When the Dalai Lama comes to New York this week, he will be flooded by an onslaught of Buddhists and spiritual seekers. His popularity, and the interest in Buddhism, has grown exponentially since the 1960's through an overwhelmingly liberal excitement over non violence and spiritual exploration. But the Dalai Lama is in many ways an orthodox religious figure: he is celibate, has taken a vow against any form of inebriation, and understands the act of abortion to be a form of killing.
There is nothing surprising about these facts, they are stated plainly in Buddhist scripture, and it is the Buddhist party line. Monks must remain celibate because they are to concentrate on reaching enlightenment; drinking alcohol leads to an unclear mind -- the worst possible state for a practicing Buddhist; and non violence is essential because of the Buddhist understanding of Karma.
Westerners are either befuddled or enamored by the law of Karma and non violence: the Dalai Lama's peaceful response to the Chinese invasion, Thich Nhant Han's critique to both sides of the Vietnam conflict, and Aung Sang Su Ki's non violent stand against the Burmese Junta all demonstrate the enactment of an extreme principle. But from a Buddhist point of view the reason not to kill, or have an abortion, is technically the same: killing a person gets you very bad Karma.
For Buddhists, the moral law of Karma is the way that the universe operates. It is not controlled by God or constructed by humans. It is more like the law of gravity -- it is what it is. According to tradition it was first understood and explained in our world by the Buddha 2,500 years ago, and while philosophically subtle and complex, one thing is clear: negative actions have a negative reaction to the actor, regardless of circumstance. If one hurts or kills, one is likely reborn as an animal or hell being. One's intention, in this case ones intent to kill, does increase the negative karmic response, because of the Buddhist belief that the each person's mind triggers their Karma.
In the west this Buddhist principle is wielded by social justice liberals when arguing against war, capital punishment, and torture. It tends to be twinned with meditation, the Buddhist activity for reaching a peaceful state of mind, which makes one less violent, and therefore less likely to produce bad karma.
But here is where liberals take what they want from a tradition, and leave out the over arching logic. According to Buddhism, a fetus is a human. There is no distinction either in definition or in karmic punishment. In this way Buddhism is far more confident about when life begins than say Catholicism, which leaves this answer as a mystery.
Buddhism is deadly serious about non violence, because karma has serious consequences. Morality is never about a person's right to choose, but about understanding the consequences of ones actions. Or put another way, moral action is entirely about what one chooses to do -- and one must suffer the consequences. The rules in Buddhism are really vows, not set up to please God, but to protect people from being reborn into unseemly realms.
Buddhists who take Karma seriously do not believe that other moral choices, which may be socially or personally legitimate, neutralize the karmic reality of the universe. Karma is a physical law, in this way. For example, in the 17th Century a Korean Buddhist monk led his monks into battle against the invading Japanese army. Afterwards he thanked them, but made it clear that they would still suffer the karmic consequences of their actions. In another case that demonstrates the same belief, I once knew two Tibetan women who lived in a cockroach infested apartment, but they refused to use roach traps for deadly fear of the karmic response.
Do these insights mean that Buddhists are conservative after all, and should be lining up behind Sarah Palin? Arguing that a faith backs this or that political party is treacherous because principles, in this case non-violence, can play out in ways that crisscross our contemporary party lines quite unexpectedly. This might say as much about our way of doing politics as it does about the principles themselves.
Accepting a moral principle, though and following it through does seem to take courage. The day after 9/11 the Dalai Lama wrote to President Bush, his most important political ally, warning him about the danger of responding to violence with violence. He also defended the Pope's view on abortion. Religious principles can unexpectedly alienate. The unexpected is rarely easy. But then moral choices never were.
"Somebody [who is] not a fool does not gain a kingdom;
A fool, however, does not have empathy.
[Such] master of men, though being the protector:
Without empathy, there is no dharma [with him]!"
http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/Only_a_Fool_Becomes_a_King.pdf
"One of the best known sets of guidelines for such a ruler in the Pāli
sources is the list of the ten so-called “royal virtues” (rājadhamma),
which usually comprise alms-giving (dāna), morality (sīla), liberality
(pariccāga), honesty (ajjava), mildness (maddava), self-restriction
(tapas), non-anger (akkodha), non-violence (avihiṃsā), patience (khanti)
and non-offensiveness (avirodhana)."
"There are, as a matter of fact, stories explicitly stating that, just as in
the realm of a cakravartin, a king with the ten royal virtues has no need
for punishment."
(compassionate punishment) "There is no offense in
this for the bodhisattva; rather, he attains merit."
"A second analogy is offered later in the same chapter. This time, the
punishing king is compared to a physician who without anger applies
himself to the treatment of the patient."
