(Re)examining the first precept?

Moderator: fuki

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:49 pm

avisitor wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:31 pm

The man taking the kid as hostage could be the kid's father.
Even though what he is doing is wrong in the eyes of the law, he is doing out of his love for the kid.
So, police officer kills the father in front of the kid's eyes???
Is this the wisest thing to do?

So, you would take your gun out and shoot the intruder hovering over your wife?
Or maybe take a baseball bat and hit the intruder?
And what if the intruder turned out to be your son?
Yes, spur of the moment, police and other defenders must make such decisions. Sometimes they are wrong, and there are consequences to pay, and it is a tragedy. But, if they don't act and the hostage or wife is harmed, then that is a tragedy as well. In fact, I have known of both such cases through friends. Acting or failing to act can have terrible effects. I hopefully would minimize the force to what might be necessary. Hopefully, one's instincts will allow what is appropriate in that moment. In the first case, why was the father holding a knife to the child's throat?
Groups coming to rape women and burn down village?????
Do you live in such a violent neighborhood, country, world???
I know such people who have been in such situations.

My policeman friend who killed the hostage taker and saved the child knew it was a perfectly "justifiable" shooting by legal standards, and he was cleared and even given a medal of some sort. Nonetheless, he feels the Karma and the weight of having to have taken a human life, and says there is almost not a day in which he does not think about it.

I am reminded of the story of the Buddha, as Bodhisattva, and the 500 merchants. The Buddha, in a prior incarnation, committing murder for just such reason. The important point is that he was willing to take upon himself the Karmic effects which would result in order to save the lives of many, and in order to spare the murderous pirate from his own bad Karma.
(In a previous life, the Buddha was Captain Compassionate Heart, sailing with 500 merchants. An evil pirate, Dung Thungchen (Blackspear) appeared, threatening to kill them all. )The captain, a bodhisattva himself, saw the [pirate]'s murderous intention and realized this crime would result in eons of torment for the murderer. In his compassion, the captain was willing to take hellish torment upon himself by killing the man to prevent karmic suffering that would be infinity greater than the suffering of the murdered victims. The captain's compassion was impartial; his motivation was utterly selfless.
http://venyifa.blogspot.com/2008/09/sto ... ptain.html
I am reminded of this picture of the young Dalai Lama being escorted out of China by well armed guards.

Image
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... from-tibet

May nobody ever have to face such situations.

Gassho, Jundo

avisitor
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:01 am

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by avisitor » Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:21 am

jundocohen wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:49 pm
Groups coming to rape women and burn down village?????
Do you live in such a violent neighborhood, country, world???
I know such people who have been in such situations.
I know of astronauts but have never been in orbit or to the moon.
From your choices, it seems you live in a world of terror and horror.
So how can you be free of these sufferings? On the Buddha's path?

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Fri Jun 05, 2020 2:32 am

avisitor wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:21 am
jundocohen wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:49 pm
Groups coming to rape women and burn down village?????
Do you live in such a violent neighborhood, country, world???
I know such people who have been in such situations.
I know of astronauts but have never been in orbit or to the moon.
From your choices, it seems you live in a world of terror and horror.
So how can you be free of these sufferings? On the Buddha's path?
When I had cancer two years ago, the monkey mind medulla was afraid of death, and yet I was also beyond all fear and idea of death. Fear yet no fear, death yet no death.

A few years ago, when there was a fire in the house, the adrenaline took over and I just did what had to be done. Likewise during a hurricane preparing the house, likewise when an intruder came through my window and I faced him down with a futon dust beater (granted, this was Japan, so I was pretty sure he did not have a gun. Had it been Miami, and some intruder on PCP, my mental calculations would likely have been different). Takuan said this to the sword master (it applies to my futon beater no less):
Although the mind act ten times against ten men, if it does not halt at even one of them and you react to one after another, will proper action be lacking? But if the mind stops before one of these men, though you parry his striking sword, when the next man comes, the right action will have slipped away.

