Yeah I've had similar thoughts for years, I occasionally mention to people that a certain action etc would be "bad for my soul". I'm not and never have meant in terms of some immortal something which will be judged for sins in an after life, bur rather, it would dampen by spirit or personal energy level, that momentary thing which goes through peaks and troughs, passions and dis-interests etc.
To kill something needlessly, for me, would be "bad for my soul". That's just how I see it though, I attach no sins or judgements, no building up of brownie points or no downard spirals to hell etc. Just momentary action.
Nothing is as morally good or bad as it is nutritious or infirming--not to mention beautiful or ugly.
Yes, things which we perceive to drive us on to the next moment with vigour or to saddle us with fears, these are the things we strive towards or hide from. I guess they are so constant in our existence that maybe they are overlooked as being worthy of perceived objectiveness, importance or judgement.
I rather expect that this post may cause some disagreement, so let me first list some of the assumptions from which I reason. All of these assumptions are central to the teachings of the historical Buddha. BTW, I've labeled these points "Assumptions" for those who don't accept them, as I do, as inconvertible.
Assumption One: Ultimate Reality is value free, impersonal, unconstrained, and indivisible. Consequently, there are no gods or individual souls. It is from Ultimate Reality that the Perceptual World arises, though the "why" can never be known.
Assumption Two: Perceptual Reality (multiplicity of things, space and time) is false and illusory. The notion of "Self" as observer and participant in Perceptual, or Objective Reality is natural, but false. The "Self" observer assigns values to multiplicity and change judged upon how those elements and changes are perceived to affect the "Self".
Assumption Three: Suffering is a product of accepting Perceptual Reality as the only Reality. "Self" is the observer and valuator of multiplicity. Suffering results from dissonance between the "Self" and the consequences of the change inherent to the time/space constraints of Perceptual Reality. Suffering is largely individual, though empathy and compassion for the suffering of fellow creatures is one of the "markers" for sentience.
Assumption Four: Transcendental experience of Ultimate Reality can be experienced by any sentient being, regardless of literacy, mental capability, cultural membership, or social standing, and can happen at any time or place in the Objective Universe. The Arhat communicates the transcendental experience in terms common to his/her cultural setting. Given favorable conditions, the initial experience garners disciples who codify their understanding of the Arhat and his/her experience. When a significant number of the cultural set accepts the doctrines and meld them into their underlying mythology, a new religion is born. Note that the popular religion may be at considerable variance from the actual transcendental experience of its founder.
Assumption Five: We dream creatures are mired in the Illusion of multiplicity and while in that state, must treat it as if it were real. That is wounds still bleed, famine cannot be ignored, our bodies deteriorate and we descend into the grave. Our desires when fulfilled fall short of expectations, and we are frustrated when desires are not met. We want to hold on to past pleasures, and avoid future pains. Magic doesn't exist, except as a fictional representation of our desire of unlimited control over the Objective World. In Perceptual Reality values have an important role to play in the extent and intensity of suffering. That multiplicity is illusory does not mean that it isn't real to those who remain caught up in it's web. Suffering IS mitigated for those who have some degree of understanding of Assumption's 1 through 4. For some who directly experience Ultimate Reality, suffering ceases entirely, but many more who experience Enlightenment compassion prompts them to remain with one foot in Objective Reality so as to mitigate the suffering associated with Perceptual Reality. The Historical Buddha taught the Middle Way, and gave the Sanga some basic direction to help them also to experience Ultimate Reality.
In Perceptual Reality our main goal is to mitigate suffering, both our own and that in the world at large. Perhaps the best way to do that is through making the Buddha's Teachings regarding suffering available to the greatest extent possible. Of paramount importance is to practice constantly the fundamental percepts, and in working to perfect our thoughts, words and actions. If we are successful at that, our own sufferings will be easily bearable and we can withstand the greatest shocks. Our lives are our sermon to those around us, and their lives in turn perpetuate an existence that will give rise to less suffering. Suffering, again, is inherent to the Objective World, so we shape our thoughts, words and actions to mitigate and limit that suffering as much as possible. This always gives rise to valuing one condition over another; just the thing to perpetuate the Illusion of multiplicity. We can be entirely passive in the face of suffering, since all those valuations are ultimately meaningless, or we attempt mitigation of suffering (the Mahayana Choice) knowing full well that ultimately it still is meaningless though compassionate. If we choose the first option, then probably we should enter a monastery; preferably Buddhist, but almost any will do.
