When Buddhists get a tick....

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
MJH
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Norway

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by MJH »

PeterB wrote: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.
:goodpost:
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 »

Goedert wrote: "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
I can remove a tick without any anger and hate, I totally understand it only wants to live as well, but I didn't give my blood voluntarily, so it is not given freely.

I have a right to remove a parasite.
Dhammapada wrote:166
Don't sacrifice your own welfare
for that of another,
no matter how great.
Realizing your own true welfare,
be intent on just that.
Last edited by Annapurna on Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

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 ".
Yeah, or Jehovas, who'd rather let somebody die than accept a blood donation.

That is extreme, and Buddha recommeded a middle path.
Hoo
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Hoo »

tiltbillings wrote:
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 have Dhammic reasons to disagree with those views? :) Much as I'd like the tick-killers to adhere to "Hoo-ism," they're probably better served by the Buddha than by our views - what ya think? Lest anyone raise the dreaded meta-discussion threat, I'm asking whether personal opinions as expressed are sufficient answer.

FWIW, the extremes are of some use to me and I am benefitting from the discussion. Whether to kill ticks is almost a daily question for me. I see the extremes as extensions of how people understand the precept and it's application. To me, it's useful, and it's hard to predict just when the extremes might even come into play. I have no aspiration to ordination so my perspective and questions are all from the fledgling Buddhist, householder perspective.

As a kid, I grew up with weapons and hunting. I'm familiar with the concept of what level of evolution deserves to be killed and eaten, just killed, or allowed to live. That included ticks and killers, by the way. The discussion here adds light to my former (pre-Buddhist) understandings. I've tried to come to grips with this topic since becoming Buddhist a little over a year and a half ago.

As an adult I went into the military. No tick problems but it traised the bar on understanding what deserves to live or die and whether there are justifying conditions. Weapons for self defense have always been part of the equation. About 15 years ago I began carrying a weapon regularly. A couple of years ago I quit carrying, but there was a long period in which these "what-if killer questions" were quite relevant - they still are sometimes, like a couple of weeks ago (I won't bother to discuss whether and why on firearms - it's a useless discussion because one either studies the Dhamma about it or not, and it's decidedly off topic.)

So my thanks to all for this topic and the decision to leave it open for a variety of perspectives. I can see how it might fizzle out, as most topics do, or morph into a topic more closely related to defense, self defense, "evolutionary rights," etc. Might even be advantageous to move that kind of morph to a new topic.

Hoo :namaste:
Anicca
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Anicca »

Howdy y'all!
tiltbillings wrote:Killing sometimes is a necessity of life, and sometimes it is far more compassionate than not.
Distinguishing between advice for laypersons / monks, i'd say laypeople should follow Tilt's excellent advice under certain circumstances - but this kind of reasoning can be abused / taken to far towards condoning the right to kill. I am a tick killer.

Now, regarding the monks - Buddha taught well, gave many examples and obviously "not killing" was very important. When to kill is the thrust of this thread - equally important. Buddha definitely allowed monks to eat - which cannot be done without the taking of life - but are there any other examples that allowed for monks to take sentient life?

I do not worry as much about appearing crazy to other religions or non-buddhists as much as i worry about misunderstanding exactly what the Buddha taught.

Regarding the obvious fact presented by Tilt: "Killing sometimes is a necessity of life, and sometimes it is far more compassionate than not": Other than for eating (and for life forms too small to be seen), is there a single sutta that supports the taking of sentient life - compassionate killing - for monks?

Is so - case closed - If not - hmmm???

Metta
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PeterB »

There probably is not Anicca. The compilers of the Suttas did not know that ticks carry Lyme Disease or that mosquitoes are responsible for Malaria and Yellow Fever. Or that rat fleas would cause plagues that would kill millions...But we do.
And so we need to give long and careful thought to that ( relatively ) new found knowledge.
With such knowledge comes responsibilities that the Sutta compilers could not have anticipated.
The Suttas are a source of knowledge of a very specific kind. They are not tablets of stone which prescribe solutions to all life problems.
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:They are not tablets of stone which prescribe solutions to all life problems.
Timeless (but use only as directed)?
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Virgo »

Here is a question:

The neighbors cat is really a stray, however the neighbor feeds it usually. It comes by my home sometimes and we give it milk. Now, that cat goes out and kills mice and birds. Is feeding it milk enabling it to go kill other sentient beings and cause them misery? (birds and mice have feelings too and don't want to die. They only want to be happy. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't run from danger. They also have children that they must feed.)

