Contradiction of Buddhism on the value of human and non-human suffering?

[DeadBuddha]

Hi

Unlike some religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), Buddhism does not believe that human suffering is more unacceptable than the suffering of other living beings. In other words, Buddhism is not anthropocentric, and puts the suffering of human beings on an equal footing with the suffering of other beings (deities, animals, starving beings, hellish beings, etc.).

However, by the simple fact of living, Buddhist monks kill (unintentionally) a lot of lives. For example, while walking in the forest or working the land, the monk will regularly intentionally (edit : unintentionally) unin crush or mow down living beings, even while being careful. However, the monk could very well kill far fewer living beings if he decided to commit suicide. But the Buddha did not encourage monks to commit mass suicide in the name of the reduction of suffering that this would create. So, finally, isn't there a contradiction in Buddhism? Indeed, how can one consider that human suffering has an equal value to animal suffering AND not encourage the massive suicide of monks (and other humans) killing living beings?

I wonder how Buddhists resolve this.

Thanks in advance

[Ceisiwr]

Hi

Unlike some religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), Buddhism does not believe that human suffering is more unacceptable than the suffering of other living beings. In other words, Buddhism is not anthropocentric, and puts the suffering of human beings on an equal footing with the suffering of other beings (deities, animals, starving beings, hellish beings, etc.).

However, by the simple fact of living, Buddhist monks kill (unintentionally) a lot of lives. For example, while walking in the forest or working the land, the monk will regularly intentionally crush or mow down living beings, even while being careful. However, the monk could very well kill far fewer living beings if he decided to commit suicide. But the Buddha did not encourage monks to commit mass suicide in the name of the reduction of suffering that this would create. So, finally, isn't there a contradiction in Buddhism? Indeed, how can one consider that human suffering has an equal value to animal suffering AND not encourage the massive suicide of monks (and other humans) killing living beings?

I wonder how Buddhists resolve this.

Thanks in advance

Because except for some very strict exceptions killing oneself won't get you anywhere. It will just result in more suffering. You haven't escaped it. There is also the suffering that one's own suicide causes in others. Having known people in my life who have killed themselves, there is much suffering for the loved ones left behind.

[mikenz66]

I wonder how Buddhists resolve this.

In my view, by realising that often there is no perfect solution and that trying to frame things in absolute terms is fruitless. As you say, being alive is a burden on the environment. You can do what you can to minimize that, but you can't "solve" that problem.


Mike

[DeadBuddha]

Yes, suicide causes suffering against oneself and against others. But the suffering produced by suicide is certainly less than the suffering produced by non-suicide.

Secondly, suicide may not bring anything to the one who commits suicide, but it brings less suffering to many other beings.

[Ceisiwr]

Yes, suicide causes suffering against oneself and against others. But the suffering produced by suicide is certainly less than the suffering produced by non-suicide.

Secondly, suicide may not bring anything to the one who commits suicide, but it brings less suffering to many other beings.

Well if you have a traditional view of the Dhamma, if you kill yourself you'll just be reborn somewhere else. Arahants or those on the verge of it are the small exceptions. Jainism actually has a similar view on this.

[DeadBuddha]

I wonder how Buddhists resolve this.

In my view, by realising that often there is no perfect solution and that trying to frame things in absolute terms is fruitless. As you say, being alive is a burden on the environment. You can do what you can to minimize that, but you can't "solve" that problem.


Mike

I understand the idea. But in this case, for the sake of coherence, it seems that we must also give up an absolute framework of affirming that human suffering is worth as much as non-human suffering.

[Ceisiwr]

I wonder how Buddhists resolve this.

In my view, by realising that often there is no perfect solution and that trying to frame things in absolute terms is fruitless. As you say, being alive is a burden on the environment. You can do what you can to minimize that, but you can't "solve" that problem.


Mike

I understand the idea. But in this case, for the sake of coherence, it seems that we must also give up an absolute framework of affirming that human suffering is worth as much as non-human suffering.

I think it helps to understand that in Buddhadhamma any existence comes with suffering, in some form, and that it is our intentional activity that really matters in terms of Dhamma.

[DeadBuddha]

Yes, suicide causes suffering against oneself and against others. But the suffering produced by suicide is certainly less than the suffering produced by non-suicide.

Secondly, suicide may not bring anything to the one who commits suicide, but it brings less suffering to many other beings.

Well if you have a traditional view of the Dhamma, if you kill yourself you'll just be reborn somewhere else. Arahants or those on the verge of it are the small exceptions. Jainism actually has a similar view on this.

