When Buddhists get a tick....

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
Locked
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Annapurna »

Oleksandr wrote: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.
First, I think Buddhists shouldn't go to forest when ticks are there to avoid such situations :)
Come on!

Who told the ticks to stay in the forest?

They wait in gardens, on hiking routes, along country roads, everywhere, except concrete cities perhaps.

I get all my ticks while working in the garden!

And what's up with those Buddhists who work outdoors, fell trees, and stuff?
Second, may be it is possible to ask a doctor to remove a tick with pincers without killing him?
Sure, but it would cost me 10 Euros, so I use my own fingers and my own pincers...

But it's not a bad idea. :smile:
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.

I'd have pieces of skin missing and ugly scars allover my body. And then where should I put it? Drive to a forest, gently place it on the ground, while the next one is already crawling up my leg and while the blood is seeping through the bandaid?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by tiltbillings »

Goedert wrote: Responding your question.

Yes anyone can kill, Lay Buddhist kill. Ariyans do not kill.

Reffering to your ad hominem.
I'm nothing.
No ad hom here. You simply seem to imply that you are an ariya. And I am asking you directly, are you a sotapanna (or more)? A simple yes or no will do.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Goedert
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Goedert »

tiltbillings wrote:
Goedert wrote: Responding your question.

Yes anyone can kill, Lay Buddhist kill. Ariyans do not kill.

Reffering to your ad hominem.
I'm nothing.
No ad hom here. You simply seem to imply that you are an ariya. And I am asking you directly, are you a sotapanna (or more)? A simple yes or no will do.
Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PeterB »

Oleksandr wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: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.
Maybe. Or maybe not.

Don't you think that according to Theravada killing is always unskillful?
No. I know that question was not addressed to me. In the real world sometimes all we have is a range of options in a situation we would not choose to be in. This is one such. I try to avoid killing, but that is not an absolute position. Sometimes and this is one..we actually have to act like responsible adults and take the lesser of two evils. ( I will resist the temptation of work up a joke about the lesser of two weevils ) And the lesser of two evils in this case is preventing yourself and others from developing Lyme Disease.. Human beings are far more important than insects. Which does not give human being carte blanche to squish bugs, but it does mean that they should take preventive steps when faced with disease vectors. I would not hesitate to take any measure to remove a tick from myself or any other creature. neither would I hesitate to take part in any spraying or other campaign to kill ticks that are near human habitation. All kamma is mixed. I think the intention in preventing Lyme disease is more positive than the result of killing them.
I think to defend the rights of insects to feed off us or our families or pets is an absolute travesty of Buddhadhamma. Its a denial of reality and it is to advocate an opting out of real responsible adult behaviour.
I cannot help concluding that there is a great deal of fear of personal anger here. i have written before of the fact that some of the most angry patients I meet are vegetarians who not so much animal lovers as very angry people whose own anger scares them..and who become angry at the very idea..I think that there is a similar issue here.
I cannot imagine for one moment the Ajahns at Chithurst advocating a passive attitude towards tick bites.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PeterB »

Goedert wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Goedert wrote: Responding your question.

Yes anyone can kill, Lay Buddhist kill. Ariyans do not kill.

Reffering to your ad hominem.
I'm nothing.
No ad hom here. You simply seem to imply that you are an ariya. And I am asking you directly, are you a sotapanna (or more)? A simple yes or no will do.
Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
Tilts question was not an ad hom. It was a simple question.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by tiltbillings »

Goedert wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Goedert wrote: Responding your question.

Yes anyone can kill, Lay Buddhist kill. Ariyans do not kill.

Reffering to your ad hominem.
I'm nothing.
No ad hom here. You simply seem to imply that you are an ariya. And I am asking you directly, are you a sotapanna (or more)? A simple yes or no will do.
Ad hominem circumstantial
Nice try, You have repeatedly tried to deflect the convesation and the now you are indulging in an ad hom by accusing me of indulging in an ad hom. Goodness.

Rather than directly answering the questions directly put to you, you go on about how an ariya would act. So, let us see if we can unpack this: you are claiming - it seems - then that you are trying to act in accordance to the prescriptive descriptions in the suttas rather than implying that you are an ariya as a basis for your claims of how you would act. That would have been very simple to say so, but as we have seen, you would have killed indirectly by allowing the serial killer to kill. And likely the parasitical worm would have died given that you were unwilling to become its host. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Mawkish1983
Posts: 1285
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Mawkish1983 »

PeterB wrote:Tilts question was not an ad hom. It was a simple question.
Seconded (although my opinion here is not necessary)
PaulD
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:40 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PaulD »

tiltbillings wrote:
Oleksandr wrote: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.
:rofl:
I love this thread.
User avatar
Goedert
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Goedert »

tiltbillings wrote:Nice try, You have repeatedly tried to deflect the convesation and the now you are indulging in an ad hom by accusing me of indulging in an ad hom. Goodness.

