When Buddhists get a tick....

[tiltbillings]

You deliberately fed this tick; you deliberately allowed it go on its way after feeding, which is to say you take no responsibility for your actions in this, thereby jeopordizing others to the same fun you had with Lyme's disease.

The tick took blood from me of its own accord. I did not invite it to feed. I simply found it feeding and instinctively knew that even moving it would likely kill it because it was so small. So therefore, I did not move it or remove it from my arm knowing that it might die if I did. I guess I enabled it.

Yes. You enabled it to carry on its life cycle with a very good possibility of its off-spring infecting others, which makes what happens next your responsibility. So, if others contracted Lyme's from the off-spring of that tick, it is your responsibility.

Am I also responsible for all of the other ticks that go around infecting people because I don't personally go around killing all of them (the ticks, that is)?

Are you personally feeding those ticks? What we are talking about here is a tick that you, by your choice, allowed to feed off you.

[Virgo]

You deliberately fed this tick; you deliberately allowed it go on its way after feeding, which is to say you take no responsibility for your actions in this, thereby jeopordizing others to the same fun you had with Lyme's disease.

The tick took blood from me of its own accord. I did not invite it to feed. I simply found it feeding and instinctively knew that even moving it would likely kill it because it was so small. So therefore, I did not move it or remove it from my arm knowing that it might die if I did. I guess I enabled it.

Yes. You enabled it to carry on its life cycle with a very good possibility of its off-spring infecting others, which makes what happens next your responsibility. So, if others contracted Lyme's from the off-spring of that tick, it is your responsibility.

Am I also responsible for all of the other ticks that go around infecting people because I don't personally go around killing all of them (the ticks, that is)?

Are you personally feeding those ticks? What we are talking about here is a tick that you, by your choice, allowed to feed off you.

Thus, in my particular situation, Tilt, let me ask you: what should I have done?

Kevin

[Goedert]

You deliberately fed this tick; you deliberately allowed it go on its way after feeding, which is to say you take no responsibility for your actions in this, thereby jeopordizing others to the same fun you had with Lyme's disease.

Yes samsaric life is hard.

Our friend Virgo cant change the nature of tick.

Anyway it can be viewed, He acted out of compassion for every form of life and give food to the famine.

Ho knows what happen to the tick. Maybe some other animal eated him, who knows? Thats how the things go in nature, another animal eatting another animal.

Why judge the action of our brother Virgo?

He didn't comit any offence and did not breaked any precet. So actually why condem his action? This do not fit with sila and good behaviour.

Kind regards.

[tiltbillings]

Our friend Virgo cant change the nature of tick.

That's the point.

Anyway it can be viewed, He acted out of compassion for every form of life and give food to the famine.

Where is the compassion for future victims of the off-spring that tick had by virtue of the supposed compassion given to that tick by Kevin? The death of one tick seems far less of a big deal compared to the possible years of serious medical suffering caused by that tick's off-spring.

Ho knows what happen to the tick. Maybe some other animal eated him, who knows? Thats how the things go in nature, another animal eatting another animal.

But why take the chance of not being eaten by some other animal and of its Kevin nourished off-spring infecting others?

Why judge the action of our brother Virgo?

He can't change the nature of the tick, which is the whole point, isn't it? Feeding the tick, knowing that there is a possibility of it, via its off-spring which were nourished by the blood of Kevin, infecting others is irresponsible. The supposed compassion is far outweighed by the broader context.

He didn't comit any offence and did not breaked any precet. So actually why condem his action? This do not fit with sila and good behaviour.

He is offering this story of feeding the tick as an example of an act of compassion, which makes it open for discussion. If you do not want to discuss it, then don't.

[Goedert]

Where is the compassion for future victims of the off-spring that tick had by virtue of the supposed compassion given to that tick by Kevin? The death of one tick seems far less of a big deal compared to the possible years of serious medical suffering caused by that tick's off-spring.

This is a supposement. Ok with this argument we can also state this: "A person is infected with a virus with no vacine and that kills rapidly, if the person is not treated and has a high transmission rate, trough air." So we can kill the person infected, because we have compassion for the other people that have a possibility to get sick too.

But why take the chance of not being eaten by some other animal and of its Kevin nourished off-spring infecting others?

Still the possibility is 50/50.

He can't change the nature of the tick, which is the whole point, isn't it? Feeding the tick, knowing that there is a possibility of it, via its off-spring which were nourished by the blood of Kevin, infecting others is irresponsible. The supposed compassion is far outweighed by the broader context.

So one can also kill bats, mosquitos, scorpions, snakes, spiders. All of them have a possibility to kill or pass dease to someone, even if we see them we must kill it for compassion for others?

He is offering this story of feeding the tick as an example of an act of compassion, which makes it open for discussion. If you do not want to discuss it, then don't.