Maybe I should not feed the cat milk according to the faulty logic being put forth here.

Maybe I should take that logic further and even though I don't feed it myself, I should convince my neighbor not to feed it too. By condoning my neighbors actions when I see her and she brings up the cat and tell me that she fed it, gave it milk, aren't I enabling the cat to kill too. How far should this be taken? Is nodding and praising her activity, condoning it, helping to enable the cat to kill too? According to the line of logic being put forth here, I should not condone my neighbors feeding this cat. When she brings it up I should avert my gaze, walk away, or just tell her she should not do it. Otherwise I am enabling this cat.

Maybe I should take this wretched logic one step further and just club the f*ing the thing, the g*damn killer cat. I do have a baseball bat in the house that would crack its little head and crush her skull, you know...

Do you see where this faulty logic leads?

Kevin
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PeterB »

No. Thats a strawcat.
Its called The Slippery Slope Fallacy.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Virgo »

PeterB wrote:No. Thats a strawcat.
Its called The Slippery Slope Fallacy.
No it isn't. Thinking that letting a tick live is wrong simply because it might infect others is the slippery slope. The tick may live or may not, you do not know and cannot control it. Ticks have a short lifespan. There is just as much chance it will die before infecting another. Besides, you don't even know if the tick has Lyme or not! How can you condemn it without even knowing?

Kevin
User avatar
Moth
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:22 pm
Contact:

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by Moth »

I think we're over-analyzing this. You're not 100% guaranteed to get a disease, and if you do its not as if they're not treatable. Either way, if you kill the tick you kill the tick, do not look for justification. You value your own life over its life, either that or you value human life in general over that of a tick. I'm not implying any judgment value here, just trying to state things as they are. If you leave the tick then you accept the risk towards yourself for the sake of its life.

Also, I think the argument that letting it live would harm another being is invalid. There are infinitely many ticks, you sparing one's life isn't going to make a difference. Just because a tick exists near you doesn't mean you are duty bound to kill it, for the sake of other beings, for if that were the case we'd need to be preemptively killing many, many, ticks as they are all over the place.
Last edited by Moth on Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
May you be happy. May you be a peace. May you be free from suffering.
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 »

According to Theravada commentaries, there are five requisite factors that must all be fulfilled for an act to be both an act of killing and to be karmically negative. These are: (1) the presence of a living being, human or animal; (2) the knowledge that the being is a living being; (3) the intent to kill; (4) the act of killing by some means; and (5) the resulting death.

Hammalawa Saddhatissa, Buddhist Ethics. Wisdom Publications, 1997, pages 60, 159.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PeterB »

I will accept that Goedert. And I will consciously and deliberately kill ticks, mosquitoes and anything else that threatens the life of my family and community. And accept the consequences. You make your decision and I will make mine.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Post by PeterB »

Moth wrote:I think we're over-analyzing this. You're not 100% guaranteed to get a disease, and if you do its not as if they're not treatable. Either way, if you kill the tick you kill the tick, do not look for justification. You value your own life over its life, either that or you value human life in general over that of a tick. I'm not imply any judgment value here, just trying to state things as they are. If you leave the tick then you accept the risk towards yourself for the sake of its life. I am not speaking for myself, but I believe one who has truly let go of all things would not kill the being to save his/her own skin. Also I think the argument of letting it live would harm another being is invalid. There are infinitely many ticks, you sparing one's life isn't going to make a difference. Just because a tick exists near you doesn't mean you are duty bound to kill it, for the sake of other beings, for if that were the case we'd need to be preemptively killing many, many, ticks as they are all over the place.
I do absolutely value my life and my families life and your life and any human life over the life of a tick.
I think anyone that doesnt has serious, SERIOUS issues.
This thread has become so surreal and so divorced from reality that I will take my leave of it and wish you all well.
:anjali:
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 »

PeterB wrote:I will accept that Goedert. And I will consciously and deliberately kill ticks, mosquitoes and anything else that threatens the life of my family and community. And accept the consequences. You make your decision and I will make mine.
Friend, you speak truth.

As said you said in an earlier post. Lay persons are encouraged, but not obgliged, to commit themselves in observance of The Five Pãncsila.
Locked