DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ANCETPYNCTEXT** · 01-05-2012, 09:39 AM

Moderation note

Off topic posts from "Why sex is not a right action for sangha members? " have been moved to this new topic "Born with a birth defect"

.................................................. .................................................. ........................

If you consider a person born with a birth defect, who is responsible for the cause of this suffering?

For the case of a birth defect, it is randomness of nature. For the most part, the suffering around the birth defect is the responsibility of the person, unless - as there are cases - that the birth defect, having an organic basis, impairs completely the faculty of reasoning and insightful penetration.

If a person is born with a birth defect that produces discomfort, but does not impair their mental functioning at all (say it's a heart problem) and the person dies at age 3, as a result of that defect, I don't understand how it may be said that, "for the most part, the suffering around the birth defect is the responsibility of the person". In fact, given the scenario you provide I don't see how the slightest bit of suffering experienced by this infant is caused by them. Physical suffering is caused by the birth defect. The birth defect, according to you, is caused
by "randomness of nature". So that rules out any responsibility for the condition on the part of the infant. If nature produces an infant with a birth defect then nature also produces an infant that is biologically unable to understand any of the concepts of suffering, ignorance, and the like, nor does the infant have the slightest ability to see phenomena in accord with how they actually exist (as lacking self-existence). A 2–year old sees everything they encounter as self-existent. They have no choice at all, due to not having achieved a suitable stage of development where they can engage in concrete operations/logic/introspection/analysis. We do have a choice. We can change how our mind reacts to sensory data; we are not compelled to accept it as an indicia of self-existence.

Perhaps this is a translation issue? To me, the phrase "is the responsibility of the person" implies some locus of control by that person. Clearly, with a 1-3 year old infant, given the stage of development they are in when they die, there is absolutely no locus of control. There is no ability to understand a thing the Buddha taught, there is no ability to practice any of the instructions of the Buddha, and there is no ability to do any more than simply process sensory stimuli in the manner that their sensory organs and corresponding consciousnesses in the brain permit. Therefore, given my understanding of the phrase, there is no responsibility, except in the sense that the infant is stuck with the consequences. Is that what you were trying to say? That, the infant is blameless and just suffers due to his or her bad luck. The same is true for a malnourished infant born during severe drought, or an infant born in a war zone, or an infant that dies at age 3 due to disease, for example. I simply see no contributing cause by the infant.

Given that you already stated that infants get birth defects through bad luck (randomness of nature denies cause through other factors), then I would think that ALL the suffering that follows is also the result of bad luck as well, since there's absolutely no opportunity for that infant to improve its situation when so young.

If this is so then some people are screwed and some (educated, born in a place where they can hear the dharma, born in a place where they can freely practice it, of suitable intelligence to practice, and having the leisure time to practice) are fortunate. Based upon the statistical data regarding how many practice the dharma, at least in name only, and adding in my own conjecture regarding the % that practice at a level that might lead to liberation in their lives (a tiny fraction of the total number of people who call themselves Buddhists---those who are able to enter jhana or are working towards it diligently), there are a tiny number of very fortunate beings and a very large number of beings that won't have any chance to be free of suffering.

01-05-2012, 09:39 AM	#1
ANCETPYNCTEXT Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 405 Senior Member	Born with a birth defect Moderation note Off topic posts from "Why sex is not a right action for sangha members? " have been moved to this new topic "Born with a birth defect" .................................................. .................................................. ........................ If you consider a person born with a birth defect, who is responsible for the cause of this suffering? For the case of a birth defect, it is randomness of nature. For the most part, the suffering around the birth defect is the responsibility of the person, unless - as there are cases - that the birth defect, having an organic basis, impairs completely the faculty of reasoning and insightful penetration. If a person is born with a birth defect that produces discomfort, but does not impair their mental functioning at all (say it's a heart problem) and the person dies at age 3, as a result of that defect, I don't understand how it may be said that, "for the most part, the suffering around the birth defect is the responsibility of the person". In fact, given the scenario you provide I don't see how the slightest bit of suffering experienced by this infant is caused by them. Physical suffering is caused by the birth defect. The birth defect, according to you, is caused by "randomness of nature". So that rules out any responsibility for the condition on the part of the infant. If nature produces an infant with a birth defect then nature also produces an infant that is biologically unable to understand any of the concepts of suffering, ignorance, and the like, nor does the infant have the slightest ability to see phenomena in accord with how they actually exist (as lacking self-existence). A 2–year old sees everything they encounter as self-existent. They have no choice at all, due to not having achieved a suitable stage of development where they can engage in concrete operations/logic/introspection/analysis. We do have a choice. We can change how our mind reacts to sensory data; we are not compelled to accept it as an indicia of self-existence. Perhaps this is a translation issue? To me, the phrase "is the responsibility of the person" implies some locus of control by that person. Clearly, with a 1-3 year old infant, given the stage of development they are in when they die, there is absolutely no locus of control. There is no ability to understand a thing the Buddha taught, there is no ability to practice any of the instructions of the Buddha, and there is no ability to do any more than simply process sensory stimuli in the manner that their sensory organs and corresponding consciousnesses in the brain permit. Therefore, given my understanding of the phrase, there is no responsibility, except in the sense that the infant is stuck with the consequences. Is that what you were trying to say? That, the infant is blameless and just suffers due to his or her bad luck. The same is true for a malnourished infant born during severe drought, or an infant born in a war zone, or an infant that dies at age 3 due to disease, for example. I simply see no contributing cause by the infant. Given that you already stated that infants get birth defects through bad luck (randomness of nature denies cause through other factors), then I would think that ALL the suffering that follows is also the result of bad luck as well, since there's absolutely no opportunity for that infant to improve its situation when so young. If this is so then some people are screwed and some (educated, born in a place where they can hear the dharma, born in a place where they can freely practice it, of suitable intelligence to practice, and having the leisure time to practice) are fortunate. Based upon the statistical data regarding how many practice the dharma, at least in name only, and adding in my own conjecture regarding the % that practice at a level that might lead to liberation in their lives (a tiny fraction of the total number of people who call themselves Buddhists---those who are able to enter jhana or are working towards it diligently), there are a tiny number of very fortunate beings and a very large number of beings that won't have any chance to be free of suffering.
	Quote