Indeed, in Mahayana, it is possible have an abortion out of compassion, but most people tend to cite the “old testament” when discussing ethics.Giovanni wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 pm Important. As Malcolm says there are things necessary for actions to cause unmixed negative Vipaka. They have to be intentional, and the person needs to be satisfied with the result of their actions.
Unmixed negative karma is not created just because of actions we do not like or approve of. It’s a bit more complicated.
Most karma is mixed because of mixed intentions and remorse at result of action.
The Great Abortion Debate
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
The Old Testament, interestingly, contains a method for procuring an abortion if you suspect your wife has been unfaithful (Numbers 5:11-28). It even specifies how much you have to pay the priest for his services. The prevailing Christian opposition to abortion has no real scriptural support.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:24 amIndeed, in Mahayana, it is possible have an abortion out of compassion, but most people tend to cite the “old testament” when discussing ethics.Giovanni wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 pm Important. As Malcolm says there are things necessary for actions to cause unmixed negative Vipaka. They have to be intentional, and the person needs to be satisfied with the result of their actions.
Unmixed negative karma is not created just because of actions we do not like or approve of. It’s a bit more complicated.
Most karma is mixed because of mixed intentions and remorse at result of action.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Impermanence is not in question so preserve denotes original/existing state. That is, what remains after liberation is the original state.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pmYes, correct. Dharma is concerned only with the cessation of suffering.
The reason we practice ahimsa is not to preserve life, but rather, is not to consciously cause suffering.
Anyway, one cannot abort life, one can only abort a life. But since there is rebirth, the loss of life does not mean that sentient being whose fetal development was interrupted will not take another rebirth. And, further, being aborted is a ripening of karma. In Buddhadharma, there are no innocents.
pre·serve
/prəˈzərv/
"maintain (something) in its original or existing state."
If the state of enlightenment is boundless and immeasurable so is the value of life that experiences such a thing, regardless of how impermanent that particular existence.
What was the value of Shakyamuni's existence?
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
“To preserve” means to worry about degeneration, and thus impermanence. Something which never degenerates does not require any preservation at all.tkp67 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:47 amImpermanence is not in question so preserve denotes original/existing state. That is, what remains after liberation is the original state.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pmYes, correct. Dharma is concerned only with the cessation of suffering.
The reason we practice ahimsa is not to preserve life, but rather, is not to consciously cause suffering.
Anyway, one cannot abort life, one can only abort a life. But since there is rebirth, the loss of life does not mean that sentient being whose fetal development was interrupted will not take another rebirth. And, further, being aborted is a ripening of karma. In Buddhadharma, there are no innocents.
pre·serve
/prəˈzərv/
"maintain (something) in its original or existing state."
If the state of enlightenment is boundless and immeasurable so is the value of life that experiences such a thing, regardless of how impermanent that particular existence.
What was the value of Shakyamuni's existence?
Living beings who are “enlightened” have no fear abortion since they have no further karma to ripen and they are free of birth abd death.
As for Shakyamuni, the value of his existence depends on who you ask.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Your preference doesn't equate to the accepted defined meaning of the word for which I gave you ample reference.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:42 am“To preserve” means to worry about degeneration, and thus impermanence. Something which never degenerates does not require any preservation at all.tkp67 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:47 amImpermanence is not in question so preserve denotes original/existing state. That is, what remains after liberation is the original state.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pm
Yes, correct. Dharma is concerned only with the cessation of suffering.
The reason we practice ahimsa is not to preserve life, but rather, is not to consciously cause suffering.
Anyway, one cannot abort life, one can only abort a life. But since there is rebirth, the loss of life does not mean that sentient being whose fetal development was interrupted will not take another rebirth. And, further, being aborted is a ripening of karma. In Buddhadharma, there are no innocents.
pre·serve
/prəˈzərv/
"maintain (something) in its original or existing state."
If the state of enlightenment is boundless and immeasurable so is the value of life that experiences such a thing, regardless of how impermanent that particular existence.
What was the value of Shakyamuni's existence?
Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.Living beings who are “enlightened” have no fear abortion since they have no further karma to ripen and they are free of birth abd death.
