You can sacrifice a chicken to Kali with good intentions, but it is still unwholesome because it is conditioned by ignorance. You are directly causing harm to another being, thinking it is a good act. This is action motivated by wrong view.Dennenappelmoes wrote:So then, what if you encourage this with good intentions?Indrajala wrote: So, encouraging a woman to get an abortion and them going through with it as a result would constitute a violation of the precept, even though you personally did not carry out the deed yourself.
It all comes down to your intent.
The 1st precept
Re: The 1st precept
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: The 1st precept
Hi Modus.Ponens
but also hiring an assasin or talking another into committing the act is full offence for you. similare to how an executioner is not guilty of a crime and the King inherits the kammic fruit (simplified).
no. there are different levels of breaking the precepts. fulfilling one or more of the fulfilling factors but not all is still tarnishing the precept.Now is it only breaking the precept if the person whom you talk to about the advantages of death commits suicide?
Yes. life starts at conception in Buddhism.If I were to praise the advantages of abortion to a woman facing this choice, and she did made an abortion, would that be a breach of the precept?
but also hiring an assasin or talking another into committing the act is full offence for you. similare to how an executioner is not guilty of a crime and the King inherits the kammic fruit (simplified).
Yes. this would fulfill one or more of the factors so would tarnish the precept.Is it breaking the precept just to speak of the advantages of death without it having the consequence of someone dying?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill