Organ Donation

DinoBot

Hi,

I was reading a book which spoke of a state of "clear light" as one of the stages of death. And this can happen minutes or days after the last breath has left the body.
A lot of faiths have very different views about when death occurs. Many have a common thread that the body should not be touched as the dead will feel the pain or you should leave the body intact and whole.

What is the most common held view for buddhists ? Do you guys have organ donor cards ? Would you except a donor organ for yourselves or your loved ones ?

Asiaprod

DinoBot wrote:

What is the most common held view for buddhists ? Do you guys have organ donor cards ? Would you except a donor organ for yourselves or your loved ones ?

That is an excellent question, and one I have never taken time to ponder. In my own sect we believe that the spirit can take up to 2 days to depart. Which is why the body lies on view so we can gather and pray for the departed to help ease their final struggle to depart. Now I cannot say that I adhere to this belief 100%, I see it rather as a ritual which I also honor. I believe that there is a time limit on when an organ must be removed in order for it to be useable. In my case, I have no problem donating organs. Take em if you can use them, though I am not sure there will be much of any use left after my wild life style.

DinoBot

Thanks.
So, for the ritual to be completed there is no need to
leave the body untouched. Is embalming allowed as well ?

Asiaprod

DinoBot wrote:

Thanks.
So, for the ritual to be completed there is no need to
leave the body untouched.

In my case, that is correct. The body is just a shell, it is the thought that counts.

Is embalming allowed as well ?

Again, in my case no problem. I would prefer to be just cremated. The idea of my body being preserved, or being buried in the cold ground, does not make me feel happy, and only serves to make anyone who cared about me feel sad.
Give me a Viking funeral any day.

maitri

Hi!


I am not sure whether I can be called a Buddhist or not (IMHO maybe such definitions or distinctions as “buddhist” or “non-buddhist” are not all that important), but I do have a donor card.:) I think it’s a nice (and easy) way to help.

BTW, here are some Buddhist links on the topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/donation/nonflashjourney_religions.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/organdonation.shtml

http://www.nyodn.org/pdf/RobertThurman.pdf

And some Buddhist pro organ donation quotes:

The Amida Trust
"Non-attachment to the body can be seen in the context of non-attachment to self and Buddhist teachings on impermanence. Compassion is a pre-eminent quality. Giving one's body for the good of others is seen as a virtue."

Dhammarati, Western Buddhist Order
"I would be happy if I was able to help someone else live after my own death."

Phramaha Laow Panyasiri, abbot, the Buddhaviharra Temple
"Organ donation is acceptable in Theravada Buddhism. It's a Buddhist virtue to generously extend help to other sentient beings and this covers the case of organ donation."

Sogyal Rinpoche - The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying
"Organ donation is an extremely positive action. As long as it's truly the wish of the dying person, it will not harm in any way the consciousness that's leaving the body. On the contrary, this final act of generosity accumulates good karma."

Some Tibetan Buddhist might be sceptical, though, because of some of their believes about death and consciousness. Sogyal Rimpche, however, is very positive.

Asiaprod

maitri wrote:

Hi! I am not sure whether I can be called a Buddhist or not (IMHO maybe such definitions or distinctions as “buddhist” or “non-buddhist” are not all that important), but I do have a donor card.:) I think it’s a nice (and easy) way to help.

Great post Maitri, I tend to feel that it is the nature and actions of a person, rather than any attached label, that make him/her a Buddhist.

Sogyal Rinpoche - The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying
"Organ donation is an extremely positive action. As long as it's truly the wish of the dying person, it will not harm in any way the consciousness that's leaving the body. On the contrary, this final act of generosity accumulates good karma."

Excellent, now where did I put my donor card.:)

MeditationMom

Very good question. What a Koan!

When there is no fear of death and separation, there is also no need for organ donation or organ acceptance. Death and separation can be accepted peacefully.

But since we are all afraid we help each other to avoid both. It is not right or wrong. It is loving, caring, altruistic, self-less. Yet, the deepest levels of love and trust, do not fear death, be it our own, that of a desperate stranger on a waiting list, or even that of a close, loved one.

When organ donation is a scientific possibility, all of a sudden it seems selfish to not donate organs, especially if one were to hope for a donation for oneself but would not donate an organ oneself. How complicated our lives get when the root of our thinking is fear.

As far as Karma goes, the deepest level of selfishness is accepting or demanding organs for oneself without wanting to donate one's own. (There is worse, I'm afraid, as in killing people to get their organs to sell on the black market, but not really relevant to our considerations here)

The next better level is someone who would neither give nor accept an organ - because it "doesn't feel right", because of some sort of attachment to the body.

