Virtuous Death

Virtuous Death by Ajahn Brahm Okay. Uh, let's just, uh. I turned around again at the last party and the Friday before or the weekend before that. We were all at the global conference in the convention center. And I think there's still see quite a few people at that conference. So it didn't kill you by organizing all of those, uh, arrangements for everybody. So. Well done. Everybody. But one of the things I was a little disappointed at the conference is a great success in many, many ways. But one of the sessions I thought never went deep enough. So today I'm going to take it deeper by talking about euthanasia and also abortion, and hopefully those who did not have enough time to ask us a question, ask questions, or have the opportunity to ask the questions this time. One of the reasons why we had a conference on the subject, Buddhism Confronting the Controversies for a more peaceful world or a better world, is that because that some of these issues are far from being theoretical? They affect our lives personally, directly, and we need to have some guidelines, some understanding of how we should behave, especially because they're very sensitive areas and they have huge consequences one way or the other, is something which religions should not avoid facing up to. I think that other conference that too many just head out of fear, just behind to some of the sayings in the ancient sutras of the Buddha, without really understanding exactly what they were really meaning, or quoting them in the full context. And of course, those of you who read the papers know that the West Australian Government at the moment are contemplating legislation called living Wills, whereby that, sir, anyone could have fill out a form and to give instructions which have got legal force about withholding any treatment in case one gets to a stage of great sickness, pain, losing the dignity of your life with no possibility or no reasonable possibility of, uh, of the sickness being cured. And that's going through our Parliament. And at the same time, the people are saying, why stop there? Why not also give the opportunity? This is not just for doctors to be protected by doing nothing and so-called letting nature take its course, but they're also arguing, is it possible for the medical staff to actually intervene on the request of the patient, to either give some sort of drug or some sort of treatment to accelerate the death what is called voluntary euthanasia, or rather, assisted voluntary euthanasia? Now, where does Buddhism really stand on this? And because I wasn't satisfied with the answers. I'm going to take a little bit deeper because first of all, a Buddhist would usually quote at the beginning what we call the five precepts. And many of you know those five precepts, and you may also have heard several occasion an important statement being made about those five precepts, the five precepts, killing, stealing, adultery, lying, taking drugs or alcohol. We may have heard many times as you've been around a long time, a difference being made between the five precepts and say things like Ten Commandments. Because the way they are put, one does not say, oh, the Buddha never said, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. And I shall not lie. Thou shalt not take alcohol or drugs. The word the Buddha used was different, and it has a different nuance. He said, I shall refrain from killing, refrain from stealing. Committing adultery. Lying. Taking alcohol on drugs. That refraining was understanding that this people have this tendency to destroy things which get in their way, whether it's a mosquito landing on their skin or any other pest we have, you know, whether it's a rat or a cockroach. We have the tendency now to kill. That's where we're starting off from. We have the tendency to steal. Sometimes that includes not filling in your tax returns. Honestly, that's also stealing. Or whatever else it is which people do is the shortcuts to get a little bit more cash or more money. So there's many aspects, many ways which ordinary human beings they start off with being a little bit selfish, a little bit self-centered, what sometimes we could call human. And the idea of the precepts is to try and refrain from those things which are going to cause problems for yourself and others. It's not a commandment from an absolute point. So thou shalt not. Was I saying as once, just try me better, try and be less harmful to the nature around you, to be more responsible, to be not so harmful, more trustworthy, more abstinence. This is what those precepts are saying. It's a different than a commandment. And it also includes a possibility that sometimes in some extreme situations. It is okay to lie. I mentioned this before in a talk about lying and truthfulness, and the one example which I quote again from real life, was where one of the longstanding Buddhists of our Buddhist society, Western Australia, who was came who was in our Buddhist society before I came 23 years ago from Thailand. And one day he had a heart attack. He was taken to Royal Perth Hospital, where I visited him just the next day. I couldn't go in the room because no visitors were allowed at all in case it excites him. Just waved at him and straight away the monitor started jumping around so I was told to get out quickly. Just. Just like that person I went to see once, the first time she'd ever been in hospital for an operation, and she was a bit sort of shaken by the fact that she was sick and had an operation. It was a hysterectomy. And so she asked. She called me. Why me here? Can I come and visit? So I got a lift and went to visit at the, uh. Was it King Edward Memorial Hospital for women? And as soon as I went into the room, she said, Agent Brown, please don't tell any jokes. And that was the last thing to say to me, because I was just encouraging me. Because when when you got, like, a big scar like that, laughing just really hurts for a lady. But anyway, when I went to see this fella in hospital, I saw him many, many times. And of course he, uh, at that particular time, his arteries were clogged. He was put on the emergency list for a bypass, a double or triple bypass or whatever. And so I was visiting him many times, and I visited him the day before. I think his bypass, actually two days before. And that night, his wife called me. And his wife was very agitated, and she said that I'd been married to this man for over 30 years. Today I lied to him for the first time. I feel terrible. I said, why? What happened? Why did you lie to your husband for the first time? And he said, in that ward in Royal Perth Hospital, there were three other men in the same room or with heart problems being stuck in there for just a short time a week. He had become very friendly with the man in the next bed called Jack, who was also going to have a bypass operation. He had his bypass yesterday. When my husband asked, how's Jack? I said he was in the ICU recovering. The fact was that Jack died, and I didn't feel I could tell my husband that the man he'd befriended had died of the same operation my own husband was going to have tomorrow morning. I was afraid that he would worry and the fear might kill him. Have I done wrong? Great question. My answer was, in that situation you probably haven't done wrong. And in fact, the following day, when he had his bypass because of his age and condition, he