That's a good point and I agree. But since Daniel is new to Buddhism we want to cover other bases on how Kamma affects one's rebirth and potential event in one's own life, but although that is very difficult to determine as you pointed out unless one is awaken like the Buddha himself. I agree that one should not dwell in understanding how kamma affects future life or how past kamma affects present for it is unproductive.Kenshou wrote:I'll say this: I can understand that kamma (that is, intentional action) can have an effect on the physical world in that the actions that we do effect the web of causality of the world as a whole, and then some way, the potential for an action to be the cause for a later occurrence in the physical world is there. This possibility shouldn't be ignored, however there are many many other influences and things going on in the world that influence what happens to us, not just our actions, and so attributing this or that specific event/result to one's kamma, unless you've got the supposed psychic ability to determine such a thing, is likely an act of speculation and not really good for anything.
So I think it's better to focus on the internal, metal cause and effect, which we can come to know quite well, and then if we are focused on wholesome action for that reason, the external influence of kamma will be good anyway, whatever the external fruits of kamma happen to be.
About not kill any living being
Re: About not kill any living being
Re: About not kill any living being
Hello Friend,_Daniel_ wrote:Hello,
I am agnostic, and I am studying buddhism, because I think that it is a interesting religion/philosophy, and I would like do a approach to it. I have a question about the importance of not kill any living being. For example, if I am sleeping, and there are a lot of mosquitoes in the room trying to bite me, cant I kill them? It is survival, I dont want kill them, but they are attacking me.
Thank You.
The problem is not the survival. The problem is the rage involved with this act and the privation of others beings life.
If you don't have any health problem in the bite of mosquitoes, why not give some food with them? Be genereous with them...
Hey! I'm kidding!
Instead of killing there is many ways to prevent them bite you. Repelents, nets, etc.
Take care friend.
Re: About not kill any living being
As I understand the Buddha teachings, a wise person who abhors suffering and desires peace would not try to kill the hungry lion with the pistol._Daniel_ wrote:If I have a pistol and there is a hungry lion in front of me ready to attack me, I shouldnt use the pistol?
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." - MN 21
Yes, Buddha taught of hells and heavens and other places too._Daniel_ wrote:the hell?? I never have heard that buddhist believe in a hell.
"I have seen beings who — endowed with bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct; who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — at the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell." - Iti 70
You would only get kamma from that if a] you knew how the insect would be reborn (which you don't) and b] your intention was to send it to that realm (which it isn't). Let's face it, your intention is to rid yourself of an annoyance._Daniel_ wrote:perhaps after I killed the mosquito, it now can reincarnate in a human or other better living form. Then I could have done a favour him and I should get better karma, isnt it?
- Peter
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Re: About not kill any living being
Nope. Youc killed him and took his life away._Daniel_ wrote:Then I could have done a favour him and I should get better karma, isnt it?
Kevin
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27854
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: About not kill any living being
Greetings Virgo,
(Accepting the commentarial Theravada account for the sake of argument...) Wouldn't this event have triggered rebirth consciousness and in turn, the first moment of consciousness in a new psycho-physical organism? If the so-called "stream of consciousness" is not destroyed, then what has really been "killed"? What "life" was taken away?
Metta,
Retro.
I realise this the Discovering Theravada, so I don't want to go too deeply into this, but what is the "him" that was killed?Virgo wrote:Nope. Youc killed him and took his life away.
(Accepting the commentarial Theravada account for the sake of argument...) Wouldn't this event have triggered rebirth consciousness and in turn, the first moment of consciousness in a new psycho-physical organism? If the so-called "stream of consciousness" is not destroyed, then what has really been "killed"? What "life" was taken away?
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."
Re: About not kill any living being
Retro, technically you are right, but we are just speaking conventionally here. No being dies because their is not a "being" there. Also, some entity does not completely cease because there is rebirth. But speaking conventionally, we can say that a mosquito gets killed. I think that is all that is being done here, ie speaking conventionally.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Virgo,
I realise this the Discovering Theravada, so I don't want to go too deeply into this, but what is the "him" that was killed?Virgo wrote:Nope. Youc killed him and took his life away.
(Accepting the commentarial Theravada account for the sake of argument...) Wouldn't this event have triggered rebirth consciousness and in turn, the first moment of consciousness in a new psycho-physical organism? If the so-called "stream of consciousness" is not destroyed, then what has really been "killed"? What "life" was taken away?
Metta,
Retro.
All the best,
Kevin
Re: About not kill any living being
Hello all,
In order for the act of killing to bring akusala kamma, there has to be the intention to kill another ‘being’. The act itself requires dosa ~ whether it is irritation towards a mosquito or termite, or murderous rage towards a hated person. It is the kammic accumulation of dosa (maybe from one horrendous act, or from 200 small acts) which may surface at the time of death and influence the place and form of rebirth. (Additionally, the being who was killed, is also receiving the results of previous kamma.)
With metta
Chris
In order for the act of killing to bring akusala kamma, there has to be the intention to kill another ‘being’. The act itself requires dosa ~ whether it is irritation towards a mosquito or termite, or murderous rage towards a hated person. It is the kammic accumulation of dosa (maybe from one horrendous act, or from 200 small acts) which may surface at the time of death and influence the place and form of rebirth. (Additionally, the being who was killed, is also receiving the results of previous kamma.)
