challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

salayatananirodha wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:57 am no you're wrong
Not much of an argument. The subject is not straightforward.
SarathW wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:21 am You have the free will to do whatever you please to do.
And you reap the fruits.
And those who do not act wisely reap the fruits also.

Naeglria fowleri - 'the brain eating parasite'.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/index.html

A very high fatality rate of 95%
There is a small chance of documented survival if treatement is sought taking antifungal drugs which kill the parasite. To not do so is certain death.

The dhamma is not designed to create fools who would so cursorily throw away their lives due to mistakenly taking precepts as commandments to be followed absolutely in place of reason and circumstance.

"When — by following a life of precept & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of essential worth — one's unskillful mental qualities increase while one's skillful mental qualities decline: that sort of precept & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is fruitless. But when — by following a life of precept & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of essential worth — one's unskillful mental qualities decline while one's skillful mental qualities increase: that sort of precept & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is fruitful."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The human birth is rare, and the chance to practice dhamma rarer.

The wise decision to preserve one life by seeking treatment when there are no other options even though it involves killing the parasite is the correct one and aligned with the dhamma, to prevent the destruction of one's own life and allow one to continue to live a dhamma life.

To foolishly allow one's own human life to perish for the sake of the lethal parasite would be grasping wrongly to precepts with no wisdom factor, and nothing more than a manifestation of gross ignorance in such a case.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by Ceisiwr »

I think this debate is assuming that all life has consciousness.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by Mr Albatross »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:41 pm And those who do not act wisely reap the fruits also.

Naeglria fowleri - 'the brain eating parasite'.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/index.html

A very high fatality rate of 95%
There is a small chance of documented survival if treatement is sought taking antifungal drugs which kill the parasite. To not do so is certain death.
For a poster so palpably saintly as the OP I believe "certain death" would be considered a mere trifle.

Greater love hath no man than salayatananirodha, who would gladly lay down his life even for a single bloodsucking tick in his ear. How much more so for Naegleria fowleri in his brain, hookworms in his duodenum, flukes in his liver, nematode worms in his eyes, Guinea worms in his skin and dragon worms in his arms and legs. Come one, come all!

:anjali:
SarathW
Posts: 21236
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by SarathW »

For a poster so palpably saintly as the OP I believe "certain death" would be considered a mere trifle.
No.
Buddha never said that any life is a mere trifle.
What I am saying is any killing is unwholesome and they have a varying degree of effects (Vipaka or Phala)
When you kill with the wrong view (some life is a trifle) is a higher degree unwholesome act.
This is how Westerners kill people in places like Africa and in Australian aborigines because they though their life is a trifle.
They put an atomic bomb in Japan not in Germany because the life of Japanese people is a trifle.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

SarathW wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:02 pm This is how Westerners kill people in places like Africa and in Australian aborigines because they though their life is a trifle.
They put an atomic bomb in Japan not in Germany because the life of Japanese people is a trifle.
Why look so far? One only needs to look at the 30 year Sri Lankan civil war and the treatment of the Tamils by the Sinhalese to see that worldlings are the majority in any country and their capacity for violence and large scale killing remains more or less the same across geographical locations.

:focus:

I fail to see how one would make the jump in any case from medical treatment of a potentially lethal or debilitating parasite to blatant killing of humans in war or other circumstances.

The parasite example is a special case and needs some consideration but logic and common sense cannot be dismissed by incorrect grasping to precepts when there are clear consequences.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
SarathW
Posts: 21236
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by SarathW »

Why look so far? One only needs to look at the 30 year Sri Lankan civil war and the treatment of the Tamils by the Sinhalese to see that worldlings are the majority in any country and their capacity for violence and large scale killing remains more or less the same across geographical locations.
I agree.
This is a good example of a Buddhist with a wrong view. This is what exactly happens when a Buddhist has a wrong view like Ajahn Brahmali.
I fail to see how one would make the jump in any case from medical treatment of a potentially lethal or debilitating parasite to blatant killing of humans in war or other circumstances.
Because it is the same wrong view whether it is lethal or blatant killing.
The parasite example is a special case and needs some consideration but logic and common sense cannot be dismissed by incorrect grasping to precepts when there are clear consequences.
Whether it is a parasite, a bee, or a human the same wrong view is applied.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by Mr Albatross »

SarathW wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:02 pm No.

Buddha never said that any life is a mere trifle.
You're completely barking up the wrong tree in your reply.

I wasn't saying that the OP would regard the lives of others as mere trifles, but that he would regard his own life this way. In saying this I'm assuming, of course, that his absolutist stance on non-harming is a sincere one (setting aside my suspicions that the stance may be nothing more than a show-off hypocritical pose).

The OP quotes a statement from the Buddha about what his monk disciples do do (i.e., not commit the smallest transgression even to save their lives) and then takes it to be an exhortation about what all Buddhists ought to do.

Logically it follows, then, that abstaining from even the smallest transgression has a higher priority for the OP than the preservation of his own life. To take that view is to regard one's own life as a mere trifle:

"I'd rather be dead than consume medicine that has alcohol in it."