"I do not suggest that all Mahāyāna
thinkers would grant the punishing king a clean karmic slate."
"Questions
like these could throw further light on the broader issue of how
Buddhism has located itself in relation to state power."
"Only a Buddha has the wisdom to know...." Fact is Buddha nature is in each and everyone of us. Also, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
BTW, do you believe that good Karma is desireable, and bad Karma should be avoided?
As to good karma being desirable and bad karma to be avoided, that's the very definition of good and bad karma.
Three monks are traveling on the road, and come to a fast flowing stream. A woman asks for their assistance to cross, and the first two monks refuse, becvause they have vowed not to touch women. The third monk scoops her up, carries her accross the raging torrent, and sets her down on the other side.
Much later that day, the first monk said to the second monk, he shouldn't have carried that woman, he will have bad karma, the second monk agreed. The third monk said, are you two still carrying that woman? I left hew back at the river.
Karma is not about good or bad. It is not invented by any religious figure. We are the creator and we are our inheritance of our own deeds. We are its cause and also the recipient of the effects. Do things with a clear conscience with the knowledge that our actions will not cause suffering to others then your inheritance will be better than gold, precious stones and all.
During his time, the Buddha was presented with the big dillemma of the day, to be vegitarian, or even to refuse food altogether, because one cannot grow vegies without killing bugs, or to eat all that is offered, (since he was from the second highest status" that meant gluttona).
The Buddha finally decided on The Middle Way, no extreems, and defended his decision to many critics. He did not exclude vegies, nor meat. But food should not be entertainment, but nourishment.
So, I wonder if the Buddha were here today, how he would respond to the abortion issue? I think he would adopt the middle way. So, for us today, we need to examine what that Middle Way, with regard to abortion, would look like.
What do you think?
Yes, I agree. My understanding of how the Buddhist moral tradition has worked goes something like this: there is the truth (dharma) that the buddha saw (the law of karma), and this truth is explained at length in the tipitika. Then there were the day to day operations in the world that the Buddha responded to with rules of what one should and should not do, this is explained at length, both the rules and the stories behind the rules, in the viniya. the purpose of the viniya is ultimately to keep people from doing things that will cause harm to themselves or others, but many many of hte rules are things that seem silly to us now (like you cant sit on a chair on a roof, becaue it may fall through the roof and kill poeple, well they didnt have concrete roofs in thoes days; or monks should not wear shoes, well once buddhism got to Tibet they decided that they wanted to keep their feet from getting frost bite) and so on and so forth.
the buddha kept making new rules as circumstances provided, until he died. there is no reason to think that these rules wouldnt have continued to developed if he were still around, as new circumstances continued to come up, but since he was gone,the rules got codified, and no new rules got put in. A brilliant dissertation on this topic has been written by Ven. Yi Fa Fa Shi, when she was a student at Yale (or at least she is a leading expert on this topic,, and her dissertation is on the subject of viniya). So YES, we can asssume that the Buddhas understanding of karma was complete (so we are told) but that his understanding of how to adjust daily rules to this truth could, would, in fact, continue to adjust. it does not mean that the karmic concequences would change, according to a traditional understanding of the law, it cannot. but guidence about how to respond to situations could, and does, adjust, and in some ways is held back becuase of the assumption that viniya is ossified, because the buddha is gone.
"The lamas avoid the prohibition to take life, (for the purpose of eating meat which they enjoy), by employing the Butchers to do it for them, whilst they asign to the butchers for doing this, the position of outcasts, and do not permit any of them to enter the Order. When no butchers are available, it is usual for the Lamaist to drive the cattle over a cliff, or cause the beast to strangle itself."
http://books.google.com/books?id=f_9WZexQlGAC&pg=PA374&lpg=PA374&dq=tibet+status+butchers&source=bl&ots=m29tvTpjGI&sig=TzvTFwvZ3wFZMRYVkMw1LBS_v7M&hl=en&ei=w9QASrCNJY3aMYvIreQH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
For this reason, it's perfectly tenable for a Buddhist to be pro-choice even if he or she also understands abortion to be the ending of an individual life. The best explanation of this I have ever read is by a Tibetan nun and teacher, Karma Lekshe Tsomo, and can be read here:
http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/tsomo1.html
I am not missing your point, but was focusing on another one. I agree with your comments, and recognize the way karma, and suffering continue to be reinterpreted in our day and age. My point was to just to point to the way that abortion is taken seriously in a particular way in buddhism, that i think is often neglected.