was so weak that they had to do it quickly. He was so weak that he was hallucinating for many days on the edge of life and death. He only just made it. I told her afterwards. Yeah, I think in that situation, if you had told your husband the truth that his friend had died of the same operation he was about to have within a few hours, that fear might just have tipped him over the edge into death. I said, in that particular case, your intention was pure and it was meaningful. In that particular case, I said, okay. It was all right to tell that lie. And when people ask me afterwards, then is it okay to tell lies? I answer them yes, but only once every 30 years. Now that they actually started getting me into understanding what these precepts are really like, I compare them to the red traffic lights of life. The red traffic lights in all major cities are there to stop the cars, but every time. Of course not. If I had a heart attack this evening and the ambulance couldn't come in time and you put me in your car. I would hope that you would go through those red traffic lights to go to the hospital as soon as you possibly could. But what would happen? You wouldn't just heedlessly just rush through the red traffic light. What would you do? You get the red traffic light and you'd stop because this is dangerous. And you'd check to see if there's any cars coming in the opposite direction. And only if you thought it was safe would you go through. Because it was an emergency. In the same way, the five precepts are like the red traffic lights of life in 99. I don't know how many 9% of cases it's wrong to go through those red traffic lights, but there's no such thing as an absolute. And this is the difference between the I shalt not or thou shalt not. The commandments, the absoluteness of some religions and Buddhism, which gives a little bit of wiggle room simply because that life is not absolute, is complex, is never black, is never white. There's always a little bit of gray in there somewhere. An understanding that you understand why they're called red traffic lights. Most of the time you should stop, but only in extreme emergency situations. You can go through as long as it's safe. And no policeman would ever prosecute you. And no one would ever think that you were being unethical. Now, how does that help with such things as euthanasia? We have to go deeper than the precepts. And there's another level of virtue of ethics, which I've mentioned very regularly here, where the five precepts come from, these five precepts are secondary level of virtue. Underneath that we get this. What actually is third level? The second level, which is deeper, was the Buddha's advice to his son Rahul, who told him, never do anything that by body, speech or even mind, never do any action. The action is called karma. It's just what we do. Never do anything which will harm or hurt another person and never do anything which harms or hurts yourself. It's very beautiful advice because it gives you where virtue comes from. It also begs the question what is actually harming and hurting? What actually actions do create sort of difficulties for other people. We come into that later on. But it gives you this general idea if it harms and hurts somebody or it harms and hurts yourself, you're included. You're a person and a Buddhist. Virtue recognizes you, not just the other person is. What you do to yourself is also important, not just what you do to other people. Just because it's you doesn't mean you've got free a blank check to do whatever you like to yourself, like taking drugs or doing self harm, or and not looking after yourself. Never like taking drugs. That's unethical, even though it's your body. The point is that other people care about you. It's not one being human being in this world who doesn't have someone who loves them, who cares for them, even if it's just the social worker or the nurse or the the doctor who takes them in. And understanding that when one person suffers, so many other people hurt. You understand? If you suffer, if you are in pain, if you are on a street sort of struggling with the effects of drugs, other people hurt. That interconnectedness needs to be recognized to understand why harming yourself is unethical because it harms other people. It creates more sadness, more pain in this world. So that is a more fundamental standard for understanding what virtue is. And we're going to apply that in a few moments to euthanasia in that situation. Is it harming another person. Is it harming yourself or is it actually helping. And underlying that sort of the original heart of all ethics and all virtue? What the Buddha said, the essence of karma is intention. That's straight from the word of the Buddha. He said coming at an uncommon would are me saying partly just to impress people. Intention is karma. I say, said the Buddha. Now this is the hearts of ethics. One's intention, but with intention. There's two halves. To intention is actually usually intention in. This is actually in the monastic code of discipline, which is very, very profound and very precise. It it also predates part of Western law where we make a difference between the motive and the intention. The motive is where you're coming from, where it's coming from, jealousy or fear or lust or anger, where it's coming from. The intention is where is going to. What you mean to achieve, to kill someone, to have sex with that girl. To get that extra money from the bank which is not yours. Whatever it is, that's your intention, your goal. So what I said with intention here is a combination of your motive, where you're coming from and where it's leading to. That is karma. The Buddha made it quite clear that of those two. The goal is the motive, which is the most important. Where you're coming from. And obviously, if we are coming from pure motives such as loving kindness, compassion, peace, what we call love, gratitude, generosity. All those emotions are pure. And the Buddha made it very clear nothing is essential. We can understand. Pure motives have to lead to pure places. There's some motive which is important. But if the motive is out of jealousy or fear, anger, ill will, selfishness, then those are the negative emotions which make the bad karma. So what the Buddha was actually saying. It is the beautiful emotions such as gratitude, giving, compassion, loving kindness that is what helps another person and helps yourself, which creates beauty and peace in this world, which creates all the wonderful qualities which we really want to try and encourage in the world. This said negative emotions. Now there's a whole list of them fear, jealousy, anger, ill will, negativity, um, revenge. All those negative emotions. They're the troublemakers. So that's the karma. That's the heart of ethics in Pali. We call those classes defilements of the mind. Greed, hatred and delusion are the key ones. Is this is the root cause of all unethical action of body, speech, even mind? So if it's not coming from these defiled states of mind, the classes is good. Now this is the theory. This is the Buddha's teachings, which is far deeper than five precepts. It's even far deeper than not harming another person or harming yourself. It's the deepest form of Buddhist ethics, a standard which we really should use. One of the questioners pointed that out at the end, but the panel at the conference never actually