Yes, suicide does not get us out of the hellish loop of samsara, and so one could say that non-suicide is justified by the fact that one has to train oneself to reach enlightenment and then to help other beings to reach enlightenment.

However, this idea also implies that at a given moment, one prioritizes suffering. Indeed, to say that "it is better that the monk does not commit suicide, because it allows him to reach awakening and then to help beings", is like saying that "it is better that the monk crushes and mows down countless beings rather than dying/suffering, because it allows him to reach awakening". In other words, it means that the suffering of the human being is more unacceptable than the suffering of the non-human beings, because to save the beings, it is necessary to preserve the human (at the expense of the non-human).
So even if the idea remains very altruistic (since the goal is to save ALL the living beings in the universe), this altruistic idea implies a hierarchy of sufferings.

[mikenz66]

So even if the idea remains very altruistic (since the goal is to save ALL the living beings in the universe), this altruistic idea implies a hierarchy of sufferings.

Theravada/Early Buddhism does not seem to claim to be perfectly altruistic, or to save all beings. It offers a way out of suffering for beings who are able to follow the path.

This thread on our sister site may be of interest:
How do mahayana respond to theravada critism of "Bodhisattva refuse nirvana to liberate all living beings?"
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=41536


Mike

[DeadBuddha]

In my view, by realising that often there is no perfect solution and that trying to frame things in absolute terms is fruitless. As you say, being alive is a burden on the environment. You can do what you can to minimize that, but you can't "solve" that problem.


Mike

I understand the idea. But in this case, for the sake of coherence, it seems that we must also give up an absolute framework of affirming that human suffering is worth as much as non-human suffering.

I think it helps to understand that in Buddhadhamma any existence comes with suffering, in some form, and that it is our intentional activity that really matters in terms of Dhamma.

Yes, but if the goal is to minimize suffering, then one must also minimize unintentional suffering.

[DeadBuddha]

So even if the idea remains very altruistic (since the goal is to save ALL the living beings in the universe), this altruistic idea implies a hierarchy of sufferings.

Theravada/Early Buddhism does not seem to claim to be perfectly altruistic, or to save all beings. It offers a way out of suffering for beings who are able to follow the path.

This thread on our sister site may be of interest:
How do mahayana respond to theravada critism of "Bodhisattva refuse nirvana to liberate all living beings?"
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=41536


Mike

Yes, that's right, thank you.

[Ceisiwr]

I understand the idea. But in this case, for the sake of coherence, it seems that we must also give up an absolute framework of affirming that human suffering is worth as much as non-human suffering.

I think it helps to understand that in Buddhadhamma any existence comes with suffering, in some form, and that it is our intentional activity that really matters in terms of Dhamma.

Yes, but if the goal is to minimize suffering, then one must also minimize unintentional suffering.

Well unless you accept and follow the Bodhisatta path, the aim is to end your own suffering. By doing that you also minimise the suffering caused to others, as best you can. If beings were concerned with suffering so much they killed themselves, no suffering would be undone for anyone.

[Sam Vara]

Hi

Unlike some religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), Buddhism does not believe that human suffering is more unacceptable than the suffering of other living beings. In other words, Buddhism is not anthropocentric, and puts the suffering of human beings on an equal footing with the suffering of other beings (deities, animals, starving beings, hellish beings, etc.).

You may well be right on this, but do you have a source for it? Killing some beings results in darker kamma than others, as per this and other suttas:

There are these five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable. Which five? One who has killed his/her mother, one who has killed his/her father, one who has killed an arahant, one who — with a corrupted mind — has caused the blood of a Tathagata to flow

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

I have also heard monks say that given a hypothetical choice between killing humans and animals, humans should be prioritised.

[DeadBuddha]

Thank you very much, that's very interesting. I had heard this at a conference of a specialist. But maybe I misinterpreted, and he just meant that "Buddhism has as its ultimate goal the liberation of all beings, even if there is not perfect equality between beings".

[DeadBuddha]

I think it helps to understand that in Buddhadhamma any existence comes with suffering, in some form, and that it is our intentional activity that really matters in terms of Dhamma.

Yes, but if the goal is to minimize suffering, then one must also minimize unintentional suffering.

Well unless you accept and follow the Bodhisatta path, the aim is to end your own suffering. By doing that you also minimise the suffering caused to others, as best you can. If beings were concerned with suffering so much they killed themselves, no suffering would be undone for anyone.

Thank you very much !