... [T]he accomplished man uses the sword but does not kill others. He uses the sword and gives others life. When it is necessary to kill, he kills. When it is necessary to give life, he gives life. When killing, he kills in complete concentration; when giving life, he gives life in complete concentration. Without looking at right and wrong, he is able to see right and wrong; without attempting to discriminate, he is able to discriminate well.


Afterward, there is time for the heart to rest, to cry, to mourn, to repent and make amends for what one had to due with regret ... and to sit Zazen as all of it.

Let us do our best to avoid the taking of sentient life. I so vow.

Gassho, J

STLah

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:57 am

the policeman needs to be punished.
So the policeman needs punishment, but if someone can legally buy rat poison or legally torture dogs, apes etc in labarotories because its a multi million dollar industry and somehow deemed legal by human contrivance, those act should not be punished? Ofcourse in society ppl are held accountable, get temporarely removed from society and are offered (not punished) a program for rehabiliation, I doubt the policeman will grow and learn anything in the american jail system, punishment only leads to more punishment. Ironically it's our refusal to examine which creates karma.


Q: Can there be no suffering that is necessary and good?

M: Accidental or incidental pain is inevitable and transitory. Deliberate pain, inflicted with even the best of intentions, is meaningless and cruel.

Q: You would not punish crime?

M: Punishment is but legalised crime. In a society built on prevention, rather than retaliation, there would be very little crime. The few exceptions, as of unsound mind and body, would be treated medically.
~Sri Niz

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:09 am

Nothing wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:57 pm
Or we should pretend that it does not exist and instead just talk about our self centered practice which is preoccupied with our well being?
Thanks brother great question, I guess this also can be "answered" by saying "causes and conditions" Reminded of GG's "spiritual bypassing" talk how the buddhadharma is actually designed to 'bypass' all the 'human stuff' and "awaken" Eventhough the precepts and paramitas are there for that. Hence even "after awakening" there can still be so much unneccesary harm as you can see in centers/sanghas around the world. But if "we" don't examine this closely then what hope is there for non-practisioners? So let's kindly remind ourselfs of all this and always be open to it without force or indifference or any kind of contraction.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:17 am

p22 wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:47 pm
Compassion .. and even forgiveness .. For the officer ..

Sometimes grave mistakes are made, which anyone can make-
So there's compassion because anybody could see themselves in say the policeman in this particular situation-

But another grave mistake that can be made is twisting compassion into something it isn't:

Policeman did this thing, which anyone could, it's forgiven, there will be zero accountability because it could happen to anyone, too-

No ..

When paying attention attention .. I see that happening again and again ..
Thank you I see "karma" as something collective/universal, though on other forums I was told to be a heretic if saying such things. (eh interdependence?) 🙃 Yes there is (amazingly) the sense of individuality, so responsibilities and accounts, ofcourse. Ah well small 'not-two-together' steps I guess :D

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:20 am

fuki wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:57 am
the policeman needs to be punished.
So the policeman needs punishment, but if someone can legally buy rat poison or legally torture dogs, apes etc in labarotories because its a multi million dollar industry and somehow deemed legal by human contrivance, those act should not be punished? Ofcourse in society ppl are held accountable, get temporarely removed from society and are offered (not punished) a program for rehabiliation, I doubt the policeman will grow and learn anything in the american jail system, punishment only leads to more punishment. Ironically it's our refusal to examine which creates karma.
It is a decision of society for the benefit of human beings (one I personally support) that animal testing is necessary for the development of pharmaceuticals to save human lives. (I do not feel the same way about animal testing to develop cosmetics). Even in the Buddha's time, it was felt that animals are not the same as human beings, and while we should avoid the taking of sentient life, there are degrees even there. A worm is not a mouse is not a pig is not a monkey is not a human being.

Thus, with regret, I support animal test for the development of drugs to save human life. Fuki, do you turn down all medicines that have been tested on animals? If necessary to save your father or child, would you turn down all medicines tested on mice and rabbits?

I live in the science and technology mecca of Japan, Tsukuba Science city, filled with medical research institutes and pharmaceutical companies. Some of the participants in our weekly Zazenkai here are researchers working with mice. Each year, the local scientists here, many of them Buddhist, hold a ceremony as follows.

It is a choice we make, much as the Buddha chose to take the life of a pirate to save 500 merchants.
Annual Memorial Service (Ireisai,慰霊祭) For Animals Sacrificed At Tsukuba University`s Medical School


The tremendous advances made in the medical sciences over the past few centuries have been simply astounding. Much of this progress can be attributed to the efforts of diligent, talented, and sometimes just-plain-lucky researchers who set about looking for solutions to medical questions by applying the scientific method — which depends heavily on observing the results of controlled experiments to prove hypotheses.

Animals, in their forced role as experimental subjects, have played a crucial part in this March Forward, as many important medical studies from the times of Pasteur and Pavlov to the present day, have been made with the use of test animals. Every year at least tens of millions of vertebrates (and so many more invertebrates) are used around the world in tests which end with these creatures being SACRIFICED.

At Tsukuba University Medical School, as well as at other research institutes in Japan, the role that animals play in scientific progress, and the suffering often involved in their making a CONTRIBUTION to humanity (and sometimes to their fellow animals as well) does not go unrecognized or unacknowledged (for whatever that is worth) .

Once a year, usually in the first week of November (when the climate is most comfortable), an announcement is made throughout the medical school complex, that a special memorial service (ireisai, 慰霊祭) will be held at the IREIHI (慰霊碑), a memorial tablet which is tucked away in the shadows of the small woods, just east of the hospital’s power plant. The IREIHI itself was made 20 years ago by a student of the university and the inscription on it reads “JIKEN DOBUTSU IREIHI”, or “monument for consoling the spirits of experimental animals”.

On the day the ceremony is announced, hundreds of doctors, researchers, administrators, office staff and representatives of the companies which supply the animals attend, many bringing flowers, or foods which the animals might like. Since Tsukuba University is a government institution which must abide by rules separating church and state, incense, which would usually be offered on such an occasion, is not used, because of its overtly religious (Buddhist) connotations. Usually, a distinguished researcher or administrator makes a short speech about the number of animals sacrificed and the need to reduce this number and alleviate suffering. Those assembled then close their eyes for a moment of silence. I am told that many of those who attend this ceremony feel a sense of satisfaction or solace in having shown their respect and gratitude to the sacrificed lab animals.

Some laboratories in Tsukuba affiliated with private companies hold more elaborate and overtly religious IREISAI.

Image
We do so with regret, we hope someday that we do not need to do so ... perhaps when our testing methods of the future no longer require mice and rabbits.

Gassho, J

STLah

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:23 am

As to the police officer, a police officer who commits a crime due to excess violence should be criminally punished.

As to the animal torturer, someone torturing a cat in the street should receive psychological treatment. They may do so to people next.

As to the researcher in the laboratory for pharmaceuticals that cure a cancer, they should earn our praise ... yet we feel sadness for all the animals sacrificed.

As to a researcher in a laboratory for cosmetics, I have very mixed feelings. I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. Perhaps if it is inevitable that people will wear cosmetics, and that some human being may suffer injury as a result of wearing dangerous substances, there is some justification. However, I very much wish that this kind of testing was not done simply for a luxury item.
Last edited by jundocohen on Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:26 am

jundocohen wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:49 pm
I am reminded of the story of the Buddha, as Bodhisattva, and the 500 merchants. The Buddha, in a prior incarnation, committing murder for just such reason. The important point is that he was willing to take upon himself the Karmic effects which would result in order to save the lives of many, and in order to spare the murderous pirate from his own bad Karma.
jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 2:32 am
Afterward, there is time for the heart to rest, to cry, to mourn, to repent and make amends for what one had to due with regret ... and to sit Zazen as all of it.

Let us do our best to avoid the taking of sentient life. I so vow.