responded there. And when we apply that to euthanasia, how does that really apply? Now, first of all, I did read in recently, I think in the newspaper, even today, 70 to 80% of Western Australians consistently support the introduction of legal assisted voluntary euthanasia. Three quarters of people feel it is ethical for a person to be assisted, to end their life voluntarily under certain situations. Why? Why was it that conference that thought of Philip Nitschke described the experience with Bob dent? He was a Buddhist. The first person to receive legally assisted voluntary euthanasia in the world in Darwin a few years ago. Why did he feel that? It was a good thing to do at the time? And the presentation was very moving because he was being honest with his emotions. Just saying just how he never slept the night before, how his shirt was. So was sweat. Not just because of Darwin, his heart, simply because of what he was about to do and how he was in turmoil, and how it seems he still is in turmoil about what he did. But how he decided looking at Bob dead and his wife. He felt it was the right thing to do. He put the chemicals into the machine and just watched Bob dent on the computer screen, press the buttons and end his life. And he felt good about that at the time. Why do many people feel good about that? And the reason I say this is because much of ethics. Sometimes you have to feel what's right. Sometimes just the theories get in the way. There's something inside a human being which knows what's right and what's wrong. It feels good. You know it's right. And sometimes you have these rules, these regulations, these theories, especially from religion. And you're in conflict or in conflict because your religion, your teachings, everything you taught or your parents said or your culture says, it says it's wrong, but inside you know it's right. And basically, whenever that happens to you, please go for your feeling. That's far more trustworthy. All of the things coming from outside of you are usually approximations. Uh, sometimes they come from people who just don't know what they're talking about. People in ivory towers who never actually faced that situation. When you get to abortion, I think, what right is a man to pronounce judgment on that? Hello, Denmark. They've even been married. Well, I know about abortion, but sometimes people in authority, especially males, they do tell you what to do and they seem to be know it alls. But sometimes when you're in that situation, you realize there's something wrong there. But the thing is, why is it that so many people, 70 to 80% of people feel in some situations it's right? And the reason is because many people have seen experience their own mother or father or their friend. We go to hospitals, we visit people. Even that fellow had the heart bypass. He died last year. I went to visit him many times in Armadale Hospital. He died slowly in great pain despite all the palliative care. He told his son, who told me he thought told his son several times, son, don't you love me? Can't you take me out the back and shoot me? That's what he said. And he meant it. Now, when you come across experiences like that and there are many of them, if you haven't had personal experience. I'm sure all of you know a friend who's had those experiences and inside of you is trying to say, are we really helping or harming? Is this real compassion? What are we doing? And it's those sorts of questions which give you the answers. In such situations, you have to make a decision. No one else can make that decision for you, but at least wise and compassionate people should take away the impediments to wise, compassionate, sensible decision making. And one of the first things which I would say about euthanasia. The law should bat out in such sensitive situations. In the case when a person is terminally ill with no prospects of of recovery, when they're in great pain, losing dignity of life in such situations, there should be some leeway in the law. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong in such situations, but the fear of the legal consequences is just one ingredient, which is not welcome at such a time. The law should be there to prevent abuse, should be put a barrier so that his own in situations of terminal sickness, of, uh, pain, lack of dignity, whatever it is, so that only in those situations and a person is in full command of their mental faculties, no prospects, reasonable prospects of alleviation of their symptoms, and when they fit those categories, I think they'd always say, well, you make your decision. So we will get out of the way in such a personal situation. Having got that out of the way, we are removing one of the four impediments to decision making. This is a decision which people have to make. And the Buddha actually taught the very wise little category of four things you should never make decisions out of if you have selfish desire, ill will, stupidity or fear. These are the four things which block wise decisions. So you should go through that checklist if that was you. Am I acting out of selfish desire? Is it all about me? With Bob dent, there was nothing about him. First person commit voluntary euthanasia. It was about his concern for his wife, who for a long time had to give him 24 hours care. Who didn't have a life of her own, who had done that, had done the compassion thing for so long. He thought that his sickness was restricting the freedom to enjoy and have quality of life for his wife. It was all about her. He didn't know how long his disease would go on for. Could be for years. He was not selfishness. He was concerned, for his wife was his main motivation. Not ill will. Certainly not stupidity, because he was in full command of his senses and considered it very carefully. And he was fortunate to be in a jurisdiction where he didn't have to fear the legal consequences. It's a fear which, out of those four things, we sometimes forget. If you're going to make a clear good decision, the fear has to be removed. How many women, when they have to consider an abortion, act out of fear. It's a frightening situation. The consequences now are some people say you gotta be punished because of this. You've done the wrong thing. Fear of punishment or fear of the legal consequences or whatever else. That fear is something which is not welcome. It just creates more problems than it's worth. So when we consider that carefully, without any fear, because the law doesn't go into those situations, it doesn't go that far into people's personal private domain. Then we can actually have some wise advice. What are you doing this for a while? If it was me personally because I'm a monk. Because I know my mind and I can meditate. I probably would never do that for myself because I know just how to deal with pain. The two types of pain. The physical pain and the mental pain. Physical pain is just a fraction of what pain is. The mental pain. I don't want this. This is not good y me that mental pain. That's what I've been dealing with for all my life as a mac. As I say, it's not what's out there. It's your attitude towards it. How the mind reacts to it. How is this relationship to the experience you're having right now? That's the mental pain part. And that's one thing which I know how to deal with. So there's no mental pain for physical pain. Just part of life. I make peace with it. Tiredness. I work really hard. I was really fed up with flying around the world. As for how many planes I was on the last week. But that's my life. I could either get mental attitude towards that. Why me? I don't want to do this. Why all these invitations? Why do I have to go here and go there? Why me? But I know that that is what causes pain, so I don't let that get a hold in my mind. Just make peace with my lifestyle. I accept it. The same way you can accept the pain. You can accept lack of dignity. What a wonderful thing that is to lose your ego. To be humbled. That's great for a monk for now. And for anyone who's practicing to have your ass wiped every few hours because you can't sort of control your bowels. It's a great practice, but some people can't do that. And it's those people that haven't had that sort of training I can understand is why they just cannot take it in such situations. They can't take it. I think they should be given that freedom. If it's coming out of compassion, not out of ill will. It is coming out of sort of wisdom, not of stupidity. According to Buddhism, that is good karma, not bad. An argument which people were talking about because we were discussing this in our monastery, had some great conversations over tea. They were saying, well, isn't this karma? You know, you're having this great sickness if you just now interrupt that karma by sort of having voluntary assisted euthanasia, then you're going to have to sort of get the sickness next lifetime even worse. Now, of course, the one of the other monks there just completely demolish that argument by saying it's as well, if you've got cancer, if you've got cancer, how many of you would go and see a doctor and try and get it treated? Hopefully 100% of you would. You don't think I've got cancer? Oh, it must be my karma. If I go and get this treated, then obviously I'll have to get cancer my next seven lifetimes as well. I should just allow karma to take its course. Now, when you put it that way, it's very obvious, isn't it, that just because you have some sickness or some situation, it doesn't mean you have to be passive? Karma is always fluid. It's always what you're doing about what you've got. What you've got is result of old karma. What you're doing now is your present karma. And so you have to make present karma. So just because people who say, oh, well, they're dying, they've got to go through this. That's not what is. And that's ridiculous. I don't buy that for one moment. Every moment, every situation you're in. You respond to that either with letting go if you can't do anything, do nothing. If you can do something, give everything you've got. So isn't that that's not an argument saying, oh, what if I intervene? I've got to get that calm in the future. That's not the case. Karma. You're always interfering. It is work in action. It is never ultimate and fixed. It's not destiny. And understanding that you say, well, what is the result? The karmic result of someone who does commit euthanasia. It was the case of Bob dent. Because that is the one case of euthanasia. Which perhaps I know the most about is mostly reported. And listening to what even Philip said the other day, I call him Doctor Phil. That line states the doctor. So that mindset of, uh, Bob dent when he committed euthanasia. Well, when he pressed those buttons to kill himself, he was doing it mindfully, with full awareness. His mind was compassionate. If he died with that thought in mind. Compassion for his wife. Don't I always say your last thoughts is the most important? Will that act, be bad, calm and set him to some lower realm? I can't see that in that situation. He probably did the right thing. He was extreme. So I can see that these are the cases. Exceptional cases. Quite rare, but are becoming more common because of that situation in medical science at the time. But they were very rare. I know that I'm just going to stop this little, um, argument. I know that it does actually say in the monks veneer that even out of compassion, a monk cannot take another person's life because one of the cases in The Monk's Rules of Discipline, a monk was walking past on his arms round a place of execution, and there was a thief who was about to be beheaded. And when he knew that executioner that sometimes when you chop off someone's head, they were just like King Charles at first. Sometimes had to read 3 or 4 chops before the head came off, either because the executioner was not sort of good with the axe, or the axe was too dull. And sometimes that happens. And so the monks said, no, please. Out of compassion. Chop his head off with one blow. And the executioner did so. And the Buddha said, no, that is killing. You can no longer be a monk. It's one of the disturbing offenses, even out of compassion. The killing was wrong for a monk. And sometimes people quote that as saying it must be wrong for everybody. But there are some rules which apply to monks which will never apply to laypeople. For example, we have to have food offered, as you all know, even sort of a cup of tea. You have to. I can't help myself. Now, that doesn't mean that every all of you have to do the same when your wife makes you a cup of tea. So please come and offer it. Offer it properly. So you have to make the same rules for monks and nuns. Rules for the laypeople. Yet it's wrong for a monk to receive a cup of tea just to take it for themselves. It's not for the general population. And so just because it's wrong for a monk or a nun to compassionately tell the executioner to please. No. Make it merciful. Take his head off with one blow. That's not wrong for a layperson. Now, this is one of the arguments with some monks used. But they're not making the distinction between monks rules, laypeople rules. And so because of that. I can see some cases where a person who asks for voluntary euthanasia is not making bad karma. That's what I say is controversial. And again, it's only in extreme cases. In those presentations which Doctor Nitschke did, he mentioned another interesting case of the 80 year old woman who was in reasonably good health, who asked for voluntary euthanasia and was given it, that I was very pleased. He mentioned that because that starts to bring up what we call the slippery slope argument. As soon as killing is allowed, or is ethical as virtuous in extreme situations does in special cases, there's always a tendency to actually to widen the definition of extreme situations. And there was a case in point. There was a woman 80 years of old age who decided that was enough. The prospects for the future, 80 years, she's going to get some sickness or other, and she's going to die. And probably slowly. And she didn't want that. So she asked for voluntary euthanasia and was given it. It's what Mr. Bush calls pre-emptive strike. And you can see the immorality of that as soon as you justify a little bit. It's just too easy to allow the criteria to slip and widen. And then, you know, you ask too many questions. I'll give you voluntary euthanasia. Oh, you know, you're a pest. You keep arguing or whatever else is. Now, this is actually where the law should come in to actually to keep, you know, this little window where voluntary euthanasia becomes compassionate to only those extreme cases where it's obvious it's, you know, it applies. So the laws are necessary, but they should just be in those extreme situations. So this is actually taking the argument deep. Remember I took it from the five precepts to this not harming another person or harming yourself, which actually gives you a deeper understanding of what ethics is. And that rhymes with how you feel. That makes sense. That's sort of how you would understand it. If we get all these theories out of the way and then even deeper, your intention and some of the monks said the intentions are very slippery sometimes. Sometimes you don't really know what you're doing it for, why you're doing it. Sometimes you can be deluded and be in denial. I'm doing this for your own good, darling. Whack! That's not for their own good. You're doing out of anger and ill will. So sometimes intentions are very, very tricky. But in such a case of a euthanasia, people actually don't do these things quickly. They think they contemplate a long, long time and very deeply. The chances are what they take as their intention actually is their intention. The delusion is just can't really last too long because they think contemplate very deeply. Which is why, as there is any law, they should have a long period of contemplation, counselling, even just to make sure they really know what their intentions are. And they're very, very clear. It was much different than just this momentary acts where we can delude ourselves, thinking we're coming from the right intention, when we're not coming from the right intention. So this is how I would actually would like sort of a law or the idea of euthanasia to actually apply. And I know when Doctor Phil Philip was talking, he was obviously incredibly concerned about the effects of what he did. He wouldn't say he had remorse or guilt, but he was still troubled about whether he should feel guilty or not. And I got the message, as many other people did, that he was looking for the people in the Buddhist conference to actually to tell him, have I done something bad or done something? Okay. And the point was, Buddhism was a great point. No matter what you've done. If it was, we don't actually say good or bad, really is with the unskillful or skillful. Takes this moral judgment out of it and skillful. And you had the right motivation, but he didn't actually get it correct. So try a better next time. What that means is no guilt. Don't try punishing yourself. Whatever you did, learn from it. The old Buddhist acknowledged. Forgive. Learn a code. I said that before you acknowledge you're realistic to what you've done. But you don't go around beating yourself because of these things. And obviously, Doctor Phillips was still beating himself because basically everyone else had told him he'd done something wrong. I think inside his heart he realized he was okay, but everyone else was telling what was wrong. He's getting confused. But anyway, even if he had done something wrong, my goodness, that was many years ago. Please let it go and move on and learn from it. Learn about how your whole mind works, what compassion really is, and how complicated the whole thing is, and how every human being should be courageous enough to stand on what he believes or she believes. And please resist some of these stupid comments and the shout of the stupid majority. Now you have to know yourself and be strong enough to stand up for what you know is right. Even if the whole world ridicules you. That's actually the inner strength. And don't allow guilt actually to infect, you know, your practice of virtue and who you think you are and why you're doing these things. That's fear again. This makes the whole thing very complex. So for him, the way he said it, I thought he did the right thing. I'd say no, no problem at all there. But even if he did do the wrong thing and I was wrong, I'm not always right. I make mistakes. If he did do something wrong, it was a small, bad karma. So you can let that one go. My goodness. Move on. But that also comes to the other question, which was asked at the very end by one of our past presidents. I can't see him here tonight. Don't worry Cody, how does it go with abortion? There's something similar there, but not quite the same with voluntary euthanasia. The person is requesting to have their life terminated. Because with abortion. So the baby is an asking. The fetus isn't asking. It's a different situation. Who's asking is usually the mother, but it's not quite the same as his killing someone, because that mother in that fetus is strongly connected. Because any mother would know that sometimes it is part of her. So it's not quite voluntary euthanasia, but it's not quite killing another being. It's halfway in between, which is why people feel it's not the same as like, the infanticide or homicide. It doesn't feel the same. And again, those feelings, when I actually look at those feelings, it usually means it's indicating something a little bit deeper. I know Professor Damiani made an excellent point. It is true, as far as Buddhist theory is concerned, that a fetus in the womb is not an independent being until the stream of consciousness from the previous life actually enters the womb. People who remember their past lives, who know the transition. You see your mother to be in some attraction there. You enter her womb somehow or other. When you entered her womb. That's when the stream of consciousness displaces the mother's consciousness to give that that lump of flesh there a separate identity. When that happens, is indeterminate. It can happen at the very early stage, just after conception. Some people remember their past lives entering the mother's womb only a couple of weeks before birth. This is the difficulty. There's no way of knowing unless you've got psychic powers. Whether that person inside of a womb is part of the mother or is an independent being, it could be either. There's a Buddhist view, and that's basically what I believe. Actually, almost no is true. If it's the stream of consciousness from the previous life hasn't entered yet, that fetus in there is literally part of the mother. And actually aborting that fetus is exactly the same as cutting off a tumor is part of the woman. You're not killing an independent being. However, if it is a new being with its own consciousness that is killing. However, in such situations, again killing against the five precepts, one should not do that. But we have to go deeper. Is it really harming another person or harming yourself? You ask those questions and there was a case when I was in visiting my mother in England some years ago. A woman was pregnant with two twins in Swansea Hospital. I think it was. And, uh, I don't know what the medical condition was, but it was 100% certain. If the doctors did not intervene and abort one of those fetuses, the mother would die and so would the two fetuses. And there was an ethical argument. Is it right to abort one of those fetuses, to allow the mother and the other child to survive? And again, I went to my Buddhism killing as well. Okay, more than that, harming another person or harming oneself was obvious from that criteria. The lesser harm would be done by aborting one of the fetuses so the mother and the other child could survive. So that was my position based on my understanding of Buddhism. I was a bit disappointed that the argument never developed on the news channels, because the doctor had intervened and aborted one of those fetuses himself. He'd made the decision while all the other people were arguing. There was one situation where, to me, it was ethical to abort one of the fetuses. There are those extreme situations. And we were talking the other day, what happens if a woman has been raped? Shoots and she's pregnant? The baby is healthy. Should she go through with that pregnancy? I can imagine I can't know what it might feel like for a woman, but I could imagine. Just know the anger. Not the anger, but just the disgust that that person who raped you. They got their child in there. That's part of them. It's got their genes. And how be very difficult for a mother to love that child, to care for it. And how it beats a traumatic to give birth. It'd be wonderful if you could forgive and let go. And if you can't look after the child yourself, have it adopted by someone else. But I can understand a woman's feelings not wanting to go through that pregnancy. I could also obviously understand if that child has got some sort of deformity. Some people with deformities live very fulfilled lives. Some people don't. It's a tough call because even the doctors they see their child in there is not fully formed. But still they don't know what it's going to come out like and how it's going to deal with that deformity in their lives. There's many so-called deformed children who've actually become amazing human beings. And it would have been terrible to have aborted them. But as many others who live in institutions for their lives, even short lives, and don't have good quality, it's a difficult decision to make. So we don't say it's wrong. And put fear into the minds of women. The job of a religion is to bring wisdom and clarity and kindness. So you ask yourself, what are you doing? Is it really going to harm or hurt, or is it going to help? Not just you, but other people, other beings. Where are you coming from? What is your motive? Is it really out of compassion? Or is it just the easy way out? Selfish desire. Was it ill will? Is it delusion? Have you really thought this thing through? Are you coming from fear? This is a checklist to make it practical. And in the end, only one person can make that decision. Obviously, the law has to be there to stop people making irresponsible decisions. But the law shouldn't go that far. That in the areas where is ethically uncertain. There you have to give the woman the choice. And most importantly, support her. Whatever she does afterwards, she makes a mistake. The last thing she needs is to be told so. Because women who have had abortions, they come and spoken to me. You noticed how much pain they feel, how much they want forgiveness. Except. And some understanding, for goodness sake. And it's so rare to gather understanding. Empathy. It was a tough, tough, tough call. Get it right and get it wrong. Doesn't matter. I'm going to support you and be kind to you and help you acknowledge, forgive and learn. Grow from it. Learn to become a better human being because of it. And this is what I say for abortions in most cases. See if you can give the child a life. But there's always those exceptions. Those times laws should actually keep those exceptions minimized. But allow those exceptions. It's not pro-choice. It's not pro-life. The old middle way. And I don't mean fudging away a clear middle way there where the choice is helped supported. So it gives an understanding about what ethics is all about in Buddhism and why it comes from. There's no such thing as black and white, and too often people make it just too easy. Just by saying, this is right, this is wrong. Do as you're told. Otherwise you go to hell or go to jail or something. And the life is far more complex than that. But at least in Buddhism, we do have some tools to bring some clarity, some kindness, and some sense which people feel actually is helping them now live a life. It's spiritual help, which is not just airy fairy, but which is practical, dealing with the problems of modern life as you experience them. And helping you through them. That's what wisdom and compassion is all about. It's why we do have presets where we do have laws of color. We do have a dharma not to make life more difficult for people, but to lead them into wisdom, compassion and freedom. And eventually, as I was saying that, to lead you into this beautiful way of understanding what's going on inside your mind, your intentions, the way you relate to the events of life. Once you start looking at that, you're starting on the path to enlightenment and liberation. It's not the world. The world's not the problem. It's always the way we look at it. Our relationship, the way was between us and the world for peace, freedom, wisdom, between whatever we experience. Then we're on the path to enlightenment. So it's not just abortion and euthanasia I've been talking about. It's the attitudes to life, how we deal with these, how we enhance those, make them more deep. And eventually that leads to the deep meditations, to the insights, to enlightenment itself, to freedom. So that's a talk on euthanasia and abortion. Now, I really do hope we have some questions and make them sharp. Yeah. Okay. I couldn't wait to get back. On that. But. Yeah. There's 1 or 2 cases in the stories from the Buddhist canon. It seems to be quite authentic when Marx committed suicide. And in most cases, they were enlightened beings. With one case, it looks like he wasn't enlightened first, but he got enlightened afterwards. The Buddha actually said that their suicide was blameless. He also said it was nothing because an arrow heart. Now again, this is just talking about monks. For monks for their situation. A different ethics does apply. Has to apply. So whether it was ethical or not ethical for a monk, that does not really apply to saying what is ethical or unethical for a layperson to ask for voluntary assisted euthanasia. I'm making a distinction, and it's a valid one. What's skillful or unskillful for a monk is not necessarily skillful or unskillful for someone in the community. To answer your question. Please come back. If not. The the the, um, the ethics or the essence of a monk, of being an example to other. To being a leader, to being a teacher of other. Others. To be, you know, someone who, uh, in that sense, should be able to take pain with more equanimity, to take to the point, with more equanimity. So more would be expected of them in the same way that in the old days, anyone who is a leader, a judge, a policeman, or even a politician. When I was born, they were expected to have a higher ethics than the ordinary person. And if, say, a priest or a judge was caught drunk driving, they would usually when I was a young kid, they would have to resign. When an ordinary person was caught drunk driving, they'd just lose a few points. That makes sense. Okay. Yes. Got it. Ended. Up dying. Drowning and dying on the High Court. And that was the. Oops. How can you? Really even be? A very good thing to do was I didn't want to stop with the best practice to get a grip on slicing one, and they didn't look that way. Correct? Indeed, yes, because sometimes the decision making sometimes is distorted. You're not really understanding why you're doing this, the underlying motives. That's why counselling I think, is sort of obligatory, but not counselling from people with a vested interest in getting the you to do this and do that, which sometimes happens in abortion counselling, which