Buddhism is also clear that killing is one of the most negative actions you can perform. There are four elements of any negative action: basis, intention, execution, and completion. In the case of abortion, the basis is knowing that the fetus is a living creature. The intention is the wish to kill it. The execution is the performance of the procedure. The completion is the act of ending the life. If any one of these elements is missing from the negative action, karmic results will still ripen, but not with full force. In the case of those who do not know the fetus is living, it is said that killing out of ignorance is typically a cause for rebirth in the animal realm.
I hope that clarifies matters. Let me restate that I am politically pro-choice, not because I think abortion is a good or neutral act--it is negative--but because I fear the consequences of making it illegal would be disastrous. I am also a realist who recognizes that few women take the decision to get an abortion lightly. It is possible to have both a traditional and nuanced view on this issue.
Om mani peme hum.
Also, my understanding is that killing means taking the life of a being, (sentient being,) therefore, I am not sure the esoteric reincarnation beliefs are consistant with Buddhist understanding.
Monks in Tibet did kill twins, when they were born, because they deemed them to be manisfistations of the devil. Now, please don't ask for online sources for this, but it is a matter of record in official documents from the time.
What are your views, or sources on this?
Wow! As a serious Buddhist practicitioner, I compliment you on getting it exactly correct. It seems very rare that those outside of the practice understand these things.
And yes, as a Buddhist, I could never condone killing of a fetus. There are many Western Buddhist who would like to overlook this conflict. I have spent time with a number of Tibetan Buddhist Master (from Tibet). There is nothing "liberal" about their View of karmic consequences of our action.....just as you wrote.
It is not that there are rules per se, just consequences for what we do, say, and think. (body, speech and Mind)
Thanks for your accurate article.
Geoff
Abortion is violence? Look at the consequences of societies (including ours before Row V Wade -- where abortion is illegal. The Dalai Lama is just a man -- more wise perhaps -- but stil just man nonetheless. What does he know of what it means for a woman to have to make such a gut wrenching choice?
Karma:
karma is a word used by different cultures, religions, and there are various definitions, or explanations of Karma.
From the Tibetan Buddhist point of view, Karma is a cycle. One is trapped in the cycle. One cannot excape the cycle. So one continues to be reborn, over and over again, in the cycle of Karma.
This endless cycle of Karma, birth and death, desire to escape, and repeted frustrations, is suffering, a living hell, a nightmare, and all of ones actions only seem to perpetuate the suffering. Even when one "achieves" happiness, it doesn't last, and one is thrown back again, into the seemingly endless cycle of Karma.
Along comes the Buddha, who teaches us how to free ourselves from this endless cycle of suffering.
The Four Noble truths as basic to Buddhism:
1. The Nature of Suffering
2. Understanding the cause of suffering
3. The possibilite of Cessation of suffering
4. Awareness, Nirvana, or Path
Just like one needs a guide in the wilderness, one needs a guide to follow Buddhism. Finding a "guru" or Teacher is essential. Beware, there are many false teachers.
The teacher can and does use many methods to convey the essence of mind. The sound of one hand clapping, kill the bussha on the road, etc.
Some believe that study alone, or meditation alone will not result in success.
BTW: Peace CANNOT be the Goal
good luck!
To me, Karma isn't about the result, but the reasoning behind it and the motivations. It's not a great big sin scorecard; it's a means of keeping you mindful about how much suffering you'll cause by one action/thought/speech versus another. If we HAVE to isolate the issue of abortion, a person has to weigh the amount of suffering she'll cause herself, the fetus, and other people when deciding whether to have an abortion. Of course, ending a life is a big deal, not just for that ended life. But every case is different. There's going to be suffering no matter what, but there are different possibilities as to what will cause more. Then one considers the intentions of the person making this decision: how much of the decision (one way or another) is out of anger or fear, etc.? That also has a bearing on Karma.
I hope there'll be more discussion of Buddhist ideas here throughout the Dalai Lama's visit, about issues beyond this one.
With just two words-- "to me" the entire post went into a proverbial ditch.
Buddhist scholars approach Karmic law is the same way scientists view Newtonian laws of motion ( yes, it works; no, not always; you need to understand it to debate it)
Likewise, one wouldn't begin a debate with: "'to me' the third law of thermodynamics means...."
In short, more knowledge, less personal opinions.
In short, more knowledge, less judgment.
Sorry to have wasted your time.
Monks, hierarchy, right and wrong, "you got it exactly right" - hogwash and maybe the original awakened one would agree.
First of all, he surely lacks wisdom, otherwise he would still be in Lahsa, leading the ecer changing and growing Tibetan Buddhist culture in the world. Instead, he made a series of very bad decisions, and continues to refuse to apologise for past mistakes.
