Authors main point from the Budhist essay

first one:

1) What was the author’s main point in the paper (at least one sentence)

2) What did you learn from the paper/what assumptions were challenged in this paper? (at least 2 sentences)

3) What issues did you find problematic in the essay/what points seem to be missing in the essay? (at least 3 sentences)

second:

1) What was the author’s main point in the paper (at least one sentence)

2) What did you learn from the paper/what assumptions were challenged in this paper? (at least 2 sentences)

3) What issues did you find problematic in the essay/what points seem to be missing in the essay? (at least 3 sentences)

third:

1) What was the author’s main point in the paper (at least one sentence)

2) What did you learn from the paper/what assumptions were challenged in this paper? (at least 2 sentences)

3) What issues did you find problematic in the essay/what points seem to be missing in the essay? (at least 3 sentences)

Buddhism Short Essay #2
In this short essay, I will consider the scenario of the Buddhist monk who, when stuck
onboard a ship with a maniac that is killing everyone, decides to take the matter into his own
hands and kill the maniac in order to prevent further harm and discuss whether this was the
right decision based on whether or not this conforms with Buddhist principles. I will present
arguments for both sides, i.e. how this scenario could be seen as morally right and morally
wrong, and I will conclude by explaining why I think killing the maniac was the better decision. In
my discussion, I will also include the concepts of Karma and compassion and explain how these
ideas played into the monks decision.
To start, I will discuss why this scenario may conflict with Buddhist principles and may
not have been the best decision. If we look at our class lectures up to this point in the year, we
have learned about several discourses of the Buddha in which it is clearly stated that the killing
of a living being is an unwholesome (akusala) act and therefore must be avoided. Some of
these examples include: the first of the ten courses of unwholesome action, one of the three
forms of right action of the eightfold path, and the first of the ten precepts that all Buddhist
monks must strictly adhere to. As author Rupert Gethin writes the idea that killing a living being
might be a better solution to the problem of suffering runs counter to the Buddhist emphasis on
dukkha as a reality that must be understood.
1
I believe that is at the center of the problem when
it comes to killing in Buddhism because by depriving one of their life, you are committing a great
moral sin because you are striping a person of their opportunity and their right to grow through
dukkha (suffering) and are getting in the way of the basic good of karmic life. In the same
paper by Gethin, it is further explained that even for cases where we kill out of compassion,
such as euthanasia, it is still not considered morally acceptalbe because even though we may
have the right motivation (compassion) our intention is still to kill, which is inherently bad.
While it does seem on paper that killing is heavily discouraged in Buddhist philosophy,
there are nuances present as with anything and especially in Buddhist ethics, seldom anything
is either white or black. According to the assigned class reading from ,
Bodhisattva, and Buddha, it is written that The bodhisattva’s propensity to sacrifice life and limb
for others was an extremely popular theme in the Indian Buddhist tradition. Indian Buddhist
literature is replete with stories in which the Buddha, during his previous lives as a human being
or an animal, cheerfully sacrifices his head, eyes, flesh, blood, or entire body on behalf of
someone in need.
2
Indeed, it is necessary for Buddhist monks to take action whenever they
can and even sacrifice their lives for those in need as they believe that only through intentional
actions and involvement, rather than idly standing by or helping accidentally, can they gain good
karma and . Therefore, it makes sense that the monk in this case is
ready to stand behind the maniac and the other people onboard the ship. But for him to take up
arms and kill the maniac, how could this possibly be morally okay?
2 Ohnuma, Reiko. “Woman, bodhisattva, and Buddha.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 17, no. 1
(2001): 63-83.
1 Gethin, Rupert. “Can Killing a Living Being Ever Be an Act of Compassion? The analysis of the act of
killing in the Abhidhamma and Pali.” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 11 (2004): 167-202.
Based on the class lecture titled Life, Love, and Karma we can see that the three root
causes of unwholesome acts are greed, hate, and delusion (ignorance).
3 So although
something like killing may always be considered an unwholesome (akusala) act that generates
bad karma, the state of mind of the person who is killing and their intentions also plays a large
role into the degree of blame/ bad karma we are able to assign to him/her. Going back to the
aforementioned paper by author Rupert Gethin, its pointed out that in the Pali canon there are
three factors that affect the degree of seriousness or moral worthiness of killing: size of the living
being that is killed, the amount of virtue of the living being that is killed, and the intensity of the
desire to kill in the killer. Although size does not really apply in this hypothetical case as the size
of the monk and the maniac can be assumed to be around the same, the maniac does certainly
lack virtue compared to the monk as he has slaughtered innocent people aboard the ship and
the monk kills the maniac without any signs of premeditation or sadism, showing that he has
good intention. Even the vinaya pitaka, which is the book that regulates the monastic life and
the daily affairs of monks and nuns, recognizes that in certain circumstances a purely
wholesome (kusala) intention will lead someone to break a Vinaya rule; even arahats in certain
circumstances will – quite rightly and properly in that they are acting from the motivations of
nonattachment (alobha), friendliness (adosa), and wisdom (amoha) – break Vinaya rules.
As we can see, there are strong arguments for both sides of the argument but because
the monk, in this situation, is fulfilling his own karmic duties by selflessly throwing himself into
harm’s way between the innocents on board the ship and the maniac, demonstrating his
disregard for his flesh and his material self (qualities the Buddha displayed) and killing the
clearly less virtuous maniac in a way that shows no obvious signs of hate, delusion, or joy, it is
safe to say that the monk will still and accrue some negative karma but
it wouldnt be anywhere as bad as had he done nothing and stood idly by, allowing the rest of
the innocent passengers to die and never fully fulfill their karmic lives.
3 Sandvig, Kirk. Life, Love and Karma. REL S-338: Buddhism. Class lecture at San Diego State
University, San Diego, CA, September 18th, 2022.
Citations
Gethin, Rupert. “Can Killing a Living Being Ever Be an Act of Compassion? The analysis of the
act of killing in the Abhidhamma and Pali.” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 11 (2004):
167-202.
Ohnuma, Reiko. “Woman, bodhisattva, and Buddha.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 17,
no. 1 (2001): 63-83.
Sandvig, Kirk. Life, Love and Karma. REL S-338: Buddhism. Class lecture at San Diego State
University, San Diego, CA, September 18th, 2022.