Sun Radiance: Thought Transformation, 8 August 1989, part 3

So we can differentiate between two types of motivation, a distant motivation and a near motivation. If in the case of a killing, one may have a beneficial intention initially, this is a, that is to say the indirect motivation would be altruistic, beneficial, but the actual act of mind which arises to kill is negative. So the near or the direct motivation would be negative and this would be a negative action. So in order to have definite beneficial action, near and the distant motivation must be both beneficial. So, to give an example, was a story of one monk whose mother was extremely ill and she was undergoing a great deal of suffering.

And out of a great affection for his mother, he thought to kill her so that she wouldn’t have to undergo any more suffering. So his indirect motivation was beneficial. He wanted to remove the suffering from his mother. That’s beneficial. But then his near motivation was to kill his mother, and this is negative.

So, the Buddha said that this was a negative action. So in yeah. Buddhism does not accept euthanasia. In general, we can say that it’s wrong to kill. There are specific, special circumstances where it may be within the great vehicle acceptable, but this would only, could only be done for example by someone who has developed a bodhicitta and through the force of his bodhicitta.

If for example he were to see someone who was creating a great deal of negativity for themselves and through the force of his compassion wanted to prevent him from doing that, then it is possible that this could be a beneficial action. But in general, you can say it’s not acceptable to kill even if the person is kind of experiencing suffering. So it would be negative. It would be negative action to kill the white ants. There would be a fault.

So you have to try to find some way to get rid of them without killing them. I have to get rid of them. By getting removing them. You have to change your abode. Because the count of beings is larger, the negativity is greater.

So, in the case of elephants and humans it’s more negative to kill a human because a human is much more intelligent and this is, so there’s a difference in the type of being that you kill. In this case, the human would be is more would be create more negativity. Between a snake and a horse. So a horse is bigger and bigger being, but also a snake creates a is very harmful to other sentient beings. It eats other sentient beings.

So point from of view, from the size and from the type, would be greater negativity to kill the horse. So, you know, what, you know, what what is being said, for example, in respect to the snake, there’s there’s no scriptural authority. Oral tradition which is coming up from people just talking about the snakes, how much they harm others, know, killing other sentient beings. That they felt it would. And, for example, in the case of a horse, it’s more negative from this point of view of the type of sentient being.

To kill you? You collect negative? Is that negative action for you to eat meat? Yeah. So you create a negative action.

So there’s no food that we eat which doesn’t involve creating negative karma. Rice, fruit, everything that we eat involves creating negative karma. Difficulty, good, delicious food without creating negativity. You know, in the case of grains and pulses, rice, you know, the farmers have to kill the kill a great many insects in order to raise the rice for example. In the case of even when we drink milk, the cow is creating negativity.

No, because we are taking the milk away from the young, we’re creating negativity. But in in in for example, with respect to rice, raising rice, cultivating rice, we have to kill a great many insects. So, yeah, and if there was a possibility of this, you know, I had to put it by way of example. So, if there was a possibility of curing a very sick person and you had some sort of medicine that you could give the person then you should, it would be incorrect not to give it to him. But if this person was suffering a great deal and that you could only prolong their life for a short period and their suffering would be extended during this period then it would be, it would not be unacceptable to not give them the medicine.

That is to say to not give them the medicine would not be negative, to withhold that medicine because of their great suffering would be acceptable. On the other hand if they could, you know during the few days that you might be able to prolong their life, if they could carry on some kind of spiritual practice they can make use of that time then it would be better to give them the medicine even if they experience suffering during that period. But if they didn’t have any method, then we shouldn’t kill but we wouldn’t it would be acceptable not to extend their life if it was going to be of no benefit. Stop there. And then we’ll recite the dedication on the back side of page two, on the right side.