The next better level is being a donor, and one who would accept a donated organ.

Better still, one who will donate his/her organs but would die peacefully without accepting an organ due him or her, and give it to the next person on the waiting list.

And lastly, the one who has no fear, is full of compassion, and simply dies and lets die, lives and lets live. A Buddha donating organs seems a strange thought.

The process of dying itself, is an interesting consideration. Do we disturb or interrupt something by not letting a body "rest in peace" for a little while?

As long as there is the belief "I am the body" or that there is "someone" or "something", like a soul, "leaving" the body, as most people believe, I think the answer is yes.

A Buddha, on the other hand, can be thrown onto the burning ghats right away! He hasn't been the body for a long time, already. But we would treat him with love and more reverence than that, for our own sake.

maitri

Thanks for interesting thoughts, MeditationMom!

MeditationMom wrote:

Better still, one who will donate his/her organs but would die peacefully without accepting an organ due him or her, and give it to the next person on the waiting list.

"Better" no matter what?
Even if she's let's say a single mother of two fatherless children?

MeditationMom wrote:

And lastly, the one who has no fear, is full of compassion, and simply dies and lets die, lives and lets live. A Buddha donating organs seems a strange thought.

I think it is very hard to decide what a Buddha would or would not do since I don't understand what a Buddha really is.

If the teachings are accurate, all we really know is that a Buddha would never act out of greed or aversion, but will act with compassion and wisdom.

When I (and other normal human beings) act we cannot know what a Buddha would and would not do in the situation, I think, but will have to do our best with what we've got of wisdom and compassion, even if it's just a little.

Asiaprod wrote:

Give me a Viking funeral any day.

Like this? :

http://www.beowulfpoet.com/HISfadlan.html

Asiaprod

maitri wrote:

When I (and other normal human beings) act we cannot know what a Buddha would and would not do in the situation, I think, but will have to do our best with what we've got of wisdom and compassion, even if it's just a little.

I think that this is the best approach. We cannot ever know what a Buddha would/would not do. I get troubled when I see a single individual being placed on a pedestal and his/her words being interpreted as the only correct way. The Buddha himself cautioned that we should not just blindly accept his words, but should seek out the truth ourselves. It is through the seeking that the answer we find comes to have relevance to us. We can indeed only act on our own wisdom and compassion. I do not think there is a right or wrong answer to this question. Each must make their own decision

MeditationMom

Quote:
Originally Posted by MeditationMomBetter still, one who will donate his/her organs but would die peacefully without accepting an organ due him or her, and give it to the next person on the waiting list.


by Maitri - "Better" no matter what?
Even if she's let's say a single mother of two fatherless children?

Your question bring up the "there is an exception to every "rule" - rule" , even though I am not trying to make any rules, of course, just trying to measure within myself which scenario would feel the most or least selfish, unselfish, desperate, fearful, compassionate, wise etc.

So, just to continue with this particular question - if the next person in line for the heart or kidney, is also a mother of two fatherless children, would it not be the mother instinct of protecting one's children, that decides to claim the organ, rather than peace and wisdom - leave alone the infinite peace and wisdom of Enlightenment and Buddhahood? Would not at the root of the decision be some level of fear of suffering for the children, and death?

If, on the other hand, the "first in line" mother hates the idea of organ transplants, is revolted by the idea of having someone else's organ inside her, longs for the peace of death since her life is such a hard struggle, and against all her personal "fears, desires and aversions" decides to go through with accepting the organ to raise her helpless children, then this would be a "good Karma" act in this case.

I am not saying "better" or "good" in a judgemental way. Even saying "a higher" or "lower" level of compassion, still would sound judgemental. Come to think of it - I would not say that there are higher or lower levels of compassion - only higher and lower levels of fear that interfere in different degrees with our true nature of infinite compassion.

Karma could be understood as all the actions that arise out of particular levels of fear, and until we reduce, or free ourselves, from those "levels of fear" - even when we are talking about "love for one's children" being on some subtle level, fear - our lives, now, or in new incarnations, just continue at the same level of fear and suffering. That is why the peace and freedom of no fear, Enlightenment, is available now, if we chose, and have the heart and stomach for it, or it will happen naturally over lifetimes as we gradually, with the help of challenges, grow out of our fears.

So I didn't mean it that way. And certainly no-one can decide for anyone else what good or bad karma would be for that person.

by Asiaprod -We cannot ever know what a Buddha would/would not do.

by Maitri - I think it is very hard to decide what a Buddha would or would not do

True, of course.
A Buddha would know what to do, instantly, and it would be from a place of enlightenment and infinite wisdom, not from any opinion, philosophy or any other predictable "thoughts" of right and wrong, deserving, less deserving, etc., as that would still be dualistic thinking, therefore not Buddhahood.

In light of infinite wisdom, and the infinite peace thereof, organ transplanting as such, just strikes me as one of those desperate attempts (a little more desperate than other medical treatments) that we as human beings "do", to put off death and suffering. Therefore it is a strange thought to me, a Buddha being involved it it. But that is my limitation maybe in my thinking.

As far as predictions go, many people act in predictable ways - the only one, whose actions one cannot predict, is indeed a Buddha.

by Asiaprod - I do not think there is a right or wrong answer to this question.

That's why it struck me as a Koan to begin with. Just trying to give my brain a little exercise in good old thinking. Thanks for challenging it - the fun of Boards!

Asiaprod

MeditationMom wrote:

That's why it struck me as a Koan to begin with. Just trying to give my brain a little exercise in good old thinking. Thanks for challenging it - the fun of Boards!

I forgot to mention, welcome back:)

MeditationMom

by Asiaprod - I forgot to mention, welcome back

Thank you - it's nice to be back

maitri

MeditationMom wrote:

Your question bring up the "there is an exception to every "rule" - rule" , even though I am not trying to make any rules, of course,

Yes, I understand that. And I kind of like that "there are no rules-rule".

MeditationMom wrote:

just trying to measure within myself which scenario would feel the most or least selfish, unselfish, desperate, fearful, compassionate, wise etc.

Fair enough!:)

MeditationMom wrote:

If, on the other hand, the "first in line" mother hates the idea of organ transplants, is revolted by the idea of having someone else's organ inside her, longs for the peace of death since her life is such a hard struggle, and against all her personal "fears, desires and aversions" decides to go through with accepting the organ to raise her helpless children, then this would be a "good Karma" act in this case.

Would it, according to you feelings, be the same if she does it from a sense of duty or from the love of her children or from a "gut"-feelig of what is the "right" thing to?

MeditationMom wrote:

Come to think of it - I would not say that there are higher or lower levels of compassion - only higher and lower levels of fear that interfere in different degrees with our true nature of infinite compassion.

Nice way of putting it.

MeditationMom wrote:

So I didn't mean it that way. And certainly no-one can decide for anyone else what good or bad karma would be for that person.

I believe you are right.

MeditationMom

by maitri - Would it, according to you feelings, be the same if she does it from a sense of duty or from the love of her children or from a "gut"-feeling of what is the "right" thing to?

Wouldn't that be the natural mother instinct and what a mother would do? As such it may just be the very thing to do, with no thoughts of "bad, good, better, best" Karma. Simply - "when tired I sleep, when hungry I eat, when mother I get new organ so I can take care of my children."

The only question I am posing I guess, is - "if dying I die" - is that maybe the attitude a Buddha would, maybe , have, if we dared to guess.

As far as good, better, best Karma is concerned - it is really something that is impossible to say - there is a great Tao tale I have known for a long time and someone posted it in another forum the other day -

I hope the person doesn't mind me posting it here -

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

This has been my attitude for a long time - as you can imagine with five children it is a highly recommendable attitude. It does not come from indifference, but from a deep trust in "what is" at all times.

maitri

MeditationMom wrote:

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

I love that story!
The farmer's attitude seems somewhat "stoic" to me.
Hmmm... wonder if it's possible to combine such an attitude with being an emotional roller coaster.

MeditationMom wrote:

This has been my attitude for a long time - as you can imagine with five children it is a highly recommendable attitude. It does not come from indifference, but from a deep trust in "what is" at all times

Five children sounds like a lot of fun! And a lot of hard work.

MeditationMom

by Maitri - The farmer's attitude seems somewhat "stoic" to me.
Hmmm... wonder if it's possible to combine such an attitude with being an emotional roller coaster.

"Stoic" - that's an interesting thought. To me it is patient amusement and trust is whatever is happening. But, on an emotional roller coaster day, a little stoic-mindedness could come in handy.

If you want to know more about the emotional roller coaster - there is a great new book out called "The Female Brain" shedding much light on what goes on. A must read for Men , and a nice confirmation for women "that we're not crazy, after-all".