Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Bundokji »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 pm I took "moral" here on terms of "if someone is morally responsible." Certainly, anyone can wrongly attribute responsibility, but they attribute it nonetheless, rightly or wrongly.
I am wondering if morality is for assigning responsibility. While moral actions do indeed have consequences, they are meant to be done freely. I think this is where morality ends and legality begins. Morality is not an obligation, legality is.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by asahi »

Morality is an voluntary responsibility . Legality is an forced obligation .
No bashing No gossiping
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Bundokji »

asahi wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:50 am Morality is an voluntary responsibility . Legality is an forced obligation .
Yes. The difference between charity and taxes would be a good example.

This is where the precepts are interconnected. Right livelihood involves avoiding obligations (through employment) that causes harm such as slaughterhouse or army.

One aspect of the secular view is that central governments monopolizes the use of force and violence, and dictate when killing is right or wrong, while such exceptions do not exist in the precepts. Defending ones country in a case of war is often considered heroic through endless propaganda.

One similarity between the secular view and the orthodox view is that both acknowledge seeking happiness as a human goal.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence."
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Coëmgenu »

Bundokji wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:26 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 pmI took "moral" here on terms of "if someone is morally responsible." Certainly, anyone can wrongly attribute responsibility, but they attribute it nonetheless, rightly or wrongly.
I am wondering if morality is for assigning responsibility. While moral actions do indeed have consequences, they are meant to be done freely. I think this is where morality ends and legality begins. Morality is not an obligation, legality is.
When we speculate on others' morality, yes, it's often to either praise or blame. "Blame" here I am using as identical to "assign responsibility." We people blame the children for past life deeds, that's a "wrong" assigning of blame, no? Zenny thinks that you and maybe Cappuccino think that children are "responsible" for past life deeds, though how he got there is a little bit difficult to reconstruction. There's been some breakdown of communication, and I don't think you are the one "responsible" (there that word is again!).

There's an issue of language here, because when I say "responsible," I don't mean "culpable." I mean "they did it," hence are "responsible." But any good Buddhist IMO knows that the child who suffers is not "the same person" as the former bad deed doer and is not culpable in the sense that "they didn't do it," "it" referring to the deeds in question. Because they "didn't do it," they are necessarily not culpable, but being culpable and having done something are two different issues, as I see things. This IMO cuts through the issue of moral vs legal responsibility and attribution of that responcibility.

Yes, they bear a burden, but are not the same person as the bad deed doer from the past. Therefore, it is a mistake to attribute responsibility for past life deeds to contemporary persons merely because they suffer on account of them. Do you agree?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Bundokji »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:33 pm When we speculate on others' morality, yes, it's often to either praise or blame. "Blame" here I am using as identical to "assign responsibility." We people blame the children for past life deeds, that's a "wrong" assigning of blame, no? Zenny thinks that you and maybe Cappuccino think that children are "responsible" for past life deeds, though how he got there is a little bit difficult to reconstruction. There's been some breakdown of communication, and I don't think you are the one "responsible" (there that word is again!).

There's an issue of language here, because when I say "responsible," I don't mean "culpable." I mean "they did it," hence are "responsible." But any good Buddhist IMO knows that the child who suffers is not "the same person" as the former bad deed doer and is not culpable in the sense that "they didn't do it," "it" referring to the deeds in question. Because they "didn't do it," they are necessarily not culpable, but being culpable and having done something are two different issues, as I see things. This IMO cuts through the issue of moral vs legal responsibility and attribution of that responcibility.

Yes, they bear a burden, but are not the same person as the bad deed doer from the past. Therefore, it is a mistake to attribute responsibility for past life deeds to contemporary persons merely because they suffer on account of them. Do you agree?
Yes, i agree. I would add that legal responsibility assumes a persona to explain persistence between life and death, hence it is necessarily reliant on a one life model where legal birth is the beginning and legal death is the end.

