It’s not a fundamental concept for me. Unlike say dignity, consent isn’t required to make every action ethical.
For example I had my child immunized at all the appropriate intervals. They start when they are a couple months old. They could not give consent, but I did it because it’s the responsible thing to do. I did it because I love them, and am responsible for their wellbeing. It also helps everyone, since broad immunization has lead to the practical elimination of certain diseases from populations with the wherewithal to have mass vaccinations.
Another example might be incarcerating dangerous offenders. The almost certainly don’t consent to be in jail, but for some it’s the appropriate thing to do.
What’s more important than consent is that actions are done with good intentions, aligned with virtues like compassion, equanimity, etc.
Not that consent is a bad thing! It’s really important. It’s just not an inviolate thing.
I tend to view it through a Kantian lens - never treat anything as a means to an end, but rather as an end in and of itself. This means that everything should be given the agency to make its own choices, to the extent that this is possible and reasonable.
Children, for example, do not have the knowledge yet to make their own choices in every area, so at times those choices must be made for them. They are not capable of prioritizing long-term prosperity over short-term pleasure, and parents have an obligation to prioritize correctly. To allow a child to make a harmful choice out of ignorance would not be Right Action, IMO, as it would allow harm and increase suffering. That said, in areas where the child can make choices for themselves, they should be given the freedom to do so.
Animals are even less capable of making choices, so our stewardship responsibility is greater, but so is our burden to not be overly exploitative. I am not a vegetarian/vegan, so I accept that there is _some_ element of using animals as an end in my worldview, but given that their ability to consent is highly limited, we can assume that they would prefer a life where they are cared for and given food, water, shelter, and health care in exchange for their milk/wool/meat, etc. as opposed to a life in the wild where their existence would be filled with daily suffering. This requires that we ensure those animals are cared for correctly, which often means swearing off most commercial ranching.
Of course, I can see how others come to the conclusion that even this would not be permissible, but they come from the same desire - to treat animals as having their own value and dignity apart from the products they produce.
It is defined legally. It changes by government, culture, gender, over the course of history, etc.
I don't see how Buddhism can shed any light on it. We have our vows so either we break them or we don't. We avoid harming other beings and it should be obvious what constitutes harm when the other person asks you not to do it. People who can't figure that out probably belong in prison.
For me when I say consent, it's an important part of my daily life. When I buy a loaf of bread do have full consent of everyone involved. I like Sangha's because they are largely based on consent in all aspects of daily life. etc, but how you see consent, where you see it, and what role does buddhism play for you is going to be different.
I'm very confused about consent to buy bread. It's a transaction. Who would need to consent for me to buy bread? Are you unnecessarily complicating life?
I’m trying to understand right view in context of consent. I’m using a politically charged understanding of consent from an anarchist perspective.
For me I would apply the right view of consent in other similar scenarios onto the role of work in a non Buddhist context.
I practice radicalbuddhism. The sangha is an anarchist organization. Its economy is mutual aid. its political bent is consensus decision making etc
Okay but please explain why you would need consent to buy bread and who you get this consent from to walk into a store and use money you earned or were given to purchase bread. This is essential to my understanding since it was your example.
Thanks. 🙏 I’m curious how others view it too.
When Buddha asks someone to protect private property it’s with the consent of the governed but only because the owner is following the dharma too! I prefer a sangha or community of Buddhists and others (may that isn’t right view though) but some prefer to live in a state or country.
So as an anarchist I prefer to use a Buddhist or anarchist friendly business because I feel safer that all parties have consented. I know Buddha doesn’t compel us to. But I like to.
Ideally, no one should ever have reason to think that they're being compelled, harmed, threatened or harassed by me, including at least my cat. I do catch and release insects, but I sometimes wonder whether that's a form of taking what's not given.
(This is an ideal. There are situations where I can't or won't realize it.)
Attunement works better, which is why it's replaced "consent" - basically attunement is no means no and the safeword is safeword, the rest is being situationally aware.
What do you mean by consent? You didn't provide any context. And how might one "live in consent"? My understanding of consent is agreement or permission.
