Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by Fede »

cooran wrote:......it is not mice or rats which I catch in a non-harming trap and release a couple of kilometres away in bushland near a creek - it is Termites/borers in the roof timbers.

with metta
Chris
Chris, if it's any consolation, A Buddhist Monastery in the USA had an infestation of cockroaches which they eventually had to eliminate by calling a company of exterminators to do it.
They ruminated, meditated, and sought counsel from their 'Mother Monastery' before they did so. But in the end, it was their only option.
I can't give more detail, but I know I read it in one of Lama Surya Das' Awakening trilogy books..... (not everyone's cup of tea, but he has his good points!)
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by chownah »

We have alot of termites in Thailand and what they do here is to remove the infested wood and then maybe spray the remaining wood in the vicinity and replace what was removed sometimes with treated wood....treated wood doesn't kill termites...they know from the flavor to not eat it I think........using treated wood is prevention in that you will not get the infestation so no need to kill. Ground floors are all concrete and the soil is treated with poison before the concrete floor is poured...again this keeps the bugs out so it is prevention...at least I think this is how it works...
chownah
Moggalana
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:31 am
Location: Germany

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by Moggalana »

acinteyyo wrote:Did someone ever thought about that it's not so much about whether or not a "being" suffers from being killed but rather that it is about (the killer who's going to suffer because of) the state of mind which happens to be when the intentional act of killing is carried out? Maybe what should be considered killing does not depend on WHAT will be killed but whether or not there is the intention of killing whatsoever... know what I'm trying to say?

best wishes, acinteyyo
A very important point!
Bhante Dhammika wrote: The Buddha says: ‘I say that intention is kamma, because having first intended one acts with body, speech or mind’ (A.III,415). According to the Buddha, every intentional action modifies our consciousness, thus building our character and thereby influencing our behaviour, our experience and consequently our destiny. Positive intentional actions (motivated by generosity, love and wisdom) tend towards consequences that are experienced as positive while intentional negative actions (motivated by greed, hatred and delusion) tend towards consequences that are experienced as negative.
Kamma and Natural Disasters 3
Let it come. Let it be. Let it go.
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by whynotme »

acinteyyo wrote:Did someone ever thought about that it's not so much about whether or not a "being" suffers from being killed but rather that it is about (the killer who's going to suffer because of) the state of mind which happens to be when the intentional act of killing is carried out? Maybe what should be considered killing does not depend on WHAT will be killed but whether or not there is the intention of killing whatsoever... know what I'm trying to say?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thank you acinteyyo for pointing it out,
Yes I agree that intention is thing determines killing.
But it is not like that, it is about don't want to harm other. When I have doubts, by doing this action, do I harm anyone? And I cannot have doubt then ignore it, by doing this or that maybe I would kill someone then still do it.

Like one could closed his eyes then he will not have bad intention, but I think that isn't the way the Buddha taught us. The Buddha taught about facing it with knowledge, not trying to evade our problems. By evade problems, we could have temporary peace, but we lose wisdom, while wisdom (panna) is the most important attribute.

Here is an example, a monk built a small house by using clay then heat it to porcelain. The Buddha commanded other monks destroy it because that action could harm small beings. The monk made porcelain didn't have intention to kill, but that action isn't allowable. We could still keep our eyes closed and trying to not know that our actions could harm other or not.
TMingyur wrote: Principally there is no "absolution" through opinions of others. It is just about cause and effect. It is not about morality of a kind of "you must not do this or that" or "it is forbidden because the Buddha said this or that". Often people are asking others "what do you think?" but that is of no avail. Why? Because in case of conflict the answer can only be found through "investigating into oneself".
I don't agree with you.

Technically, what you said is right, but the problem is that most of us don't have the wisdom to investigating into oneslf so we must based on the Buddha's teachings or sometimes others' opinions. For me, "it is forbidden because the Buddha said this or that" is true. If the Buddha didn't allow, I am satisfy with it. I lay down my life on his teachings.

Did you read patimokkha? If you did then you would know that if the Buddha didn't allow one thing, it isn't just because "investigating into oneself" is enough, because sometimes arahants did things then the Buddha forbid it. Not because of oneself, but because of others' sake and believe,..

Regards
Please stop following me
User avatar
rhinoceroshorn
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri May 01, 2020 7:27 pm

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by rhinoceroshorn »

acinteyyo wrote: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:45 pm Did someone ever thought about that it's not so much about whether or not a "being" suffers from being killed but rather that it is about (the killer who's going to suffer because of) the state of mind which happens to be when the intentional act of killing is carried out? Maybe what should be considered killing does not depend on WHAT will be killed but whether or not there is the intention of killing whatsoever... know what I'm trying to say?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Yes. I think that's why there is a Vinaya rule against harming plants despite they are not sentient beings.
Your state of mind matters more than the act per se. This is one of the major differences between Buddhism and Jainism, by the way. Buddhism attacks the root of the action (mind), while Jains wrongly attack the results of the workings of mind.
Eyes downcast, not footloose,
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing — not burning — with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Sutta Nipāta 1.3 - Khaggavisana Sutta
Image
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Dīgha Nikāya 17
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by Mahabrahma »

No one would sanely argue that what anything which we as human beings consider alive isn't actually alive. Bugs, trees, mammals, viruses, bacteria, etc are all alive, and taking their life would be technically considered killing because these are all living beings even by the simple fact that we understand them as such. That is the simple truth.

The precept against killing is a practical guideline by which humans can go by, but understand that even when you are biting into a piece of living lettuce you are sending the consciousness within the cells to it's next life. So I personally believe breaking the precept constitutes the wrongful taking of life, as a crime, a sin, or transgression of any sort. The precept means we should not wrongfully take anyone's life, and what isn't wrong? Goodness, goodness and purity are not wrong so if one is always acting on Metta, they will be doing the right thing. I strongly believe in the importance of monastic vows on not taking life, and to them this means nearly any life, animal, plant, human, insect, and bacterial except for the most essential necessity for food and practical life, and I fully believe this is a perfect Way to live.

Also, I believe when people break a precept they should admit it, instead of thinking of saying a precept is not a precept or is not based on this or that. If we all work together to be honest with ourselves and each other, then as Buddhists we will be growing and improving in Spiritual Life, creating a stronger Sangha, and that is the purpose and goal.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6250
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by confusedlayman »

the things u can kill

tendency to kill

tendency to lie, steal, xx misconduct, alcohol

greed, hate, delusion
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Post Reply