Gassho, J
Machik’s Prayer of Offering the Three Gestures

Every single form that appears
In all the worlds of the universe
I offer as the gesture of sacred Body.
Grant us the power of eternal Form.
Every single sound that is heard
In all the worlds of the universe
I offer as the gesture of sacred Speech.
Grant us the power of infinite Speech.
Every single thought in the minds
In all the worlds of the universe
I offer as the gesture of sacred Mind.
Grant us the power of wisdom Mind.
All of the pain and happiness
In all the worlds of the universe
I offer as the eight auspicious signs.
If there’s joy, I’ll give it all away.
May joy spread throughout the entire world.
If there’s pain, I’ll gladly take the load.
May the world’s well of pain run dry.
May the world's well of pain run dry!
🙏

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:30 am

Reciting such a chant is good.

Now, Fuki, answer my question please ...
Fuki, do you turn down all medicines that have been tested on animals? If necessary to save your father or child, would you turn down all medicines tested on mice and rabbits?
Gassho, J

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:31 am

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:23 am

As to the researcher in the laboratory for pharmaceuticals that cure a cancer, they should earn our praise ... yet we feel sadness for all the animals sacrificed.
Jundo we never continued this conversation two years ago. No praise, it's unscientific (and more and more scientists agree and want to ban animal testing especially since there are "alternative" and scientific methods) Animal testing is only a lobby for a multi billion dollar industry. Please educate on that matter.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:34 am

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:30 am
Would you turn down all medicines tested on mice and rabbits?
Yes, but it's not about "personal choice" here, because that tends to polarize the situation plus would never ask anyone to do the same.It's about raising awareness that we dont need animals with todays science.It's all about the money.

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:39 am

fuki wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:31 am
jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:23 am

As to the researcher in the laboratory for pharmaceuticals that cure a cancer, they should earn our praise ... yet we feel sadness for all the animals sacrificed.
Jundo we never continued this conversation two years ago. No praise, it's unscientific (and more and more scientists agree and want to ban animal testing especially since there are "alternative" and scientific methods) Animal testing is only a lobby for a multi billion dollar industry. Please educate on that matter.
I agree that animal testing is primitive, not very accurate (since animal physiology is often very different from human). Yet, it is what we have now. A substance which may cause cancer in a pig may cause cancer in a people.

That said, my new book "ZEN of the FUTURE!" foresees a world in which, for example, super super computing power was sufficient to replace much animal testing. I would support that. Or, human bodies might be raised without the sentient aspects (yes, bodies with much of the conscious brain missing) simply for medical testing purposes. Already, isolated organs are being grown for such purposes.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:00 pm

Jundo I've read it all before, it's just lobby talk. Calling something scientific is to cover up that it's brutality for profit. But even if were true and even then if we unlike now give those tested animals good housing, good sedation and care, which never happens for as the same in any slaughterhouse no people with empathy/compassion would be able to do such "work" But even then I'd still say no, no "animal" or "insect" should be exploited for the benefit of "humans" The body-mind is merely an instrument, not one species has more value then another species-form. All such ideas come from false identification to form.




But I won't fight or harm anyone who has a different angle on it, just like cancer research/Zen is close to your heart, "animal rights"/Zen have been so for me since a very small boy, and I will never give up on this (sentience) but will always speak up if I see what in my perception is misinformation, causes and conditions eh? ;)

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:11 pm

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:39 am
That said, my new book "ZEN of the FUTURE!" foresees a world in which, for example, super super computing power was sufficient to replace much animal testing. I would support that. Or, human bodies might be raised without the sentient aspects (yes, bodies with much of the conscious brain missing) simply for medical testing purposes. Already, isolated organs are being grown for such purposes.
Well even if people support animal testing, then especially those ppl could help by letting the breeders who sell to the labs know that you want those animals to have good housing, being sedated when experimented on, not being tortured by their keepers. Because donation money also supports how those animals are treated, it doesbt always have to be yes-no, why cant ppl who support cancer research also support treating the animals better, if they make (not voluntarely but he) such sacrifices? Please look into that, same goes with factory farming, give them better housing, sedation etc

ps I have a card which companies I donate and do not donate to, there are three dutch cancer organisations on there alas, however the "fire-burn" research has stopped using animals. Why? because ppl let the companies know its cruel, so now do certain organisations not use animals anymore, get more funds and get better scientific results. I hope cancer will follow soon, since animals are not needed to get results, I've talked with a famous european scientist about this and he agrees that actually much more could be done "for" cancer if the system/laws would change, but governments are linked to the billion dollar animal cruelty industry. I'm not allowed to say his name though.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:56 pm