Second, he may be influential from a superficial point of view, but when it comes right down to it he is a paid tool of the CIA, and a cheap politian.
Third, Karma is a cycle, that is perpetuated by the reasoning, rationalizations, and arguments you are engaging in. That is the whole point of Karma. "Instant Karma is going to get you!" It's like a snap decision thing. You "do it," and Karma is generated, and it sticks right onto you. Da! It doesn't come with a eraser. No court of law. No judges. There is no God, no advocate, to advocate for your point of view. So, be mindful what you do, what you say, and what you think.
I must admit that I am a taken aback by this, as I happen to be something of a Buddhist who has, like millions of other Buddhists, been in a situation or two where I have killed something. I realize that those instances will not be forgiven, as karma is, as you say, a law. However, I like Buddhism in that it doesn't try to make you feel guilty. It's pointless, after all. Your remorse won't change your karma...
But the other thing to consider is that karma is so incredibly complex. There are infinite factors at play in the determination of one's karma. Most Western interpretations are too simple. Your interpretation here is also too simple. It is also hurtful to women who have had abortions...and I think we get enough of that from the Catholics.
In a nearby cell in the rock, a hermit of great reputation for self=denial and piety, who had witnessed this drama and its miraculous ending, bethought himself that his own reward should at least be equal to that of a foul-living butcher and resolved to follow his example. But he was dashed to piecces at the foot of the cliff and found his way to hell - not paradise."
popular Tibetan story from "TIBET The Sacred Realm, by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa, with a preface by HH Dalai Lama
And so it goes with moralistic arguments when it comes to advanced forms of spiritual endeavor.
My question for the Dalai Lama is: why were you so cozy with SS officers both before, during, and after WW II? Was it an expression of universal love and transcendental mercy? Your relationship with SS officer Heinrich Harrer is especially disturbing, particularly as it continued for decades after the war. It would be nice if the Dalai Lama would make a clear and unequivocal statement about the Nazis, the Holocaust, and the people responsible (especially the SS, and especially his relationships with various SS officers). I am not judging here; I am really curious as to what the response would be. I am not suggesting that he is, or was, anti-Semitic. Far from it. But in the western world the Nazis, the SS and the Holocaust have defined evil for so long it would be good to get the perspective of someone who suffered under the Chinese invasions but who "palled around with fascists" to use a deliberately provocative phrase! The Nazis were very interested in Tibet, of course, seeing in the Tibetan culture a survival of ancient "Aryan" culture. Was this interest reciprocated?
My karma ran over your dogma. To reduce all of Buddhism to such a fundamentalist point of view is a rhetorical excess. Non killing is a discipline not a stricture. Karma is more generally thought to be most relevant in this lifetime - as our actions do have actual consequences. Character is destiny. No need to go to the moldy closet of superstition to make a point.
Good to run over dogma, but also to watch the different ways dogma (if thats what we are talking about here) are used. My point is that most western Buddhists choose which side of the dogma they like, without thinking through the rational of karma and how it may (or may not) make them think differently about different issues (that goes for conservatives who just may happen to be buddhist as well).
Our only argument should be about when life begins. I often thought I might have an abortion if I got pregnant in my teens or early twenties. But I never faced the question. Because I was really careful about birth control. we should spend more tme advocating that and less time screaming at people who are just trying to stop what they see as murder. It also makes them declare themselves on birth control, and they are ususally opposed to it and can't come up with a non-religious reason and so show themselves to be theocrats without having to have us fling the accusation at them.
Where does life begin?
When a girl thinks that she will mother someday does that 'life' begin with that thought?
When does loss of life begin?
When an effete white-male decides to impose himself morally on Women?
Buddhists look at sentient beings: killing sentient beings generates Karma. There are three levals of Karma generated; the direct killer, ie the one who wields the knife, then others who are involved, who expediate the killing. Usually, the one who ordered the killing is three kands removed from the act, itself, and avoid Karma.
Tibetan Buddhists do believe that a person's Karma is responsible for their condition in life. And, under the Dalai Lama's in Lahsa, a criminal would be ordered to recieve 1000 lashes as punishment for a minor crime, then revived, and left on a rude bed. The next day, when he died, it was not blamed on the lashing, but on his bad Karma. (rembre the middle ages trial by contest, the loser is the guilty one)
Buddha did not buy into Karma, but "preached" a path one could follow to free one's self from the cycle of Karma.
just to get it more technical, and i think its an interesting point the CC bans birth control not because its killinb but becaus it interfears wit the creation of life, and life is a mysterie, created by god, and should not be interfeard with. So says Bryan Hehir, the grand scholar of the catholic social teachings.