(Re)examining the first precept?

Moderator: fuki

p22
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 7:49 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by p22 » Fri Jun 05, 2020 3:28 pm

There's a vlog called Mousetrap Monday on YouTube ..

I'm sure you could lobby for additional support for your rescued friends in the comment section- Heavy duty PETA presence last time I checked-

Don't expose the rats to the videos ..

Do you know the source of those tangerines and zucchini and how they were grown?

I made seitan years ago from wheat flour and it wasn't half bad- I substituted mushroom goop for soy sauce- Not a soy fan ..

p22
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 7:49 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by p22 » Fri Jun 05, 2020 3:29 pm

Good afternoon, Larry-

el gatito
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by el gatito » Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:25 pm

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:20 am
...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 do. I never use any sort of chemical medicines, have never had any sort of medical insurance, do not use (never visit) any kind of medical doctors, and do not believe that the modern ("scientific") medicine is any good. Especially at the present times, when the law enforcement and medical authorities are being merged.
Last edited by el gatito on Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

el gatito
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by el gatito » Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:28 pm

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:39 am
Or, human bodies might be raised without the sentient aspects (yes, bodies with much of the conscious brain missing) simply for medical testing purposes.
Are you #$%&/[% [really] serious?

avisitor
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:01 am

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by avisitor » Fri Jun 05, 2020 7:06 pm

A human or animal or insect or a snippet of DNA ....
The lion hunts and kills other animals to live.
As cruel as it may seem, that is the way it is.
To wish otherwise is to create desire and more suffering

el gatito
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by el gatito » Fri Jun 05, 2020 7:25 pm

I am also curious, if every zen master always differentiate between their loved, beloved, and other "unloved" ones?

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:25 pm

el gatito wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:28 pm
jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:39 am
Or, human bodies might be raised without the sentient aspects (yes, bodies with much of the conscious brain missing) simply for medical testing purposes.
Are you #$%&/[% [really] serious?
I did not say that I approved of the idea, but it might be technologically feasible. Then, we have to debate the ethics. If you wish to test a potentially dangerous medicine and these are the best choices, do you choose: (1) human like body raised without sentience or (2) bunnies and mice.

Yes, I have deep reservations about all of it. I also have reservations about using animals, but believe it the lessor evil in order to save the children of those I love and the children of those I do not, just to save human beings.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 539
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 10:50 pm

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:25 pm
do you choose: (1) human like body raised without sentience or (2) bunnies and mice.
Easy pick :111:

ps (might be "off-topic" or too "dreamy" for most) but when I was very young like around the age of 8 I was often visited by "dark thingies" (select your brain religious associative referential story/input) long story short, when I was visited by some 'protective' beings on which I could "hook up" to take me traveling, or inter-dimensional hopping, I saw the future where beings (I think it was earth) had little use of their bodies, most of the time they were playing in "spirit" and actually forgot they had such a thing as a body/form or "matter" So an alarm clock is needed (just like our bio-clock now) so they didn't leave the physical bodies dormant for too long aka "death" a beautiful world (which is quit common even 'now' just not on this tiny water planet) when they returned to the room (body-mind-vehicle) for food sustenance they'd only have to think "corn" and tasty corn would "magically" appear, earth one day will be like that too, not so much by "human technology" but rather a "spiritual" upgrading. It's all good, in the "mean-time" let's all do our best, or "just be" :111:
niutou fajung 1.jpg
niutou fajung 1.jpg (36.01 KiB) Viewed 1507 times

el gatito
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by el gatito » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:42 pm

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:25 pm
If you wish to test a potentially dangerous medicine ...
I do not wish to test any potentially dangerous chemical medicine. I believe that medicine has to be produced naturally, from plants.

I never force others, however, to follow my views and ways of life. Unlike the "scientists", who most certainly do. Unfortunately.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 11:10 pm
Location: Zandvoort, the Netherlands

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by fuki » Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:43 am

el gatito wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:42 pm
jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:25 pm
If you wish to test a potentially dangerous medicine ...
I do not wish to test any potentially dangerous chemical medicine. I believe that medicine has to be produced naturally, from plants.