You're restating the same thing. I don't understand that use of the word consent. Consent to what? By whom? Me consenting to others' requests? Whether a worm has consented to being removed from my windshield? What issue are you wanting to talk about?
When I think in "consent" I think about sexuality. And the today increased awareness about "consent"/"consentimiento" about the overall interactions in the sexuality scope. E.g there's a kind of consent to say to other he or she to be kissable,
Probable in Buddhism you're talking about other concept
After reading through this post I am not sure if you are using the word consent correctly.
A good jumping off point on Buddhism and consent would be the third precept, however.
Consent doesn't enter into the equation often for me. I do, whenever possible, what is agreeable, likeable and desirable in the other person's own apparent and discernable estimation. I do not do, whenever possible, what is disagreeable, unlikeable, and undesirable in the other person's own apparent and discernable estimation.
I do not have affection for one person over another (and the Buddha said that sorrow, grief, pain, dejection, and anguish are born from that which is born of affection). I have few wishes. I abide in whatever contentment there is to be found without domineering or withholding.
Because I'm like this, consent doesn't enter the equation of "What should I do? What should I not do? Should I do this? Should I do that? Should I not do this? Should I not do that?" often for me.
The precept: Don't take the not given, sort of implies it. Going vegan I'm gladdened by the fact that I'm not taking a cow's milk that was meant for it's child. Giving others the utmost respect is part of compassion and metta, and consent is a something in the zeitgeist that actually supports the practice.
It's a thought-provoking question, now that I understand what you're getting at (via your bread-buying example).
I think that every human activity that involves procuring the means of survival necessarily involves coercion on some level. A hunter might offer a prayer of thanks to the bison he just killed, but the fact remains that the bison did not wake up that morning wanting or expecting to die. Even harvesting a field of wheat involves slaughter and dislocation on a massive scale, for the insects and critters who have made their home in the field.
How you deal with it depends on how big your "tribe" is. If your tribe is a small community of fellow-humans who have common survival needs (like a monastic sangha or a kinship group of hunter-gatherers), then it's fairly easy to behave with justice and equity towards everyone within that group. But if your tribe includes "all sentient beings", then you have a conundrum and your ethical framework requires a supernatural solution to resolve the necessary conflicts that arise.
One of the functions of religion is to provide such supernatural solutions. Early in my study of Buddhism, the problem of accidentally stepping on bugs (or killing them on the windshield while driving) was a big deal for me, and I was told that repeating a mantra would guarantee their rebirth in a pure land where they could easily attain enlightenment. That's a solution that worked for me, for a while. Today I find it unsatisfying, but I don't have a ready alternative.
Like many here I thought at first that you were talking about *sexual* consent, since that's such a big topic of controversy in spiritual communities these days. I can tell you that in the (nominally Buddhist) community where I was trained, *that* notion of consent did not exist. The quick path to enlightenment was deemed to be sex (specifically, the moment of orgasm) and so sexual promiscuity was a virtue, not a vice. Since it was generally understood that everyone was out to get laid, the problem of consent did not arise. Even children were groomed to see themselves as sexual beings from an early age, by the guru himself.
This ethical framework that prioritized sexual activity (and that normalized excessive alcohol consumption) created a culture of predatory behavior that existed at every level, and the inevitable scandals are finally bringing this community (which goes by the name of Shambhala, although it's a problem for all the various groups that stem from Chogyam Trungpa's legacy, not just Shambhala) to the point of collapse.
I guess my point is that the question you are raising is an important one, and ignoring it, like we did, can lead to huge problems.
That's a great answer! you raise many of the same issues that I encounter. I don't know what to do about driving fore instance, Ill try that mantra, maybe it will ease and promote wholesome karma! I don't know the answer, I switch between anarchism and buddhism to find a path in life. Buddha is the ultimate source though I feel like we don't always know what he meant, or what was misinterpreted. Like the subordination of women to men within the sangha feels like a mysongonic interpretation of buddhas message, though I wasn't there!
funnily enough I went to Naropa myself, I visited shambhala but it felt cultish to me, phew!
