(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

This weekend a question arose for me regarding the concept of ahimsa.

In Buddhist teaching the source of sorrow is seen to be the presence of desire. Sometimes it is even said that existence is sorrow.

As I understand this worldview, suffering and joy are states of mind caused by our being "invested" or entangled in the mundane aspects of material existence. I do not think it is accurate to characterize this teaching according to the common misconception that "material existence is illusion," but rather, that the attachments we have to bodily sensations and material items makes them seem more important than they truly are. It is joy and suffering that are illusory.

Further (still recounting my understanding of this teaching) by cultivating a sense of detachment from the illusory importance of material wealth, pleasure, and pain, we are able to escape the hell of sorrow, addiction, etc.

By way of meditation I have managed to achieve a degree of this kind of detachment myself, in cultivating a well of stillness from which I can draw upon in times of crisis. Instead of "suffering" through moments of crisis or pain, I instead observe, and understand this as a path and practice that helps me to avoid suffering.

Now, this is where my understanding begins to lapse with regard to the idea of ahimsa. Buddhists make a goal of non-injury to all living things in word, act, and deed. But... doesn't this require one to buy into the idea that suffering is real? This counters my understanding of Buddhist teaching with regards to suffering.

Life itself cannot continue unless beings die. Most beings cannot continue to live unless they consume other beings as food. There is nothing inherently "cruel" about this arrangement, except that our nervous systems respond adversely to pain and death. To avoid needless injury to other beings is one thing, but it seems to me that the practice of ahimsa would be in the long run directly counter to the practice of non-attachment.

Crossposting to buddhists

Comments

[soulsong.livejournal.com]

Interesting question. I'll be watching the buddhists community to see if you get an answer.

[fraterfae.livejournal.com]

Rolling these around is making my psyche throb in pain. (HeH)

In ahimsa the act of non-injury could include avoiding increasing the previously defined suffering as well as more obvious forms of injury, yes? Though I'm far from ironing these thoughts out, looking at it like that diminishes the seeming discrepancy for me.

I can always count on you, Sophia, for heady thoughts before coffee. Thanks.

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

From what I've been told, most recently in classes, that ties into the first tenet of Buddhism as set forth by the enlightened teachers in 1890-something, specifically to show love, tolerance and forebearance to all men without distinction and unswerving kindness for members of the animal world. This type of behavior falls into the "right action" category of the arya-marga, and to me that comes from having a purified heart which leaves you incapable of acting without compassion on behalf of another living thing.

I don't think killing and eating animals is inherently wrong or anything, I'm personally happily consuming them, but I do believe that a time will come when I cannot participate in bringing suffering to another fellow being on this planet because I'm following the path and my heart will naturally be opened at one point to what the animals I'm eating go through and I won't be able to participate in that anymore. Eating veggies and other plants is inflicting less plant-percieved suffering into the world so I can see why that would be the preferable practice. I don't think that neccessarily means that suffering is real, but that the perception of other beings that their suffering is real (because they're not enlightened yet) is something that has to be respected. Y'know?

I mean, by the same logic that there's nothing inherently cruel about eating animals, one could posit that it's not inherently cruel to take out other people if they're doing things that harm us or the world. Heck I could even make the argument that in some cases a little murder is the enlightened course of action, but I don't think the Buddha would agree mostly because the murdered people would not be enlightened enough to percieve their suffering as illusiory.

*grin*
Have I mentioned lately how much I enjoy having to think deeply before answering the majority of your posts?

[davidould.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting thought.

My main disagreement with the philosophies underlying buddhism stem from this issue of attachment.

We feel jealousy and pain because of our attachment and yet it is the same attachment that brings us joy.

For example, I feel very attached to my wife and unborn child. Is this wrong?