"I'd rather die from cholangiocarcinoma than allow the doctors to kill the flukes in my liver."

"I'd rather have a 3-metre long tapeworm growing in my guts than do anything that would harm the tapeworm." Etc., etc.
SarathW
Posts: 21236
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by SarathW »

that his absolutist stance on non-harming is a sincere one (setting aside my suspicions that the stance may be nothing more than a show-off hypocritical pose).
Well, this statement shows your attitude than the attitude of the OP.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by Mr Albatross »

SarathW wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:19 am
that his absolutist stance on non-harming is a sincere one (setting aside my suspicions that the stance may be nothing more than a show-off hypocritical pose).
Well, this statement shows your attitude than the attitude of the OP.
Do you mean my suspicions? Well of course they're mine. Why else would I call them " my suspicions"?

:rolleye:

In general suspicions of this sort are well-founded, for moral absolutism and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand in all religions that have a markedly legalistic aspect to them. A defender of moral absolutism who's quite free of hypocrisy is a very rare bird.
SarathW
Posts: 21236
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by SarathW »

A defender of moral absolutism who's quite free of hypocrisy is a very rare bird.
So, Buddha is a hypocritic?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

Mr Albatross wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:12 am In saying this I'm assuming, of course, that his absolutist stance on non-harming is a sincere one (setting aside my suspicions that the stance may be nothing more than a show-off hypocritical pose).
Yes this is what it seems to be in all honesty. It is conceit and pride masquerading as moral superiority looking for the tiniest apparent contradiction to the precept even in the case of clear neccessity to be rid of a life risking parasite.

SarathW wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:56 am
Why look so far? One only needs to look at the 30 year Sri Lankan civil war and the treatment of the Tamils by the Sinhalese to see that worldlings are the majority in any country and their capacity for violence and large scale killing remains more or less the same across geographical locations.
I agree.
This is a good example of a Buddhist with a wrong view. This is what exactly happens when a Buddhist has a wrong view like Ajahn Brahmali.
I fail to see how one would make the jump in any case from medical treatment of a potentially lethal or debilitating parasite to blatant killing of humans in war or other circumstances.
Because it is the same wrong view whether it is lethal or blatant killing.
The parasite example is a special case and needs some consideration but logic and common sense cannot be dismissed by incorrect grasping to precepts when there are clear consequences.
Whether it is a parasite, a bee, or a human the same wrong view is applied.
No, because one does not go from a case of medical treatment to save ones own life which may involve the death of a parasite when there are no other options, to killing other living beings.

I see this as an example of mistaken grasping to precepts and a fetter.

Furthermore , you are aware that in the case of a lethal parasite as described above, if the host dies the parasite dies as well?

So you allowing your life to perish will inevitably lead a short time later to the parasite perishing as well.
So it seems with your own non-discerning absolutist idea, it will result in killing the parasite anyway. You would thus be breaking the precept twice, knowingly allowing your own life to be harmed and destroyed, and that of another being.

The only option in this case is to preserve one's own life even if it means the parasite is killed, rather than sacrifice both one's own life and that of the parasite in a vain and futile display of blind obedience, which incidentally is not the meaning of precept or in the spirit of the Dhamma of the wise.

Again though, this is mere conjecture. I have no doubt that in reality yourself and the OP would take the medicine as required.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
SarathW
Posts: 21236
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by SarathW »

[quote It is conceit and pride masquerading as moral superiority looking for the tiniest apparent contradiction to the precept even in the case of clear neccessity to be rid of a life risking parasite.][/quote]
Well if you want to pick and chose Buddhism like secular Buddhism, you always find a monk suit for your purpose.
Good luck to you.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by Mr Albatross »

SarathW wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:21 am
A defender of moral absolutism who's quite free of hypocrisy is a very rare bird.
So, Buddha is a hypocritic?
:redherring:

A very rare bird doesn't mean a non-existent bird. The conservation status of the Cebu flowerpecker is not the same as that of a dodo. I didn't claim that are no non-hypocritical moral absolutists at all.

However, in the discussion as to whether Buddhist sila should be taken in an absolutist or a non-absolutist way, I think it's best if arahants and buddhas are set aside. Their example isn't instructive for they lack any tendency to do anything unskilful and so in that sense cannot help being unwaveringly absolutist in their conduct.
kenteramin
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:04 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by kenteramin »

Mr Albatross wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:53 am ... I think it's best if arahants and buddhas are set aside. Their example isn't instructive for they lack any tendency to do anything unskilful and so in that sense cannot help being unwaveringly absolutist in their conduct.
Is there agreement that an arahant would keep a parasite?
Last edited by kenteramin on Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
SarathW
Posts: 21236
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: challenging Ajahn Brahmali on parasites

Post by SarathW »

kenteramin wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:42 am
Mr Albatross wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:53 am ... I think it's best if arahants and buddhas are set aside. Their example isn't instructive for they lack any tendency to do anything unskilful and so in that sense cannot help being unwaveringly absolutist in their conduct.
Is there an agreement that an arahant would keep a parasite?
"If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One Well-gone."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/stu ... lence.html
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply