Are killing trees bad Kamma?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
SarathW
Posts: 21242
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by SarathW »

Are killing trees bad Kamma?
I just wonder whether killing a tree or picking a fruit from a tree is unwholesome Kamma.
I think above actions are carried out with attachment or aversion.
Eating food with attachment could be a bad kamma too.

I know Vinaya prohibit monks killing trees or picking fruit from a tree.
This rule does not apply to lay people but it may be a rebirth making activity.
if I pick a fruit from a tree and offer to someone it may be a wholesome Kamma.

I like to know your opinion.
If you agree, what is the most practical way to overcome this. (We need trees and food to make a living)

:thinking:

This question came to me after seen the following post.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 37#p284589
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17192
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by DNS »

Not sure about the killing of a tree (for lay people), but it is definitely okay to eat the fruit. Vegans have to eat something. :tongue:

The trees have evolved to produce fruit for the survival of the species. An animal eats the fruit, defecates some place which seeds a new tree.

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.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
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.
I guess it depends on the intention, doesn't it? Specifically, the intention that one brings to the activity as it is done.

Cetana (intention) = kamma!

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by fivebells »

SarathW wrote:Are killing trees bad Kamma?
Don't know about you, but if I ever met a killing tree I would definitely regard it as bad karma. :)
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by culaavuso »

A few points worth considering:

The Vinaya uses a Pali term for living plants that literally means "home of a being", with elaboration in the sub-commentary. Although the word for being in this context bhūta is different from another word often translated as "being", satta. In the context of the five precepts (such as AN 8.39: Abhisanda Sutta) the word satta is used for being.
[url=http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Buddhist_Monastic_Code_1.pdf]Buddhist Monastic Code vol. 1[/url] (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.
The Dhammapada refers to the ending of the cycle of rebirth as "not building a house again" (although this uses the Pali words gaha and geha for house, rather than gāma from the passage above)
Dhp 11 (153-154) wrote: Through the round of many births I roamed
without reward,
without rest,
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.
Without killing animals or eating plants, there would be nothing left to eat. This makes it somewhat impractical to prohibit eating plants. However, it's also worth considering that the suttas recommend considering eating any food to be similar to a parent forced to eat the flesh of their only child for survival. This is consistent with the idea of eating being necessary for survival but harming plants also being undesirable.
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?"

"No, lord."

"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through that desert?"

"Yes, lord."

"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.
It's also interesting to note that killing an animal and destroying plant life are both offenses of confession (pācittiya 11 and pācittiya 61) while killing a human is an offense of defeat (pārājika 3).

The intention motivating the action and general state of mind has a significant part to play, too.
AN 6.63: Nibbedhika Sutta wrote: Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
SarathW
Posts: 21242
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by SarathW »

fivebells wrote:
SarathW wrote:Are killing trees bad Kamma?
Don't know about you, but if I ever met a killing tree I would definitely regard it as bad karma. :)
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14905
;)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by pegembara »

Killing lots of trees can cause this. Surely this cannot be considered making good kamma.

Image
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

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.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by lyndon taylor »

Actually I believe the scripture says intention is kamma, as in a form of kamma, as opposed to all kamma is intention, as in the only kind of kamma.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by cooran »

This might be of interest:

Questions on Kamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha057.htm

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by Zom »

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by seeker242 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

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.

Metta,
Retro. :)
You could say that. :anjali: But at the same time, if you already know full well that an action will have bad consequences, but you do it anyway, isn't that the definition of "making bad kamma", even though your intention in doing the action is good?

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?

Theoretically, if you go and kill 100 people, just as long as you have good intentions, this means it does not make bad kamma? I don't see how that could be the case! Now you could say that if you did not intend to kill anyone, and it was really just an accident, you could say it does not make bad kamma because you did not have the intention to kill. However, what if one's intention to kill is considered by the person to be a good intention? Is intention really everything?

How does this Kamma = intention reconcile with actions that are simply born of say greed? People don't generally make a conscious choice to be a greedy person, it's just something they do because greed is in their mind. I doubt anyone wakes up in the morning and says "Well, today I'm going to be greedy! In other words, there is no real intention to be greedy, but acting out of greed does make bad kamma. This seems to me to take intention out of the picture, does it not?

:anjali:
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by lyndon taylor »

I don't see anywhere in the buddhist scripture where it says that Kamma=intention, thats a fundamental misunderstanding, intention is a form of kamma, but kamma is not only intention, its much more than that.

For instance we might say the walking is a form of transportation, but that does not meant all forms of transportation involve walking.

Also the quote about intention being kamma seems to be more in the vein of intention leading to action is kamma, rather than intention with no action whatsoever is kamma. see the link Cooran posted above.
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by daverupa »

lyndon taylor wrote:I don't see anywhere in the buddhist scripture where it says that Kamma=intention
Well...
AN 6.63 wrote:"Intention, I tell you, is kamma.
So there can be an intent of greed if I say "Ooh, I want that chocolate ice cream!" - I'm not intending to be greedy, but I have an intent that's rooted in greed.

The interactions between various fabrications and these roots & their opposites is discussed at AN 3.69.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Are killing trees bad Kamma?

Post by lyndon taylor »

We seem to be having some problems with grammar, if I say red is colour, that does not mean colour is red, only, or colour=red, if I say humans are animals, that does not mean animals are human, only, or that animals=humans. likewise if we say intention(and remember intention seems to imply resulting action in the passages) is kamma, that does not mean that kamma is intention, only, or that kamma=intention.

Equal means the same as or identical to, not a form of or part of, intention is not the same as or identical to kamma, intention is a form of or part of kamma.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
Post Reply