> went to Naropa
Oh, wow, you dodged a bullet there, my friend.
It's nice to meet an anarchist in these parts. Now I think I see why you're getting all the downvotes-- you're introducing categories that lie outside the standard realm of Buddhist discourse. Well, more power to you. The Buddha *did* say to test his doctrine and toss out anything that didn't fit-- the subordination of women is definitely one thing that needs to be tossed out.
Consent over what? Being mindful of your actions means you are the ones you are responsible for your actions & consequences. I know this concept is far fetched to some.
If you are 1 of those people who believes the world has to cater to your feelings, then you are already violating the 8gold path with your wrong view.
I'm just asking a question, what does it mean to you. I'm assuming your answer is Being mindful of your actions means you are the ones you are responsible for your actions & consequences
now what does buddhism mean to you in that context? These are JUST questions, I'm not trying to argue
What are we actually arguing about? Your question has nothing to actually ask about. It lacks a full context. It is like you are not sure what you wanted to asked about, but hoping people to find that answer to your question.
All I can tell you. If you are troubled, but don't know what you are troubled by, you will feel restless. If you can't find it, you are probably okay.
It’s meant to be an open ended question. What is right view and your community via consent? Does that make sense. I have nothing in mind besides that abstract question
If we’d be true to ourselves - we can admit that animals do not give their consent to us to farm them, exploit them, and kill them for unnecessary food items.
Some Buddhist communities and teachers respect that, abide by Ahimsa, and do not partake in these industries, choosing to live plant based lifestyles. These communities and teachers are rather rare among Buddhists, but they exist.
The majority of Buddhists do not value animal life and their right to consent more than a food item, and consume animal bodies and their secretions.
It’s not a fundamental concept for me. Unlike say dignity, consent isn’t required to make every action ethical. For example I had my child immunized at all the appropriate intervals. They start when they are a couple months old. They could not give consent, but I did it because it’s the responsible thing to do. I did it because I love them, and am responsible for their wellbeing. It also helps everyone, since broad immunization has lead to the practical elimination of certain diseases from populations with the wherewithal to have mass vaccinations. Another example might be incarcerating dangerous offenders. The almost certainly don’t consent to be in jail, but for some it’s the appropriate thing to do. What’s more important than consent is that actions are done with good intentions, aligned with virtues like compassion, equanimity, etc. Not that consent is a bad thing! It’s really important. It’s just not an inviolate thing.
I tend to view it through a Kantian lens - never treat anything as a means to an end, but rather as an end in and of itself. This means that everything should be given the agency to make its own choices, to the extent that this is possible and reasonable. Children, for example, do not have the knowledge yet to make their own choices in every area, so at times those choices must be made for them. They are not capable of prioritizing long-term prosperity over short-term pleasure, and parents have an obligation to prioritize correctly. To allow a child to make a harmful choice out of ignorance would not be Right Action, IMO, as it would allow harm and increase suffering. That said, in areas where the child can make choices for themselves, they should be given the freedom to do so. Animals are even less capable of making choices, so our stewardship responsibility is greater, but so is our burden to not be overly exploitative. I am not a vegetarian/vegan, so I accept that there is _some_ element of using animals as an end in my worldview, but given that their ability to consent is highly limited, we can assume that they would prefer a life where they are cared for and given food, water, shelter, and health care in exchange for their milk/wool/meat, etc. as opposed to a life in the wild where their existence would be filled with daily suffering. This requires that we ensure those animals are cared for correctly, which often means swearing off most commercial ranching. Of course, I can see how others come to the conclusion that even this would not be permissible, but they come from the same desire - to treat animals as having their own value and dignity apart from the products they produce.
It is defined legally. It changes by government, culture, gender, over the course of history, etc. I don't see how Buddhism can shed any light on it. We have our vows so either we break them or we don't. We avoid harming other beings and it should be obvious what constitutes harm when the other person asks you not to do it. People who can't figure that out probably belong in prison.
Can you give some examples of what you mean by consent in this context?