So if we dedicate ourselves to the impossible, the mitigation of suffering, how shall we decide which thoughts, words and actions will render the best result? We balance the likely suffering from alternative thoughts, words, and actions, and then choose those that will most likely result mitigate suffering more than the suffering that will inevitably result from our choices. Does the momentary suffering of a child punishing for playing with fire outweigh the suffering that an accidental or arson might cause? Is the merit allowing a mad dog in the streets to live outweigh the suffering that results, or should we kill the dog? If a few must suffer so that the many will be spared suffering, isn't that more compassionate, even though our thoughts, words, and actions will be the cause of suffering? I recently saw a report that a man in Texas infected with a very dangerous antibiotic resistant form of TB has been incarcerated to prevent the spread of a disease that could easily sicken and kill hundreds of thousands. The man undoubtedly is made to suffer, but on balance should individual suffering out-weigh the probable suffering of the rest of humanity? Usually, these sort of judgments are neither immediate, nor subject to the desires of individuals. An individual's decision to be against Capital Punishment has very little to do whether the larger society chooses to continue an ancient practice. The real moral dilemma isn't our own, but the executioner's, the individual who takes upon himself the the burden of doing what his society values.
These are all individual values and judgments, and in the end some suffering will result. We are not omniscient and every thought, every word, and every action carries with them the potential for increasing, rather than mitigating suffering. The best intentions and finest weighting of alternatives can have unintended consequences that might exceed the suffering we intended to mitigate. Should that potential for harm prevent us from making an effort to mitigate suffering, or should it only cause us to be very, very careful of our thoughts, words and actions? When we make a mistake, and the result is the opposite of our intention, does that mean that we should abandon our efforts? Remember, suffering is endemic to the Perceptual World and that in Ultimate Reality there is no differentiation possible between this and that. Only in this Illusory World does suffering exist. We should be humble enough to realize that our poor efforts, meritorious as they might be, are always only relative and speculative.
Fire Ants can kill infants, the weak and disabled. So far as we can tell, Fire Ants are not sentient, nor do they suffer. By killing some of them, we may well be protecting many sentient beings from injury or death. Thank you, Snood for acting to mitigate the suffering of sentient beings. The merit for that action is lessened, however, by the emotional reaction to your personal discomfort rather than any dispassionate intent to mitigate the suffering of others. When you knowingly decide to squeeze the trigger ending the life of an individual in civilian cloths carrying a firearm during a firefight, the merit of that decision depends upon what values drive your thinking. Only you know, in this example, whether your intention is to mitigate a greater suffering, or to merely inflict suffering in furtherance of your own interests. Good Buddhists can be good, even exceptional soldiers, policemen, butchers or executioners. We should hope that thoughtful, compassionate individuals of whatever religion dedicated to the mitigation of suffering should dominate those morally dangerous careers.
If we are unable, or unwilling to attempt mitigation of suffering, then it is far better that we confine ourselves to tending only our own small garden. That is ultimately where our best and least controversial and risky thoughts, words and actions occur anyway. Most of us have very little control over the vast regions of our planet, or over contentious political parties or governments. Trends reaching far back in our history are not easily changed, and no law can change the human heart. What "ought to be" often is an impossibility to achieve. Oft times the very best we can do to mitigate suffering isn't in distant places, or in attempting to build the "Shining City", but in the diamonds hidden in the mud of our neglected fields. Instead of spending a life gazing on distant peaks, better that we should pay attention ... constantly ... to the work within the reach of our arms.