Even in the Buddha's time, it was felt that animals are not the same as human beings, and while we should avoid the taking of sentient life, there are degrees even there. A worm is not a mouse is not a pig is not a monkey is not a human being.
There are only (perceived) differences in form/behaviour, not in 'essence' A pig is also not a pig, a buddha also not a buddha, nor is a human a human, that what makes one think is human is ofcourse not human. Hence noting differences in form should not be distorted as being seperate or apart, Though I am not this body-mind or form, simultaniously I am all the forms, so everytime mother-father has some entertainment, any form that is "born" is indeed nothing else then this instrument essentially, so just as I wouldn't experiment on my parents, children etc I wouldn't do/want the same for any-body. There is no justification for causing harm the way I see it. When the illusory mind is 'liberated' there is neither illusion nor enlightenment/buddhas. All Buddha has said was in reference to delusion ofcourse, expedient means.

p22
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 7:49 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by p22 » Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:24 pm

The blindspot/preference could be viewed as collective too-

The powers that be that oversee agriculture are capitalists for the most part- The next tier is the producer, and then the consumer- The collective decision/s result in suffering/conflict/consequence-

It can change- And it does-

My own blindspot, I don't foresee a collective menu in the near future but aspire to- The ground I think I occasionally hold isn't my own but at this time can decide to go toe to toe with those that intentionally deflect the fact that the production of peas, carrots, corn and soy also destroys-

Linda once offered a small lesson/talk about pedestals- In essence, you could break your neck in an effort to communicate, is what I took away from it- So say what you have to say, kick a leg and maybe over time it will break .. :106:

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:37 pm

p22 wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:24 pm
The blindspot/preference could be viewed as collective too-

The powers that be that oversee agriculture are capitalists for the most part- The next tier is the producer, and then the consumer- The collective decision/s result in suffering/conflict/consequence-

It can change- And it does-

My own blindspot, I don't foresee a collective menu in the near future but aspire to- The ground I think I occasionally hold isn't my own but at this time can decide to go toe to toe with those that intentionally deflect the fact that the production of peas, carrots, corn and soy also destroys-

Linda once offered a small lesson/talk about pedestals- In essence, you could break your neck in an effort to communicate, is what I took away from it- So say what you have to say, kick a leg and maybe over time it will break .. :106:
:namaste:

Thank you, "deflect the fact" great title for our debut album of "the discarded bits" :lol:

Keep singing, dancing.
:109:

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:41 pm

Anyway, ZEN of the FUTURE! also talks about artificial meat, which we are on the verge of having. In fact, it is already here, and almost took off, but I have a feeling that big agriculture and the meat industry are doing a lot behind the scenes to kill it. Like the auto industry did for decades with air bags and electric cars, which both could have been available decades earlier.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Fri Jun 05, 2020 2:08 pm

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:41 pm
Anyway, ZEN of the FUTURE! also talks about artificial meat, which we are on the verge of having. In fact, it is already here, and almost took off, but I have a feeling that big agriculture and the meat industry are doing a lot behind the scenes to kill it. Like the auto industry did for decades with air bags and electric cars, which both could have been available decades earlier.
Good points, yes there's always a conflict of interest, luckily the wishes for ppl for 'alternatives' seems to be increasing. PS already forwarded your book to some dutch dharma brothers/sisters. Last year I adopted 10 mice saved from the lab in Utrecht. They have made it public about a month ago so now more ppl are willing to adopt from the labs, a great project. Already made some expanses with vet trips and need money for their care and if these have passed away I will adopt 10 rats (they have their own room, not caged to have some quality of life after the experiments and small housing) perhaps I can get 5 cents for every book you sell I succesfully forward :lol:
Image
https://postimg.cc/gallery/XNGkh0H :D

ps they love Buddhist chants and zazen together :hatsoff:

Post Reply