This is the discussion.

The relevance of a small life form of a parasitoide agaist a possibility of damage in a bigger life form.

The argument is that "It is irresponsability not kill the parasitoide creature, because it might pass deases to other people".

As stated above, it is the same as kill a snake, scorpions, mosquito, batas, even a human being with an easy transmission dease.

Someone out of compassion, will kill a snake because it might bite others?
Bats?
Mosquitos?
Human beings infected with enfluenza for exemple?
They have to be killed or not killed? Why? Whats the difference of them and the little tick?

[tiltbillings]

Where is the compassion for future victims of the off-spring that tick had by virtue of the supposed compassion given to that tick by Kevin? The death of one tick seems far less of a big deal compared to the possible years of serious medical suffering caused by that tick's off-spring.

This is a supposement. Ok with this argument we can also state this: "A person is infected with a virus with no vacine and the kils rapidly if the person is not treated and has a high transmission trough air." So we can kill the person infected, because we have compassion for other people that have a possibility to get sick too.

The virus is not the same as a tick, is it? The tick could be easily removed and dealt with so that there is no further chance of disease coming from it. Big difference.

But why take the chance of not being eaten by some other animal and of its Kevin nourished off-spring infecting others?

Still the possibility is 50/50.

And there is no reason in the world to take those odds.

He can't change the nature of the tick, which is the whole point, isn't it? Feeding the tick, knowing that there is a possibility of it, via its off-spring which were nourished by the blood of Kevin, infecting others is irresponsible. The supposed compassion is far outweighed by the broader context.

So one also kill bats, mosquitos, scorpions, snakes, spiders. All of them have a possibility to kill or dease someone, even if we see them we must kill it for compassion for others?

A rabid bat is flying about and out of compassion you let it bite you? You do not stop it from biting others? Mosquitoes deliberately target humans for food and they carry disease; you are going to encourage them by feeding them your life's blood? Spiders, snakes and the like only use the venom on humans as self defense, which puts them in a different category from those disease carriers that specifically target humans. Human death numbers from those animals is factors smaller than those of mosquitoes and fleas and the like.

The argument is that "It is irresponsability not kill the parasitoide creature, because it might pass deases to other people".

So, we do not do anything about preventing malaria.

As stated above, it is the same as kill a snake, scorpions, mosquito, batas, even a human being with an easy transmission dease.

Not at all the same. A snake will bite if cornered; otherwise, they would not bite. Bats, unless infected with rabies will not attack humans.

Human beings with infected with enfluenza for exemple?

They can be treated and isolated for the duration of the disease.

Whats the difference of them and the little tick?

You tell me.

[Goedert]

A principle in an action causes a result.

A different principle in an action causes a different result.

Killing can be an action of compassion.

Killing intentionaly killing another being cant be an act of compassion for others.
(Principle - Selfish, fear, hate) (Result - bad kamma)

Killing ourselfs to save or secure another being can be an act of compassion for others.
(Principle - Unselfish, compassion, wisdom) (Result - Abhaya dana - good kamma)

Abhaya Dana

A good Buddhist keeps the Five Precepts with goodwill and compassion, and not out of fear, or necessity, or to keep up appearance, but his heart and mind incline him to do good. Keeping these Five Precepts was recognized by the Buddha as "abhaya Dana", the giving of freedom from harm and anxiety. Such giving was praised as the giving of the "great gifts" of friendship and peace of mind, and of freedom from fear, ill-will, and hate.

The Buddha taught: "Monks, there are these great gifts, recognized as such from the first, known for many a day, known by tradition, ancient and un-confounded, not scorned by discerning recluse or godly man.

"Herein, monks, a noble disciple abandons taking life and abstains there from."

"Thus abstaining, to uncountable beings,

He gives freedom from fear,
He gives freedom from hatred,
He gives freedom from ill-will;"

"In giving freedom from fear, hatred and ill-will, the noble disciple (too) becomes a partaker in boundless fearlessness, friendship and goodwill. This, monks, is the first great gift. This, monks, will result in merit and goodness, the cause of happiness, divine, resulting in happiness, leading heavenward and conducive to what is pleasing, lovely, precious, beneficial and delightful."

"Again, monks,

A noble disciple abandon stealing, and abstains there from,
A noble disciple abandons lustful, evil ways, and abstains there from,
A noble disciple abandons lying and malicious speech, and abstains there from,
A noble disciple abandons intoxicants, which cause indolence and other evils, and abstains there from."

"Thus abstaining, to uncountable beings,
He gives freedom from fear,
He gives freedom from hatred,
He gives freedom from ill-will;"

"And in giving freedom from fear, hatred and ill-will, he (too) becomes a partaker in boundless fearlessness, friendship and goodwill. These, monks, are great gifts. These, monks, will result in merit and goodness, the cause of happiness, divine, resulting in happiness, leading heavenward and conducive to what is pleasing, lovely, precious, beneficial and delightful."