That is indirect and inconclusive.As for Shakyamuni, the value of his existence depends on who you ask.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
It’s easier than working to understand subtleties, read your Big Book of Certainty then you dont need to read people I think.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:24 amIndeed, in Mahayana, it is possible have an abortion out of compassion, but most people tend to cite the “old testament” when discussing ethics.Giovanni wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 pm Important. As Malcolm says there are things necessary for actions to cause unmixed negative Vipaka. They have to be intentional, and the person needs to be satisfied with the result of their actions.
Unmixed negative karma is not created just because of actions we do not like or approve of. It’s a bit more complicated.
Most karma is mixed because of mixed intentions and remorse at result of action.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Go on then - citations please. Focus on those citations that explain the link to abortion.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Sure it does, that’s why fruit processed with heat and pectin, and stored in sterile jar are called “preserves.”
Nonreferential compassion is not born out of a sense of debt. Buddhas have no concept of “value, “sentient life”, or “ unenlightened.” Buddhas are totally beyond such concepts.Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened.Living beings who are “enlightened” have no fear abortion since they have no further karma to ripen and they are free of birth abd death.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17142
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
No, that's not correct, go ahead.
The thing is, particularly as regards the Mahayana, depending on what tradition one practices in, one can find scriptural justification for all kinds of stuff. Well-argued justifications using scriptural citations are less common. It's easier to write quote brackets and vomit out some text than it is to actually examine it.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
We don't delete relevant citations here, do we?
People do need to provide citations to support arguments. If we don't rely on textual authority, then we're just making shit up, frankly.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17142
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
No, of course we don't do that intentionally. Does that need to be said? I imagine what happened is that posts with citations in them got removed for other reasons, but as with most public moderation complaints, its too vague for us to do much with without direct contact from the person complaining, and specifics about the complaint - i.e. who moderated the thread, whether they contacted us at the time, etc.
Gonna suggest we move off the subject and return to the OP, or something close.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17142
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Further, if someone feels a sutra citation was unfairly removed but cannot name specifics, the best thing to do would be to simply repost the link to the sutra in quesiton
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
There is direct Scriptural support for the Christians to preserve an infants life. Such as take this passage:PeterC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:29 amThe Old Testament, interestingly, contains a method for procuring an abortion if you suspect your wife has been unfaithful (Numbers 5:11-28). It even specifies how much you have to pay the priest for his services. The prevailing Christian opposition to abortion has no real scriptural support.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:24 amIndeed, in Mahayana, it is possible have an abortion out of compassion, but most people tend to cite the “old testament” when discussing ethics.Giovanni wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 pm Important. As Malcolm says there are things necessary for actions to cause unmixed negative Vipaka. They have to be intentional, and the person needs to be satisfied with the result of their actions.
Unmixed negative karma is not created just because of actions we do not like or approve of. It’s a bit more complicated.
Most karma is mixed because of mixed intentions and remorse at result of action.
I know everyone in this thread thinks babies lives are important. So I am glad we can all agree on that. The subject of abortion is just a very difficult issue because once a child’s life is taken away from the mother, it’s not so easy to give it back to the mother in question. That is why I say losing a child is quite a difficult thing, despite Malcolm mentioning reincarnation. So it’s something to think about.Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. - Isaiah 49:1,5
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Dude, try reading the context rather than just pulling the first quote you find off google. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Not even close. It's their god (via his prophet) giving the Israelites a hard time, as he often does when he's having a bad day. Nothing about the sanctity of the lives of the unborn at all.Könchok Chödrak wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 am
There is direct Scriptural support for the Christians to preserve an infants life. Such as take this passage:
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. - Isaiah 49:1,5
Well, in the abstract, sense, all life is important of course. But don't just assume that we all support your position because Babies' Lives Matter. An aborted child just goes back onto the to-do list of migration without really accruing or exhausting much karma. The Buddhadharma is about liberating migrating beings, and that's really all it's about. It's only about preserving life to the extent that it helps with the liberation.I know everyone in this thread thinks babies lives are important. So I am glad we can all agree on that. The subject of abortion is just a very difficult issue because once a child’s life is taken away from the mother, it’s not so easy to give it back to the mother in question. That is why I say losing a child is quite a difficult thing, despite Malcolm mentioning reincarnation. So it’s something to think about.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Why does one need specifics on abortion when the bodhisattva vow is the basis for Mayahana?