Rather than directly answering the questions directly put to you, you go on about how an ariya would act. So, let us see if we can unpack this: you are claiming - it seems - then that you are trying to act in accordance to the prescriptive descriptions in the suttas rather than implying that you are an ariya as a basis for your claims of how you would act. That would have been very simple to say so, but as we have seen, you would have killed indirectly by allowing the serial killer to kill. And likely the parasitical worm would have died given that you were unwilling to become its host. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
I'm not self-proclaming sotapanna.

Just think we should act as in the suttas. As the monks teach, holding the precepts.

The case of the serial killer, we can grab him, hit him in the head, do anything, but we do not need to kill right. Killing is not always necessary.

In the case of the tick, if one don't like or don't want to be with it, remove it and put it in nature so he can seek other host, possibily an animal or something.

Don't assume that "I said I would act that way" "I will put the worms in nature".

If you really want know what I do. I don't know, didn't live that situation. But I wouldn't break the precept intentionally.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by tiltbillings »

PaulD wrote: I love this thread.
There has to be some entertainment value to a thread such as this otherwise it just gets deadly seriously boring.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PeterB »

It certainly would be a candidate for an award for " threads most likely to convince the rest of the world that Buddhists are loony ".. :lol:
.Its like a friggin' parody of Buddhism. The kind of stuff that Born Again Christians say that Buddhists believe. " They think its more important to let your child get a crippling disease than to kill a bug ".
User avatar
Goedert
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Goedert »

Think we have to make a distinction here.

A monk or an ariyan never has the intention to kill. A layman is layman.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by tiltbillings »

Goedert wrote:
I'm not self-proclaming sotapanna.
Thank you for saying so.
Just think we should act as in the suttas. As the monks teach, holding the precepts.
The suttas are a wise guide, but obviously cannot cover every contingency with a black and white answer for everything we face in a very messy, difficult and complicated world.
The case of the serial killer, we can grab him, hit him in the head, do anything, but we do not need to kill right. Killing is not always necessary.
One would certainly hope that it is not always necessary, but there may be a circumstance were it is - as your answer implies - necessary or innocent people might die.
In the case of the tick, if one don't like or don't want to be with it, remove it and put it in nature so he can seek other host, possibily an animal or something.
Or some human being. In other words, let it go so it will inflict itself upon some other hapless being that gets in its way.

Well, some good points have been made by PeterB directly above and below.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PeterB »

Goedert wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Nice try, You have repeatedly tried to deflect the convesation and the now you are indulging in an ad hom by accusing me of indulging in an ad hom. Goodness.

Rather than directly answering the questions directly put to you, you go on about how an ariya would act. So, let us see if we can unpack this: you are claiming - it seems - then that you are trying to act in accordance to the prescriptive descriptions in the suttas rather than implying that you are an ariya as a basis for your claims of how you would act. That would have been very simple to say so, but as we have seen, you would have killed indirectly by allowing the serial killer to kill. And likely the parasitical worm would have died given that you were unwilling to become its host. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
I'm not self-proclaming sotapanna.

Just think we should act as in the suttas. As the monks teach, holding the precepts.

The case of the serial killer, we can grab him, hit him in the head, do anything, but we do not need to kill right. Killing is not always necessary.

In the case of the tick, if one don't like or don't want to be with it, remove it and put it in nature so he can seek other host, possibily an animal or something.

Don't assume that "I said I would act that way" "I will put the worms in nature".

If you really want know what I do. I don't know, didn't live that situation. But I wouldn't break the precept intentionally.
You cant BREAK the precepts. They are not commandments or laws. They are guidelines for personal morality. Rules for training. They have to be interpreted by rational reflection not just a stampede to the nearest literalist interpretation in all circumstances. The idea of the first precept is to prevent suffering not to turn us into Jains afraid to step on ants so sweeping the ground before us. And killing ticks in some circumstances will prevent far more suffering than leaving them alone.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by tiltbillings »

PeterB wrote:It certainly would be a candidate for an award for " threads most likely to convince the rest of the world that Buddhists are loony ".. :lol:
.Its like a friggin' parody of Buddhism. The kind of stuff that Born Again Christians say that Buddhists believe. " They think its more important to let your child get a crippling disease than to kill a bug ".
Pushing these things to an extreme for the sake of discussion can help us look at the complexity of the issues, but I have to admit that letting ticks feed on one "out of compassion" (and never mind the consequences) or arguing that we should try to extract a parasitic worm alive and intact from an infected person for the worm's benefit is a level I hope not to ever see again.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Locked