so does any bhikkhu which including Ajahn Brahm.

"When a monk is ordained he should not intetionally deprive a living thing of life, even if it is only an ant. What ever monk deprives a human being of life even down to causing abortion, he becomes not a (true) recluse, not a son of the Sakyans. As a flat stone, broke, becomes (scmething) not to be put together again, even so a monk, having intentionally deprived a human being of life, becomes not a (true) recluse, not a son of the Sakyans. This is a thing not to be done by you as long as life lasts."

- Vinaya, Mahāvagga, 1. Mahā Khandhaka (The Book of Descipline IV, page 125)

In my honeymoon period with Buddhism (still not finished?), I was hypnotized by Ajan Brahm's talks, probably due to his slow alpha wave talking. Due to the availability on the web I tend to listen to many of his talks. The more I listened, I found that he brag about himself and disparages others mentioning their names. At a public talk given at Gaia House, Ajan Brahm criticized couple of other ajans for playing politics. Also, once he criticized Professor Peter Harvey about a meditative claim saying, "what meditation he knows!"

The person who broke me from Christianity was Krishnamurti, his teachings made me think differently. Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQSBFC_IlVY at the end of the talk Ajan Brahm even look down on him.

IMHO, for a famous teacher like Ajan Brahm, it's more conducive if he simply mentions a situation without names and compare it with a Sutta pointing to the faults. That way people will gain more faith in Buddhism and the way Buddhists deal in real life.

One teaching Ajan Brahm repeatedly talk about is not to find fault with others. At least he should practice what he preached.

Hi, I like Krishnamurti's lectures, and there is one thing that he always try to hammer in to my mind, and that is: dont belive in Krishnamurti - dont belive in gurus - dont belive in prophets - be a light on to oneself ...

And that's what I follow, so who is there to blame?

Besides that, I highly regard many of our dear ajhans, and Ajhan Brahm surely has a place in my puzzle called "walking the path" - but he's also a human and I respect his shortcomings as well of his experiences and inspiring manner and wit.

be well and happy

See these threads on Krishnamurti:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=305
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11184

I've nothing against Krishnamurti (or most other spiritual teachers), and I'm sure his talks and writings are helpful to many, but it appears that stating that he was not a Buddhist practitioner is an accurate statement.

Ajahn Brahm's comment from about 47:38 in the above linked video also seems to be quite consistent with some of the comments on the threads I've quoted above.

Clearly no one is perfect (neither Ajahn Brahm nor Krishnamurti).


Mike

Denisa wrote: One teaching Ajan Brahm repeatedly talk about is not to find fault with others. At least he should practice what he preached.

Criticism is not synonymous with "fault-finding". Pointing out something that flagrantly contradicts Buddhist teachings is not fault-finding. As I recall, Krishnamurti did seem to think that there was a transmigrating essence outside of the five aggregates. If Ajahn Brahm suspects that some people might confuse Krishnamurti's teachings with Buddhism, then it would be prudent for Ajahn Brahm to dispel any possible misconceptions.

In the suttas, the Buddha himself criticized people for holding pernicious views, sometimes more harshly than anything I've heard from Ajahn Brahm. If it doesn't come from an unwholesome volition, it's not wrong speech.

waterchan wrote: As I recall, Krishnamurti did seem to think that there was a transmigrating essence outside of the five aggregates.

Hi waterchan, do you have an examples of this?

I have been following ajahn brahm's teachings for a few years now.
I think he is a wonderful teacher, wise, creative, humorous and compassionate.
I disagree with the criticisms of him.
But that is not important.
He is what he is, people can say what they want about him but nobody can change the truth.
I am reminded of this verse though...

According to the Lord Buddha Gotama, no one is blameless.

"This, O Atula, is an old saying;
it is not one of today only:
they blame those who sit silent,
they blame those who speak too much.

Those speaking little too they blame.

There never was, there never will be, nor does there exist now, a person who is wholly blamed or wholly praised"

--Dhammapada verse 227/228