I never force others, however, to follow my views and ways of life. Unlike the "scientists", who most certainly do. Unfortunately.
El, I support you and also suspect you've taken better care of the instrument then I did. "However" when I was about 20 I had my appendix removed, I had a few other trips to the hospital which if it weren't for modern science I could have 'died' from, then again they might have been partly diseases of modern society too. Anyway there has been pain 24/7 the last few months due to a rotten/infected tooth, no biggy as the sensation locally known as "pain" or "pleasure" is just part of the whole consciousness-manifest-thingy. Next tuesday I'm scheduled for it to be removed surgically in the hospital, if they can't confirm the sedation is not tested on animals I will go through the procedure without sedation, no biggy (though I might insert some vegan whiskey prior to it)

I've always said since a kid that if diagnosed with cancer I wouldn't get chemo, now 43 I still stand by it, but, since my mom is still alive as long as she lives (because I know she couldnt handle losing me) suppose I got diagnosed while she was alive I might take chemo, I cant really say yes or no since its a fantasy/anticipation and hopefuly for the sake of my mom wont have to make such a decision. I realize that refusing in such a situation wont change the cruel industry, so for mom's sake I'd probably go through it...but for my so called 'self' I don't have kids so apart from mom I wouldn't feel a need to 'survive' or avoid so called (sweet) 'death'

I'm amazed how much attached "humans" are to the instrument, but due to that one also has to consider those sentiments (parents/children/pets/friends etc depended on their attachments) and make some 'decisions' which would just not apply otherwise (the whole birth/death thingy) 🙃 ironically sunyata=relations, the irony part is the attachment/clinging ofcourse, if we wouldn't be so uptight with so called "death" it would all be allright in "paradise"

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:43 am

el gatito wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:42 pm
jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:25 pm
If you wish to test a potentially dangerous medicine ...
I do not wish to test any potentially dangerous chemical medicine. I believe that medicine has to be produced naturally, from plants.

I never force others, however, to follow my views and ways of life. Unlike the "scientists", who most certainly do. Unfortunately.
It is, of course, totally your right to do so, and even to choose so for minors in your care (I did indirectly work on a case involving blood transfusion for the child of someone who refused on religious grounds, and the court ordered the treatment. But that is a rare case). Otherwise, nobody forces you to go to a hospital or put a pill between your lips under normal circumstances.

I am also right to choose modern medicine which, fortunately, seems to have done okay with my cancer, my family's health issues, and I am satisfied.

The Covid-19 virus is also perfectly "natural," and just nature doing its thing, so I don't always think that nature is our friend. Sometimes we must respect nature, sometimes we must learn from nature, sometimes we must care and protect nature, we must realize our inner nature ... and sometimes, we must wrestle nature into submission like we should do with this virus.

Gassho, J

el gatito
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:00 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by el gatito » Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:51 am

jundocohen wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:43 am
Otherwise, nobody forces you to go to a hospital or put a pill between your lips under normal circumstances.
In my country of residence (Chile), and the country of origin (Russia), police do escort "suspects" (I mean the "pandemic") to a hospital (or to an "observatory"). There are many legal and other difficulties, once in a hospital, to try to reject medicine prescribed. This is next to impossible. There seem to be a trend to convert "normal circumstances" to the so-called "new normal circumstances".
jundocohen wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:43 am
... and sometimes, we must wrestle nature into submission ...
"We" who? Don't count me, please!

avisitor
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:01 am

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by avisitor » Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:51 am

jundocohen wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:39 am
Or, human bodies might be raised without the sentient aspects (yes, bodies with much of the conscious brain missing) simply for medical testing purposes.
There is something very disturbing about the images that statement brings up.
Someone painting make-up on a brain dead girl???
Raised, grown, whatever... just wrong....

jundocohen wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:43 am
I am also right to choose modern medicine which, fortunately, seems to have done okay with my cancer, my family's health issues, and I am satisfied.
My sister died from Cancer.
It seems modern medicine has only one approved recourse
That is to put poisons into the body with Cancer hoping to kill the Cancer before it kills the patient
And the effectiveness of this is after five years, 47% of those who got Chemo were still alive.
While those who did not get Chemo, after five years, 39% were alive.
So, the real effectiveness of modern medical treatment is 8%

p22
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 7:49 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by p22 » Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:01 am

The temporary new normal (US) basically imprisoned elderly individuals in nursing homes- Visitors weren't allowed in, they weren't allowed to be taken out- Many died as a result, roughly 40% according to the latest numbers-

p22
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 7:49 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by p22 » Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:14 am

The story of the murder of Shunryu Suzuki's wife comes to mind- He didn't protect her- He protected his practice and as a result she was killed- He was neglectful, yet continues to be revered-

p22
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 7:49 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by p22 » Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:15 am

Avi, I'm sorry about your sister- 🌸

Larry
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:49 am

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by Larry » Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:34 am

p22 wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:14 am
The story of the murder of Shunryu Suzuki's wife comes to mind- He didn't protect her- He protected his practice and as a result she was killed- He was neglectful, yet continues to be revered-
Good point. He wasn’t as squeaky clean as the hagiography suggests.

