[soyclocky]

Hi tjampel,
And any other sentient being too. If we look around at nature (which includes ourselves) it is a process of consumption. All creatures feed, in order to survive and all are subject to aging, sickness and death.

To say some suffer and others do not is to impose a value judgement, which is unnecessary. To say some perhaps bring suffering upon themselves (or have earned it in some manner) and others do not is to impose a moral framework, which is also unnecessary.

Buddha didn't impose these judgments, rather he discovered the cause and the means to bring cessation to it.

And how did the Buddha help to end the suffering of mosquitos; that's really what I'm ultimately trying to get to but...I need to start with babies with birth defects who will die at an early age after experiencing terrible suffering.

I think many believe that the Buddha didn't do anything that can help them (the above examples). His teachings are available to a those, fortunate to have been exposed to the dharma, with good dharma resources (such as a qualified teacher), able to practice at a high level, human, intelligent, with leisure time to practice, physically intact, for the most part, and not tied down to time-consuming activities (e.g. caring for an old sick parent (and younger is best, as well, of course. Practicing well enough to achieve liberation in this life probably involves hours of study and practice each day....maybe 5-6 per day? I've heard it compared to training to become a concert level violinist by one teacher.

And maybe that's OK? It's just the randomness of nature, the natural (unmediated by ignorance and the mental states that are outflows from it) order of things. This is a materialist view and, as one who studied in the sciences for quite a while, it makes sense on a certain level. Of course, this is not the view that I nurture nor the view that I favor. That doesn't mean it's incorrect. It means that I need to practice a lot harder and achieve insight myself to understand these issues in greater depth. Then I'll have more than just an opinion.

I totally agree with you of course. I'm trying to keep the discussion within parameters that we can all agree on. If we leave children out of the mix there's really nothing more that can be said. If kids aren't persons and therefore are not subject to suffering of a person, then it's pointless to argue. So...need to find some common ground.

My own teacher says that if you don't have "fierce" compassion (that's his word for it) for a mosquito that just bit you because of how that sentient being has to live its life, then you should not practice in the Vajrayana, because you haven't shown sufficient urgency to gain immediate enlightenment. I don't bring this line of thinking to "Beyond Belief". because, for me at least, "Beyond Belief" (the forum, rather than the actual concept, of course) means "Within the realm of possibility---for those who practice Theravada". I learned that early and often.

Take care

tj