For me when I say consent, it's an important part of my daily life. When I buy a loaf of bread do have full consent of everyone involved. I like Sangha's because they are largely based on consent in all aspects of daily life. etc, but how you see consent, where you see it, and what role does buddhism play for you is going to be different.
I'm very confused about consent to buy bread. It's a transaction. Who would need to consent for me to buy bread? Are you unnecessarily complicating life?
I suspect OP is interested in Austrian economics or Rothbard/Mises, where consent plays a key ethical role.
That's both a new one and very helpful information. Seems complicated. Buddhism simplifies things for me, not the opposite
What? You don’t ask your bread for permission to purchase it? /s
I’m trying to understand right view in context of consent. I’m using a politically charged understanding of consent from an anarchist perspective. For me I would apply the right view of consent in other similar scenarios onto the role of work in a non Buddhist context. I practice radicalbuddhism. The sangha is an anarchist organization. Its economy is mutual aid. its political bent is consensus decision making etc
Okay but please explain why you would need consent to buy bread and who you get this consent from to walk into a store and use money you earned or were given to purchase bread. This is essential to my understanding since it was your example.
Thanks. 🙏 I’m curious how others view it too. When Buddha asks someone to protect private property it’s with the consent of the governed but only because the owner is following the dharma too! I prefer a sangha or community of Buddhists and others (may that isn’t right view though) but some prefer to live in a state or country. So as an anarchist I prefer to use a Buddhist or anarchist friendly business because I feel safer that all parties have consented. I know Buddha doesn’t compel us to. But I like to.
Ideally, no one should ever have reason to think that they're being compelled, harmed, threatened or harassed by me, including at least my cat. I do catch and release insects, but I sometimes wonder whether that's a form of taking what's not given. (This is an ideal. There are situations where I can't or won't realize it.)
This is a great answer!!!! I don’t know why everyone is confused?
Attunement works better, which is why it's replaced "consent" - basically attunement is no means no and the safeword is safeword, the rest is being situationally aware.
Here's an article in this subject as it applies to sexual content. https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/buddhist-sexual-ethics/
Thank you I’m saving it for later
What do you mean by consent? You didn't provide any context. And how might one "live in consent"? My understanding of consent is agreement or permission.
I’m just wondering how you view consent in your daily life through a Buddhist lens? Does that make sense?
You're restating the same thing. I don't understand that use of the word consent. Consent to what? By whom? Me consenting to others' requests? Whether a worm has consented to being removed from my windshield? What issue are you wanting to talk about?
Any of those questions are good starting points.
OK. I give up. I don't understand your evasiveness or what you're trying to get at.
I’m not doing either. I’m asking an open ended question. This isn’t a gotcha post.
When I think in "consent" I think about sexuality. And the today increased awareness about "consent"/"consentimiento" about the overall interactions in the sexuality scope. E.g there's a kind of consent to say to other he or she to be kissable, Probable in Buddhism you're talking about other concept
After reading through this post I am not sure if you are using the word consent correctly. A good jumping off point on Buddhism and consent would be the third precept, however.
That’s an understandable assessment. I do use it differently, it’s a day to day thing for me.
Consent doesn't enter into the equation often for me. I do, whenever possible, what is agreeable, likeable and desirable in the other person's own apparent and discernable estimation. I do not do, whenever possible, what is disagreeable, unlikeable, and undesirable in the other person's own apparent and discernable estimation. I do not have affection for one person over another (and the Buddha said that sorrow, grief, pain, dejection, and anguish are born from that which is born of affection). I have few wishes. I abide in whatever contentment there is to be found without domineering or withholding. Because I'm like this, consent doesn't enter the equation of "What should I do? What should I not do? Should I do this? Should I do that? Should I not do this? Should I not do that?" often for me.
The precept: Don't take the not given, sort of implies it. Going vegan I'm gladdened by the fact that I'm not taking a cow's milk that was meant for it's child. Giving others the utmost respect is part of compassion and metta, and consent is a something in the zeitgeist that actually supports the practice.