Not like us 😇 :lol:

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:43 am

p22 wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:14 am
The story of the murder of Shunryu Suzuki's wife comes to mind- He didn't protect her- He protected his practice and as a result she was killed- He was neglectful, yet continues to be revered-
What do you mean with that strange and rather ugly comment? She was killed by a deranged man. Suzuki was not a saint, but she was not killed due to his fault. She was killed because Suzuki was too good hearted to a mentally ill individual ...
Otsubo was about thirty. He was there not because of any strong tie to Shunryu or Rinso-in, but because he had nowhere else to go. If he'd come on his own, the customary one night's hospitality for a traveling monk would have fulfilled Shunryu's obligation, but he had been sent by Kishizawa, who had no work for him at Gyokuden-in. And he was just too eccentric and uncontrollable to function smoothly with Kishizawa's disciplined monks. Shunryu's accepting nature would work better for the out-of-step Otsubo. ...

Shunryu was generally tolerant of Otsubo's oddities. He allowed the strange monk to wear the civilian uniform from the war days. It made him look like a soldier. Otsubo had been in the army during the war, and people thought that was what had made him so peculiar. He was considered to be a war burn-out, a shell-shocked monk.

Nobody wanted him at Rinso-in. The family resented having his dark cloud floating around the place. Chie had spoken to Shunryu about him a number of times. She said he gave her the chills. He especially frightened the children, who were afraid of his crazy eyes and had told their father so. He said that was no way to talk about another person, and finally he just told them to shut up. He spoke more politely to Obaa-san when she mentioned her uneasiness with Otsubo. It couldn't be helped, he told her. Fine for him to say: he was gone most the time, and they were stuck with Otsubo. Chie might be in charge of day-to-day life at Rinso-in, but Shunryu had the final say.

Otsubo had first come to Rinso-in in the fall but hadn't stayed long. He'd gotten into an argument with Chie and walked off. After a couple of fruitless months searching for a temple that would keep him, he returned. Shunryu took him back in without a word. ...

... A little before three o'clock, Chie heard the dog barking in the genkan. She was as sensitive to his sounds as she was to the cries of her children and could tell that the dog was in distress. She went down to see what it was--probably Otsubo torturing him again. So inexcusable.

... The *Tanakas, the couple whose memorial service Otsubo had assisted with the day before, were walking up the road with gifts in hand for him and the Suzukis. They were more than a little unsettled to meet Otsubo moaning and staggering down the road like a drunk, blood splattered on his face and shirt, and more blood streaming down from his neck. He mumbled something about going to the police station. Then they heard pitiful cries for help coming from the temple. It was Obaa-san calling.

They ran into the genkan and saw a terrible sight. Chie lay against the wall by the wood stove, her whole body covered in blood. Obaa-san was putting a thin towel over her daughter's head, futilely trying to stop the bleeding. Next to her the dog's limp body lay in a pool of blood, and not far away lay a bloody hatchet. Mr. Tanaka ran to the phone and called for a doctor. Neighbors rushed up to see what was happening.

... In town, Shunryu was stopped by a merchant who had heard rumors flying. He raced back on his bicycle to Rinso-in to find a police car in the driveway. Then he saw his wife, groaned loudly, and kneeled down before her.

Soon he and Obaa-san were in a police car following the ambulance to the hospital. Otsubo had struck Chie seven times in the face and head with the hatchet. There was nothing the doctors could do, and gradually her vital signs faded. Shunryu and Obaa-san were with Chie when she died at eight that evening.

A grieving and shattered Shunryu returned home and gathered his numb children together in the family room. He spoke as he had never spoken to them before, with humility, softness, and overflowing sadness. He told them that their mother was dead, that she had died at the hands of Otsubo. Then he said, "Please do not hate this man who has killed your mother. Rather you should hate me, because I didn't listen to her or to Obaa-san or to you when you all warned me about him." And he added, "From now on let us be together."


He continued to confess responsibility for his wife's death to everyone he spoke to. "It was my fault," he said to Amano, his godfather and confidant. "I was too stubborn. I wouldn't bend. I was so wrong."
He wouldn't bend about helping the strange and homeless monk.

More of the story here ...

http://www.cuke.com/Crooked%20Cucumber/ ... -death.htm

Larry
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:49 am

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by Larry » Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:21 pm

jundocohen wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:43 am
she was not killed due to his fault.
That appears to be a matter of opinion. Not shared by Suzuki himself.

User avatar
jundocohen
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: (Re)examining the first precept?

Post by jundocohen » Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:10 pm

Larry wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:21 pm
jundocohen wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:43 am
she was not killed due to his fault.
That appears to be a matter of opinion. Not shared by Suzuki himself.
I have no vested interest in defending Suzuki, but that statement was ...
He was neglectful, yet continues to be revered-
If the story is true as told, and the "neglect" was trying to hard to care for a homeless and suffering man with mental health issues, than that seems more like the kind of risk a good priest is supposed to take to help others. No?

Post Reply