In his teachings, the Buddha attached very great importance to keeping goodwill and love in one’s heart, and to giving love and goodwill to one another. On one occasion, He said: "… though with pious heart a disciple took refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, his reward would have been greater if he had, with pious heart, undertaken to keep the precepts:

To abstain from taking life
To abstain from taking what is not given
To abstain from carnal lusts
To abstain from lying
To abstain from intoxicating liquor, the cause of sloth."

The Buddha then continued: "and though with pious heart he undertook to keep the precepts, greater still would have been his reward if he had conceived even a passing thought of amity and goodwill."

On another occasion, the Buddha admonished his monks thus:

"Monks, if for just the lasting of a finger-snap a monk indulges a thought of goodwill, such an one is to be called a monk. Not empty of result is his musing. He abides doing the Master’s bidding. He is one who takes good advice, and he eats the country’s alms-food to some purpose. What then should I say of those who make much of such a thought."

If each of us were to follow the Buddha’s teaching to "make much of such a thought" (of love and goodwill). The world would certainly be a safer, happier place for all.

[tiltbillings]

A principle . . . for all.

For all of that, it is still not a wisely compassionate thing to feed a potentionally dangerous parasite that may infect others.

[tiltbillings]

Killing intentionaly killing another being cant be an act of compassion for others.
(Principle - Selfish, fear, hate) (Result - bad kamma)

A serial killer is about to kill another victim, it is not a good thing to shoot him if that is the only way to stop him?

So, a person infected with parasites that will cause blindness should just grin and bear and not kill the nice friendly little beasties that have set up shop in his eyes? Or how about the person with nice large worm thingies chewing on his brain, which will cause him to go mad and eventually die. Is this what you are going to say to this person: "It bad to kill those worms. They have a right to live. You are just the unlucky sap who got infected. You kill them and you will go to hell for a very long time."

[Goedert]

Killing intentionaly killing another being cant be an act of compassion for others.
(Principle - Selfish, fear, hate) (Result - bad kamma)

A serial killer is about to kill another victim, it is not a good thing to shoot him if that is the only way to stop him?

So, a person infected with parasites that will cause blindness should just grin and bear and not kill the nice friendly little beasties that have set up shop in his eyes? Or have about the person with nice large worm thingies chewing on his brain, which will cause him to go mad and eventually die. Is this what you are going to say to this person: "It bad to kill those worms. They have a right to live. You are just the unlucky sap who got infected. You kill them and you will go to hell for a very long time."

Killing in Self-defense - Mahasi Sayadaw

Once, a writer said in one of the journals that a stream-enterer (sotapanna) will not kill others, but if anyone comes to kill him, he will kill his attacker. That writer declared that he made that statement after a research of the nature of the human mind.

That is ridiculous. I just wonder whose mind he had made a research of, and how he could do that. He must have made a research of his own mind. He might have thought he was a sotapanna. He might have asked himself if he would allow the attacker to kill him when he had an effective weapon to return the attack by way of defense, and it might have been his own answer that he would attack the attacker first. From his personal attitude he obtained the conclusions which he expressed in his article. According to the tenets of Buddhism, this is a ridiculous statement.

The very fact that one thinks one can and should retaliate if attacked proves that one is not a stream-enterer, for according to Buddhist tenets, the person entertaining such a notion is a mere puthujjana, an ordinary worldling, definitely not a stream-enterer. A real sotapanna would not kill even a flea or a bug, not to say a human being. This fact must be remembered once and for all.

— Discourse on the Hemavata Sutta

It is better a word from a monk, then any strange on internet.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

A serial killer is about to kill another victim, it is not a good thing to shoot him if that is the only way to stop him?

Wow... this feels like I've been transported to one of my first year Philosophy lectures.

Utilitarianism vs that other rules-based one.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

A serial killer is about to kill another victim, it is not a good thing to shoot him if that is the only way to stop him?

Wow... this feels like I've been transported to one of my first year Philosophy lectures.

Utilitarianism vs that other rules-based one.

Metta,
Retro.

Yeah. Some people here would not get a passing grade.

[tiltbillings]

Killing intentionaly killing another being cant be an act of compassion for others.
(Principle - Selfish, fear, hate) (Result - bad kamma)

A serial killer is about to kill another victim, it is not a good thing to shoot him if that is the only way to stop him?

So, a person infected with parasites that will cause blindness should just grin and bear and not kill the nice friendly little beasties that have set up shop in his eyes? Or have about the person with nice large worm thingies chewing on his brain, which will cause him to go mad and eventually die. Is this what you are going to say to this person: "It bad to kill those worms. They have a right to live. You are just the unlucky sap who got infected. You kill them and you will go to hell for a very long time."