Thank you, Asherman for another valuable contribution. You certainly put yourself out for our benefit. Your effort reminds me of the precept you cite:
"In Perceptual Reality our main goal is to mitigate suffering, both our own and that in the world at large. Perhaps the best way to do that is through making the Buddha's Teachings regarding suffering available to the greatest extent possible."
I would suggest that those of us who are interested in the Buddhist path, print out your post and review it regularly.
Since the topic is "Ants Test Non Violence of Buddhist Monks"
Asherman wrote:So far as we can tell, Fire Ants are not sentient, nor do they suffer.
Your claim that fire ants are not sentient is dubious, here's why
Quote:Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".
Your claim that fire ants do not suffer is dubious; you're applying your own brand of anthropomorphic idealizations, here's why: although insects and other arthropods don't have nociceptors, they can feel sensations, but the consensus appears to be that pain is not one of them, however they can suffer in that
Quote:If we make 'feel pain' a short-hand for whether or not an insect can be annoyed by interference, the answer is almost certainly yes (although they probably don't feel /annoyed/ in the human being sense). They are capable of responding quite negatively (if you've been stung by a bee, you already know this) to averse stimuli that they have cognized as 'interference', a physical threat to their well-being, etc. This doesn't mean the insect thinks about it, debates the morality, etc., or is even capable of 'if this things keeps bugging me, then I will sting it'. It's much more rudimentary (but how much more rudimentary is a good question, which brings us to the next possible definition).
If we make 'feel pain' a short-hand for whether or not an insect is able to cognize massive damage to itself as a result of averse/painful stimuli, the answer is yes. Put a lobster in a boiling pot of water, rips a bees wings off, it doesn't make them very happy. Unlike bacteria, which are also capable of responding to averse stimuli, insects are clearly capable of entertaining the proposition that considerable, unwanted harm is being done to them.
Anyhow, the gist of which is that operational definitions come into central play when we try to answer the question 'do insects feel pain'? These definitions are often coloured by anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism unavoidably.
And, the questions themselves often require a background in biology (do the nerves respond and how do they connect?), ethology (what do animals do 'normally', and what makes a particular response to a particular behaviour noteworthy), cognitive science (what propositions/thoughts/feelings/etc., if any, is species A capable of experiencin?) and to a certain degree, philosophy of mind (although I look forward to philosophy dropping out of the equation eventually).
Fun sources:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Entomology-Study-Bugs-665/insects-feel-pain.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Entomology-Study-Bugs-665/insects-feel-pain.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
JLNobody wrote:Nothing is as morally good or bad as it is nutritious or infirming. . .
I agree. And I tend to believe (although I can't quite articulate
why) that what's good for one is good for all.
Echi, I suspect that's so. People differ in values, interests and preferences, but they are generally, if not universally, similar in what is good or bad for them.
I don't equate an ant's sensibilities with those of a mammal or bird. Still, when I see an ant try so hard to defend the colony, or run to avert the doom from a falling foot, I have to believe it has enough sentience to deserve some kind of consideration. I don't know how far one ought go in their defense. I eat chickens and don't do a thing to save any from death or suffering. Same with Angus cows.
Here at the apartments, I regularly kill ants, because they are mostly the fire ant kind. In the natural order, one defends one's own species first. At the same time, I go to considerable lengths to rescue insects and spiders from the swimming pool.
I have long thought that Buddhism is the most advanced of organized religions, though I make no pretense at wishing to convert. I see the human as just another animal, but one with tremendous potential for evil and for good. As of this writing, I am not optimistic that they will survive.
Edgar, I see no need for you to "convert" to Buddhism. As I see it, you are heading in that direction without effort or intention.
I want humanity to prevail. Just out of answers how it can happen.
edgarblythe wrote:I want humanity to prevail. Just out of answers how it can happen.
Out of answers? Simply give me all your worldly things thus you can live in non-materialistic idealism while I suffer with the albatross of possessions.
Whuchoo talkin bout, Cumly?
#hat t#e #ell #appened to t#e # edgarblyt#e?
Er, chumly. (I better start using spellcheck).
I guess I killed this thread.