The law of kamma does not assume persona but explains intentional actions and how they work. The meaning of birth and death is not fixed by legal birth and death but can be constructed and reconstructed to explain many phenomena within the one life model as well as multiple life model. As such, legal responsibility is based on physical appearance being recognizable within one life span hence people can avoid consequences when linked to certain action by hiding evidence. This does not apply to the law of kamma as what continues are not physical appearances, but moral actions and their consequences.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Coëmgenu »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:58 pmThe law of kamma does not assume persona but explains intentional actions and how they work. The meaning of birth and death is not fixed by legal birth and death but can be constructed and reconstructed to explain many phenomena within the one life model as well as multiple life model.
Well, in a "one life model," there is no past karma that the children could possibly have that they themselves, as children, did not "personally" generate in this "one life." That the children are not to be held as responsible and culpable for past life deeds necessarily presumes that there is not a "one life" model of karma in operation.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Bundokji »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 2:04 pm Well, in a "one life model," there is no past karma that the children could possibly have that they themselves, as children, did not "personally" generate in this "one life." That the children are not to be held as responsible and culpable for past life deeds necessarily presumes that there is not a "one life" model of karma in operation.
There can be vipaka of a kammic action within one life. Having physical appearance as a reference to determine legal responsibility, children under a certain age are not assumed legally responsible. Kamma-vipaka does not have physical appearance as its reference but moral actions and its consequences. As such, age is not a determining factor.

Assume two children playing together where one bullied another and where the bulled developed some psychological problems until adulthood and held the other responsible and sought vengeance. This does not designate the judgement of the bullied as accurate or correct, but confirms that the law of moral actions still have consequences in one life model where legal birth do intersect with the birth of kammic action.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by asahi »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:33 pm Yes, they bear a burden, but are not the same person as the bad deed doer from the past. Therefore, it is a mistake to attribute responsibility for past life deeds to contemporary persons merely because they suffer on account of them. Do you agree?
It seems not as simple as you said . We do not have to say bad deed from past life . Even in this present life , when you are 15 years old and you killed a person (with or without bad intention) , that does not let one release from responsibility of the past action when we reach say 30 years old . Regardless of how you think , accidentally or out of angers when you killed a person , somehow you are the same person and have responsibility that cannot be escaped .
Whether you think at 30 years old are the same person or not as the 15 years old person that in conventional perceiving still remains the same person . The only difference in past life case is we cannot imagine how that past action affected present life condition .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Coëmgenu »

My argument is that there is no "person" who persists between lives, but that there are bearers of particular burdens, burdens particular to them.

It's the line between knowing that poverty is a result of past bad conduct, let's say a particular condition of poverty is a result of thievery, but that those theoretical poor people are not thieves unless they choose to steal in this life. The earlier theoretical children with short lifespans are not murderers unless they choose to murder during their own (short) lifespans, despite a murder being a condition for their current state.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by asahi »

Not exactly no person . What persists in between past life and present life is the "i" or "self" by the effects of kamma . That sense of self is the person .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Coëmgenu »

If the "sense of self is the person," does that mean that the person is real and that there is the same sense of self between lives according to you? Futhermore, because of this, according to you, is a former life and a rebirth "the same person?"

I want to see exactly what you are arguing before I respond. By "the same sense of self," I mean that they "are" the same person and "feel like" the same person. Do you agree with this or disagree?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by asahi »

Can a person say yourself determine and establish that the sense of self at age of 40 years old and relate it to yourself (the same person) at the age of 10 years old ? I guess you cannot , but you still think that both are the same person , you feel person at age of 40 and person at age of 10 are not different , there is a continuity although some memory get to retain and some memory are lost . But for past life and present life you cannot link both together . So , there is a missing part .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Coëmgenu »

Well, if we're talking about "me." I have memories from when I was ten. I'm not yet 40 but I have them. I have no memories from before I was born. The Buddha required "supernormal" (i.e. "supernatural") powers to review the "previous abodes." If we believe in "one life," then that just means he needed that power to have his own life flash before his eyes. I'm talking about past lives, not me when I was 6 or 10. Of course I am responsible for wicked things I may or may not have done as a child. Perhaps I've already reaped the consequence of any such actions. Perhaps not yet. Either way, we or at least I are talking about karma from before a biological birth, not just karma in general.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by asahi »

The above 40 of age just an example .
You would wake up from sleeps , again , the same as past life n this life . The difference is your memory of past life is not retain in this life . The real example would be myself , after accident i could not remember much from my childhood until highschool .
I always felt a sense of alienation .


:juggling:
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravada view vs secular view on killing

Post by Coëmgenu »

I'm very sorry for that. I know a musician who lost his ability to read music and differentiate fine differences in tone due to a traumatic brain injury, as well as a lot of early memories. He also developed a very bad stutter.

Not only is memory not retained, but significant elements of so-called "personality" are not retained. That is very significant IMO.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Post Reply