is usually run by pro-life people, apparently. So they just make you feel really, really guilty, you know, when you start to ring up these hotlines. But it has to be sort of a really good counselling from sort of referees who don't actually support either side, just want to make you be clear of what you're doing this and why you're doing it. And obviously for her, I'm not quite sure. I never saw that film when she saw that 80 year old lady who terminated her life with assisted euthanasia. But to me, that that doesn't feel good. Controlling. Yeah. Indeed, indeed. Because she was she was thinking her motivation was keeping in control. That's actually selfish desire. That's one of the checklists in which the Buddhist would do and say, well, I'm doing this out of selfish desire. This is not really wholesome, it's not really skillful. And as I said, the Buddhist monk, you know, you would expect to have less control. So to be able to let go more and more, but go with the flow or whatever you call it, go with the flow of old age, sickness and death instead of always controlling it. So again, the more you have been a practising Buddhist, the more you have meditate. And I understand what's going on, the more you would never do that. You just allow things to flow. But my point was that some people aren't up to that level, and if they're in great pain and great suffering, then that's when I think euthanasia may be a skill for at least I'm not sure, but I don't think the law should be involved there. But obviously she was outside of that area. Now, do you have a question? Philip Nitschke describes his experience with this case of voluntary euthanasia. Sounds like even now that, uh, there's an element of doubt in his mind as to whether or not what he did was wholesome or unwholesome. And it sounds like before and during, there was also an element of doubt in his mind as to what he was doing was wholesome or unwholesome. Uh, is that element of doubt? Uh, yeah. Well, it seems to me like that's a mode of being motivated by delusion. Are you talking about that? By the doubt, which was in, uh, Philip Minsky's mind? I think for those of you who were there at the conference, the point at which I really sort of, uh, astounded me was how he made the decision, he stepped back and he felt at peace with it. Now, the immediate result of the decision, he felt was good. It was only afterwards he started to think, did I do the right thing? Did I do the wrong thing? And this brings me back to a very fascinating case. Uh, in my early life as a monk, where there was one monk is now a senior monk in one of our monasteries. I won't tell you which one he is, but he's been here before. Not that often. So it's not Argentina. It's another man. But one day that I was a store monk at one of the monasteries, and he knew I was pretty tough. And so he needed some medicine. He took it without telling me, and he thought that was stealing. And after 3 or 4 days, he got so filled with remorse because stealing is like a disturbing offence. He went to see my teacher at lunch, just ready to sort of, you know, take a pair of trousers and go back to where he came from. He thought he'd sort of broken the big rule of stealing as a monk. That's also a disturbing offence. And when he asked that question, Charles said if it was wrong, you'd have known it at the time. You're okay. And like most of the things again, Charles says, you just bang. You just get it right. It's the harder things. Because what happens at the time, it seems from what he said, he felt it was the right thing to do. But afterwards you start thinking about it and you ask other people, it gets complicated and that's where the doubt comes from. When you look back on what you did, you can never see it as clearly as at the time when it actually happened. And that's when it's very easy to actually to put these extra things in. Perhaps I was sort of deluded. Perhaps I was had ill will. Perhaps I was, but as I said, no, don't worry about the later. At the time, that was the most crucial time. That's when you'd know whether it's skilful or unskillful. And obviously that because so much of the media was on Philip Nietzsche's back, he didn't get much support. Especially I saw that little high on his presentation, some shock jock from the United States saying, Philip, I think you're the sick one. And he gets so much, um, bad negative feedback. If you get that negative feedback, you've got to be very, very strong not to doubt yourself. Now look at, say, Doctor Geoff Gallop. Why was he depressed? Sometimes in the media he gets such negative feedback. You know from the media you have to be very strong not to believe some of it. Just saying. Wow. You know, I really am a sort of a a liar and a cheat and corrupt and everything else which every politician gets. They got a very, very strong to have that self, uh, another self. The confidence of knowing yourself properly, your own mindfulness of your motives and to trust that. And I think what happened to him, he just got so much negative feedback that that's sort of, you know, infected his understanding at the time. He'd done the right thing. And that's a very good point, because each one of you, sometimes you look back upon what you did. Did I do the right thing or the wrong thing? It's a waste of time looking back in that way. At the time, you'd have known it. How did you feel after you did that, or just after the next second when you said that to your wife when you did that? How did you feel? That is a much more accurate description of the skillfulness or and skillfulness of the act. When you look back, it's just too complex and you add things, other people add things and you can't see clearly anymore. That answer your question? You've also told us that it's it's a it's impossible to, uh, to know that right now. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that was actually the time you're doing things. That's actually just something which I figured out, but actually later found out came from Socrates. No one ever thinks so wrong. If you think you're wrong, you're right about that. That you were wrong. But. The point is that only when you look back and hear I'm talking about you, look back a second afterwards. And that's actually, you know, yeah, I was wrong. I was right at the time we were doing it. You know, whatever you do, you always think it's justified at that moment, otherwise you couldn't do it. This is a philosophical point, but it's actually valid. Even people do. They, you know, blowing themselves up in a suicide bomb attack or flying into the Twin Towers or invading Iraq or whatever it is at the time? You really think it's the right idea? But afterwards I didn't feel like. Those items I was saying if it was wrong, you'd have known it. Not actually at the time, but just a moment afterwards. But days, weeks, years afterwards. That's really not worthwhile going into that actually is added. That's a proliferation. There was any other questions I had. Okay, okay. I know we have. We have one, then two, then three. Yes okay. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Please make it brief because I'm going to do that with the other conference. If it goes on too long I'm going to fog the longer. I didn't realize that when I talked to an old Hilary or Toby HealthTech in a very good blog, I don't I don't like it. When they're fine. But for them. And he'll be back. I don't know what he did wrong. I am going to talk to him later, but they don't know what he will call him. Three are. Correct. I'll just repeat that for the, uh, the video, the camera. It's, uh, you obviously, you're a doctor, and so many of your patients are in very great pain, long term pain. But it's complicated by psychological problems or social problems. He said you saw a patient today who, um, who was, uh, looked like he was going to die. Uh, but he found out he was actually, uh, seemed to be, uh, getting better. And most of the problem was a long term problem with his family, which is now being resolved, and therefore he's getting better. It's an excellent question, because it actually shows that, uh, in such situations, people in those situations might request voluntary euthanasia. They may want to commit suicide, but it shouldn't be something done easily. There should be, uh, obligatory counselling actually, to try and identify those problems and to see whether there is an alternative than voluntary euthanasia. Suicide. And so obviously that that was a case where counselling would have actually identified those problems. And obviously you as a sensitive doctor, saw that there were no social or psychological problems. But every now and again you come across a person. There's no psychological or social problems. They're very clear. And this is what the decision is. And it's those situations which I was talking about were maybe voluntary. Euthanasia is skilful. Yeah. And Barber would be younger than Ben Allen. And quite well previously done. Nothing. Wrong. With that and they all are well already. But. That always winter weather and even on fire. You know it's true. It's so you say that they haven't ever seen a case where the pain or the sickness is not complicated by social issues and mentioning that, uh, where a person is depressed, the pain is obviously much harder to bear. Uh, in such situations, the counselling or whatever it is, they should try and identify those problems. But sometimes when there's a social problem or psychological problems, sometimes it is impossible to fix. I'll just go back to Bob Debs. It was a social problem. He was concerned with his wife. Obviously. He would say, can't you get some respite or some other care? In theory, yes. But in practice, you know, the government can't even keep down waiting lists in hospitals or pay nurses proper salaries. In theory, it should also be possible, but in the practicalities that sometimes people just can't take it any longer and you try do your very best. No alternative. So. Yeah. No. It's not. Yeah. Oh, shit. Oh. I'm fine. Then. I am there. Oh my God. What? What? Okay, you're talking about some sort of another issue here, but that's actually pain relief and clouding the mind. I think the job offer of a doctor, a physician, is actually to present the information to the patient and just, you know, there is never a free lunch. You know, if you have morphine, apparently it creates incredible constipation. And, you know, sometimes the cloudiness. So it has to be the patient to tell them, yeah, we can actually relieve your pain, but these are the side effects. And again. So the patient has still. The person has to make the decision for themselves what they can take, what they can't take, what the the alternatives are. So obviously the I think in some modern medicine understands it's a job of a doctor is actually not to tell the patient, but actually to work with the patient and actually to give them the information, but not to take care not to disempower them. So this is the alternatives. This is what we have. But first of all, you say we should always be cautious and yeah, cautious. The easy way out. Sometimes the easy way out is not doing anything. What I suggested today is a very difficult way out. Sometimes the easiest way. I was making a law. No, you can't do any of this voluntary euthanasia stuff. Makes it very clear. But I think that is the easy way out. And I don't think it will wash. There is no easy way out, basically. But all we can do is actually give as much information, support, kindness, compassion and caution as well. Thank you for mentioning caution as a very beautiful word. For the next question. We're going to go a little bit longer tonight. But. Okay. It does change a whole lot of things about the attitude of Buddhism towards death. Death is only a transition from one life to another. Because Buddhism, Buddhists believe in rebirth many, many lives. It's not the end of the world dying. And so because of that, it's not such a desperately important event. And it does actually take a lot of fear away, because especially doctors sometimes are they're dying. They're dying. And if you're a Christian, you know, after you've only got one one shot at life. And so you can imagine if that's what you think. There's only one life. This is the last shot you've got. Then death is a big thing. You avoid it like the plague. But, you know, for Buddhists, it's not dying. It's a quality of life. It's how you die. Not if you die to make sure you die well. Which is actually. That's the meaning of the word euthanasia. It means dying. Well, that's what its word means. Thanos is to die. And you is, I think, the Greek prefix to do it. Well, now we have two more questions. We have to keep it at that. Edie, you've got 30s to put your question. Yep. Yeah, sure. Okay. Okay. Now, I agree with you. No, no. That's enough. Because I got it. I'm going to use it as you. Because it is true that it happens in many hospitals. Doctors and nurses have told me that. Yet this happens and it's okay. She can stay around. It does happen simply because she's okay. It does happen. And that's one of the reasons why does it happen? It's because obviously as doctors and nurses, these are not sort of monsters. These are not doctor death and nurse death. This is actually a very sensitive kind. People who have actually sometimes for them they can't stand that suffering. And the places that I can't stand it either. And it's happening. And that's another no obviously argument. That's if it is happening. Why? And is it really are you going to jail someone who does that? Does the law really belong, you know, in such situations? So hopefully I answer your question. I have one more question because it's almost half past. Some people are gonna run away. Yeah. Correct. Because that's really the state intention. What is data now? But the most important part of intention is motivation. So intention is the most important part of karma. Motive is the most important part of intention. Okay. Look, thanks a lot. I hope I've taken the whole situation of euthanasia and abortion to a deeper level. I'm not making a statement that you should go and kill yourselves. I'm not just saying one way or the other because it's not my right to do that. I'll be disempowering you. I'm not speaking X now. What's it like? The ex cathedra? The whole point of this talk today is actually to take the understanding deeper. In the end, you make your own decisions. My job as a teacher is to help you make decisions and to think more deeply. Why? What's going on? And I hope today's talk has done that. And thank you for all those questions. Are some sort of Buddha I go. Back to one time at BYU. So I kind of got a lot more on my side. So partly I got a lot of so I got a single song called mommy.