David N. Snyder wrote:I suppose killing a tree with no practical purpose might be bad kamma, however, as lay people sometimes it needs to be done for building construction or if the roots are entering a house foundation, etc.
Buddhist Monastic Code vol. 1 (page 263) by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:The Pali term for living plant — bhūtagāma — literally means the home of a being. This the Sub-commentary explains by saying that devatās may take up residence in plants standing in place by means of a longing on which their consciousness fastens (at the end of their previous lives) as in a dream. This rule is justified, it says, in that the etiquette of a contemplative precludes doing harm to the abodes of living beings. As the origin story shows, though, the reason this rule was laid down in the first place was to prevent bhikkhus from offending people who held to the animist belief that regarded plants as one-facultied life having the sense of touch.
Dhp 11 (153-154) wrote:Through the round of many births I roamed
seeking the house-builder.
Painful is birth
again & again.
House-builder, you're seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole dismantled,
immersed in dismantling, the mind
has attained to the end of craving.
SN 12.63: Puttamansa Sutta wrote:"And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband & wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up & depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours, dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat & jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son? Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks: Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for putting on bulk, or for beautification?"
"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through that desert?"
"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this world.
AN 6.63: Nibbedhika Sutta wrote:Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
Not to seem a stick in the mud, but in Buddhism kamma = cetana = intention... it is not defined by whatever we decide "surely cannot be considered making good kamma".
To focus on the end result of the action rather than intention underlying it is the Jain way of looking at kamma.
lyndon taylor wrote:I don't see anywhere in the buddhist scripture where it says that Kamma=intention
AN 6.63 wrote:"Intention, I tell you, is kamma.
seeker242 wrote:You could also take that to the extreme and say "Well, I killed a person but my intentions were only good so it didn't make any bad kamma"? How can that be? You still killed someone?
Or, perhaps you could say that people are sometimes not even aware of what their intentions even are, and perhaps fool themselves into thinking they are good, when they actually aren't good?
daverupa wrote:The interactions between various fabrications and these roots & their opposites is discussed at AN 3.69.
lyndon taylor wrote:intention is a form of or part of kamma.
lyndon taylor wrote:I happen to see kamma as a force of nature, like gravity, far more than just psychological......
Plus the kamma=intention viewpoint does a really lousy job of explaining kamma acting upon you, without anything to do with your intentions.
Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu_Samahita, Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 39 guests