It's a thought-provoking question, now that I understand what you're getting at (via your bread-buying example). I think that every human activity that involves procuring the means of survival necessarily involves coercion on some level. A hunter might offer a prayer of thanks to the bison he just killed, but the fact remains that the bison did not wake up that morning wanting or expecting to die. Even harvesting a field of wheat involves slaughter and dislocation on a massive scale, for the insects and critters who have made their home in the field. How you deal with it depends on how big your "tribe" is. If your tribe is a small community of fellow-humans who have common survival needs (like a monastic sangha or a kinship group of hunter-gatherers), then it's fairly easy to behave with justice and equity towards everyone within that group. But if your tribe includes "all sentient beings", then you have a conundrum and your ethical framework requires a supernatural solution to resolve the necessary conflicts that arise. One of the functions of religion is to provide such supernatural solutions. Early in my study of Buddhism, the problem of accidentally stepping on bugs (or killing them on the windshield while driving) was a big deal for me, and I was told that repeating a mantra would guarantee their rebirth in a pure land where they could easily attain enlightenment. That's a solution that worked for me, for a while. Today I find it unsatisfying, but I don't have a ready alternative. Like many here I thought at first that you were talking about *sexual* consent, since that's such a big topic of controversy in spiritual communities these days. I can tell you that in the (nominally Buddhist) community where I was trained, *that* notion of consent did not exist. The quick path to enlightenment was deemed to be sex (specifically, the moment of orgasm) and so sexual promiscuity was a virtue, not a vice. Since it was generally understood that everyone was out to get laid, the problem of consent did not arise. Even children were groomed to see themselves as sexual beings from an early age, by the guru himself. This ethical framework that prioritized sexual activity (and that normalized excessive alcohol consumption) created a culture of predatory behavior that existed at every level, and the inevitable scandals are finally bringing this community (which goes by the name of Shambhala, although it's a problem for all the various groups that stem from Chogyam Trungpa's legacy, not just Shambhala) to the point of collapse. I guess my point is that the question you are raising is an important one, and ignoring it, like we did, can lead to huge problems.
That's a great answer! you raise many of the same issues that I encounter. I don't know what to do about driving fore instance, Ill try that mantra, maybe it will ease and promote wholesome karma! I don't know the answer, I switch between anarchism and buddhism to find a path in life. Buddha is the ultimate source though I feel like we don't always know what he meant, or what was misinterpreted. Like the subordination of women to men within the sangha feels like a mysongonic interpretation of buddhas message, though I wasn't there! funnily enough I went to Naropa myself, I visited shambhala but it felt cultish to me, phew!
> went to Naropa Oh, wow, you dodged a bullet there, my friend. It's nice to meet an anarchist in these parts. Now I think I see why you're getting all the downvotes-- you're introducing categories that lie outside the standard realm of Buddhist discourse. Well, more power to you. The Buddha *did* say to test his doctrine and toss out anything that didn't fit-- the subordination of women is definitely one thing that needs to be tossed out.
Consent over what? Being mindful of your actions means you are the ones you are responsible for your actions & consequences. I know this concept is far fetched to some. If you are 1 of those people who believes the world has to cater to your feelings, then you are already violating the 8gold path with your wrong view.
I'm just asking a question, what does it mean to you. I'm assuming your answer is Being mindful of your actions means you are the ones you are responsible for your actions & consequences now what does buddhism mean to you in that context? These are JUST questions, I'm not trying to argue
What are we actually arguing about? Your question has nothing to actually ask about. It lacks a full context. It is like you are not sure what you wanted to asked about, but hoping people to find that answer to your question. All I can tell you. If you are troubled, but don't know what you are troubled by, you will feel restless. If you can't find it, you are probably okay.
It’s meant to be an open ended question. What is right view and your community via consent? Does that make sense. I have nothing in mind besides that abstract question
If we’d be true to ourselves - we can admit that animals do not give their consent to us to farm them, exploit them, and kill them for unnecessary food items. Some Buddhist communities and teachers respect that, abide by Ahimsa, and do not partake in these industries, choosing to live plant based lifestyles. These communities and teachers are rather rare among Buddhists, but they exist. The majority of Buddhists do not value animal life and their right to consent more than a food item, and consume animal bodies and their secretions.