- Venerable Sirs,
I have just read a reply from the Ven Milinda on the subject
of kamma and clone animal/human. In which it its stated that
Buddism does not have a problem with this!
I have two issuse with this answer.
1. As Buddhist we do not belive in a creator, so are we not
now making our selfs the creator?
2. Are we not also told not to let go off our EGO? So are we not
now letting our alter EGO run rampant?
Yours in the Dhamma
- Let the Venerable Sirs allow me to share my views.
>At 08:20 PM 11-03-02, gfpblue wrote:Consider this: Have we not always been our own "creators"? I mean, physically speaking, my "creators" are my parents. (They certainly wouldn't be happy if I claimed otherwise.) I don't think what I *believe* would make any difference to that. What do you think?
>I have just read a reply from the Ven Milinda on the subject
>of kamma and clone animal/human. In which it its stated that
>Buddism does not have a problem with this!
>I have two issuse with this answer.
>1. As Buddhist we do not belive in a creator, so are we not
>now making our selfs the creator?
>2. Are we not also told not to let go off our EGO? So are we notI agree that our ultimate spiritual goal is to let go of the "I"-conceit.
>now letting our alter EGO run rampant?
From my theoretical understanding of the ultimate truth, there's never an ego to let go of, much less an alter ego. Rather, we gain knowledge to the truth that there is nothing substantial at all in our body, feelings, perception, mental formations, and consciousness.
Do correct me if I'm wrong. I get the impression that you consider the clone to be another copy of the person. Consider this: Humans have been cloning trees for many years. Does the clone ever appear as an exact copy of the original tree? The same should apply for any other forms of cloning. Besides DNA, there are many other factors involved, including kamma.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com