Killing in Self-defense - Mahasi Sayadaw. . . . .

That does not address what I said about the serial killer, does it? So, following what you seem to be saying here, we let the sertial killer kill others and the parasites can eat us alive, blinding us and driving us crazy and we should not a thing to stop them.

[Annapurna]

What would a Buddhist [monk] do, if he found a tick tightly hlding on to his skin? Leave it till it falls off?

Ticks can cause Borreliosis or Lyme disease as well as meningitis, and need to get removed as quickly as possible.

Not always can you save the tick, I've never been able to, and honestly, what for? To multiply?


This is not another fleas thread, mind you.

Ticks are a lot more dangerous than fleas, .... well, since we don't get the plague anymore.... plus you have one for several days, and can get a hold of it.

Or what's up with intestinal worms?

Well I found one boring into my skin and I left it to do its business. I should mention that I already have Lyme disease via tick bits. I live in the Northeast United States in a state where Lyme disease is rampant. I have had it for many years.

I should mention that if my Lyme disease had been gone at that point I might have become reinfected. I don't think it was gone at that time but I new that it was possible as it had not flared up in quite some time. If still infected, the virus being reintroduced into my body could cause it to flare up badly. As the tick was biting me I was thinking about the horrible ways I have suffered from Lyme disease in the past.

Kevin,
I don't think Lyme was gone, but if, you sure did your best to retract another case.

WHY?

Is it so cool to be sick?

Just to feed a tick?

What would happen if you become ill again?

Who's feeding you then?

The community of the insured, and taxpayers, if you go unemployed?

[Goedert]

Killing intentionaly killing another being cant be an act of compassion for others.
(Principle - Selfish, fear, hate) (Result - bad kamma)

A serial killer is about to kill another victim, it is not a good thing to shoot him if that is the only way to stop him?

So, a person infected with parasites that will cause blindness should just grin and bear and not kill the nice friendly little beasties that have set up shop in his eyes? Or have about the person with nice large worm thingies chewing on his brain, which will cause him to go mad and eventually die. Is this what you are going to say to this person: "It bad to kill those worms. They have a right to live. You are just the unlucky sap who got infected. You kill them and you will go to hell for a very long time."

No. Someone should remove them for the person infected with parasiteS. Trying to not kill them.

In anyway it fit with the exemple of our friend, it was one.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,

"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

— MN 21

[Mawkish1983]

Yeah. Some people here would not get a passing grade.

But I'd try my best, that's allI could do.

[tiltbillings]

Killing intentionaly killing another being cant be an act of compassion for others.
(Principle - Selfish, fear, hate) (Result - bad kamma)

A serial killer is about to kill another victim, it is not a good thing to shoot him if that is the only way to stop him?

So, a person infected with parasites that will cause blindness should just grin and bear and not kill the nice friendly little beasties that have set up shop in his eyes? Or have about the person with nice large worm thingies chewing on his brain, which will cause him to go mad and eventually die. Is this what you are going to say to this person: "It bad to kill those worms. They have a right to live. You are just the unlucky sap who got infected. You kill them and you will go to hell for a very long time."

No. Someone should remove them for the person infected with parasites. Trying to not kill them.

That is one of the more silly things I have heard all week. So, we take out the parasite without killing, but it needs a host in which to live otherwise it dies. Are you going to volunteer to be the host? The only way to treat the brain parasite is to poison it, so you say we should just let it eat the poor victims brain away.

You still are avoiding the question about the serial killer: The serial killer is about to kill someone, the only way to stop him is to kill him. Do you just let him kill? But since you cannot kill him before he kill the poor victim, he gets away and kills some more, which would then, in part, be on your head as would be the death of victim you could have saved.

[Oleksandr]

First, I think Buddhists shouldn't go to forest when ticks are there to avoid such situations

Second, may be it is possible to ask a doctor to remove a tick with pincers without killing him?

Third, there is an option to remove him by cutting out a part of your skin, where he is. Painful, but the tick will remain alive.

[tiltbillings]

Yeah. Some people here would not get a passing grade.

But I'd try my best, that's allI could do.

Kill the parasite or let it kill the victim?

[tiltbillings]

First, I think Buddhists shouldn't go to forest when ticks are there to avoid such situations

Second, may be it is possible to ask a doctor to remove a tick with pincers without killing him?

Third, there is an option to remove him by cutting out a part of your skin, where he is. Painful, but the tick will remain alive.

And so the tick remains alive, you put out side somewhere and it infects another human being who is not as smart as we Buddhists are about not going into the forest, and as happens with deer ticks he does not notice that he has been bitten and get Lyme's disease from the tick you saved and released and now he is faced with what can be a crippling and life threatening disease thanks to your compassion and fear of bad kamma.