Evaluation of all sutras that teach and convert the bodhisattvas would be applicable.
One does not need a direct specification on future distinctions of wrong doing when the basis for liberation is the development of loving kindness, altruism and other attributes such as these.
The point of the great vehicle is life is not meant to be understood through provision but through existing causes, conditions and capacities experienced in one's own life.
If these conditions, causes and capacities don't exist then such consideration is the anti-thesis of bodhisattva practices meant to cultivate the four divine immeasurables.
I suspect this is why HHDL suggests it be dealt with on a case by case basis.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9511
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
I’ve never read anywhere Buddha Shakyamuni talking about any ‘debt to the unenlightened”.
...not so sure about any mention of the ‘value of sentient life’ either, since the whole purpose of his dharma was to avoid taking rebirth as a sentient being.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
-
- Posts: 729
- Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:27 pm
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
Abortion is not the same thing as "losing a child," in the way that term is usually used for, e.g., miscarriage or stillbirth. Most women do not regret having had abortions.Könchok Chödrak wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 am The subject of abortion is just a very difficult issue because once a child’s life is taken away from the mother, it’s not so easy to give it back to the mother in question. That is why I say losing a child is quite a difficult thing, despite Malcolm mentioning reincarnation. So it’s something to think about.
Before we were married, my now-wife and I had an unplanned pregnancy. (Thought we were protected, weren't, oops.) We decided to end the pregnancy. It frankly wasn't much of a decision; it was absolutely the right thing for us to do at the time, and we certainly don't regret it or view it as a difficulty. We now have a daughter whom we love very much.
Unless you're a woman, I'd respectfully suggest not arguing from what you believe women feel about abortion.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
When HH said this he meant that we can make no judgement that fits all cases. It is obvious from context that he meant that one persons case the best option is termination. In another case the best option would be support for mother, in another adoption and so on. There is no Buddhist view of abortion. And no one should judge those who hold a different view.tkp67 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:28 pmWhy does one need specifics on abortion when the bodhisattva vow is the basis for Mayahana?
Evaluation of all sutras that teach and convert the bodhisattvas would be applicable.
One does not need a direct specification on future distinctions of wrong doing when the basis for liberation is the development of loving kindness, altruism and other attributes such as these.
The point of the great vehicle is life is not meant to be understood through provision but through existing causes, conditions and capacities experienced in one's own life.
If these conditions, causes and capacities don't exist then such consideration is the anti-thesis of bodhisattva practices meant to cultivate the four divine immeasurables.
I suspect this is why HHDL suggests it be dealt with on a case by case basis.
He was quite clear in answers.
Re: The Great Abortion Debate
The quote is about how the prophet was called from the womb. I don’t think it takes much interpretation to realize that in the prophetic sense the prophet was saying life has a purpose.PeterC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:56 amDude, try reading the context rather than just pulling the first quote you find off google. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Not even close. It's their god (via his prophet) giving the Israelites a hard time, as he often does when he's having a bad day. Nothing about the sanctity of the lives of the unborn at all.Könchok Chödrak wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 am
There is direct Scriptural support for the Christians to preserve an infants life. Such as take this passage:
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. - Isaiah 49:1,5
Well, in the abstract, sense, all life is important of course. But don't just assume that we all support your position because Babies' Lives Matter. An aborted child just goes back onto the to-do list of migration without really accruing or exhausting much karma. The Buddhadharma is about liberating migrating beings, and that's really all it's about. It's only about preserving life to the extent that it helps with the liberation.I know everyone in this thread thinks babies lives are important. So I am glad we can all agree on that. The subject of abortion is just a very difficult issue because once a child’s life is taken away from the mother, it’s not so easy to give it back to the mother in question. That is why I say losing a child is quite a difficult thing, despite Malcolm mentioning reincarnation. So it’s something to think about.
And liberation requires you to live your life. Don’t you know how painful the process of abortion is for a baby? Is torture Buddhist? It’s a baby, and the kind of thing they do to babies during abortion is something one would go to life in prison for if they do to an adult.