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 ---
---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 ---
Re: About not kill any living being
cooran has summarize it already but here's a "cut & paste" from buddhanet
Q>But surely it is good to kill sometimes. To kill disease-spreading insects, for example, or someone who is going to kill you?
A>It might be good for you but what about that thing or that person? They wish to live just as you do. When you decide to kill a disease-spreading insect, your intention is perhaps a mixture of self-concern (good) and revulsion (bad). The act will benefit yourself (good) but obviously it will not benefit that creature (bad). So at times it may be necessary to kill but it is never wholly good.
Q>You Buddhists are too concerned about ants and bugs.
A>Buddhists strive to develop a compassion that is undiscriminating and all-embracing. They see the world as a unified whole where each thing or creature has its place and function. They believe that before we destroy or upset nature's delicate balance, we should be very careful. Just look at those cultures where emphasis is on exploiting nature to the full, squeezing every last drop out of it without putting anything back, on conquering and subduing it. Nature has revolted. The very air is becoming poisoned, the rivers are polluted and dead, so many beautiful animal species are extinct, the slopes of the mountains are barren and eroded. Even the climate is changing. If people were a little less anxious to crush, destroy and kill, this terrible situation may not have arisen. We should all strive to develop a little more respect for life. And this is what the first precept is saying.
This is why the Buddha wants us all the train our mindfulness. When our mindfulness is strong, we will not be so defensive and react in the wrong way.
Q>But surely it is good to kill sometimes. To kill disease-spreading insects, for example, or someone who is going to kill you?
A>It might be good for you but what about that thing or that person? They wish to live just as you do. When you decide to kill a disease-spreading insect, your intention is perhaps a mixture of self-concern (good) and revulsion (bad). The act will benefit yourself (good) but obviously it will not benefit that creature (bad). So at times it may be necessary to kill but it is never wholly good.
Q>You Buddhists are too concerned about ants and bugs.
A>Buddhists strive to develop a compassion that is undiscriminating and all-embracing. They see the world as a unified whole where each thing or creature has its place and function. They believe that before we destroy or upset nature's delicate balance, we should be very careful. Just look at those cultures where emphasis is on exploiting nature to the full, squeezing every last drop out of it without putting anything back, on conquering and subduing it. Nature has revolted. The very air is becoming poisoned, the rivers are polluted and dead, so many beautiful animal species are extinct, the slopes of the mountains are barren and eroded. Even the climate is changing. If people were a little less anxious to crush, destroy and kill, this terrible situation may not have arisen. We should all strive to develop a little more respect for life. And this is what the first precept is saying.
This is why the Buddha wants us all the train our mindfulness. When our mindfulness is strong, we will not be so defensive and react in the wrong way.
~ swimming upstream is tough work! ~
Re: About not kill any living being
The mosquito.retrofuturist wrote:what is the "him" that was killed?Virgo wrote:Nope. Youc killed him and took his life away.
Unless the mosquito had attained arahantship, yes.Wouldn't this event have triggered rebirth consciousness and in turn, the first moment of consciousness in a new psycho-physical organism?
The mosquito.If the so-called "stream of consciousness" is not destroyed, then what has really been "killed"?
The mosquito's.What "life" was taken away?
I'm not sure why you are attempting to complicate the uncomplicated.
- Peter
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Re: About not kill any living being
As I have learned it, the teachings on anatta do not invalidate the teachings on virtue.
- Peter
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Re: About not kill any living being
Clearly. And furthermore, the Buddha warned about over-interpretation of not-self here:Peter wrote:As I have learned it, the teachings on anatta do not invalidate the teachings on virtue.
MN 109 Maha-punnama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MikeNow at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"
Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27854
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: About not kill any living being
Greetings,
Kamma can neither be tricked by strange arguments nor putthujana conventions.
Kamma is action, committed by mind, body and speech. It may be wholesome or unwholesome depending upon the mindstate in which it is rooted.
Metta,
Retro.
What a strange argument.MN 109 wrote:'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?'
Kamma can neither be tricked by strange arguments nor putthujana conventions.
Kamma is action, committed by mind, body and speech. It may be wholesome or unwholesome depending upon the mindstate in which it is rooted.
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."
Re: About not kill any living being
Having had that experience this night, a mosquito in my bedroom was trying to bite me and my wife, I can tell that killing is not the only solution. What I do is I use a glass cup to trap the mosquito on the wall, slide a piece of paper between the cup and the wall, and with the paper trapping the mosquito inside the glass I take it outside and let it go._Daniel_ wrote:Hello,
I am agnostic, and I am studying buddhism, because I think that it is a interesting religion/philosophy, and I would like do a approach to it. I have a question about the importance of not kill any living being. For example, if I am sleeping, and there are a lot of mosquitoes in the room trying to bite me, cant I kill them? It is survival, I dont want kill them, but they are attacking me.
Thank You.
I see two main reasons for not killing:
1 - Killing, namely squashing a mosquito or using chemicals to poison him, is a violent action that causes physical pain to the mosquito and leads him to the suffering of being reborn and having to experience all the difficulties of growing up once more.
2 - If you look at the mind moments that preceded the act of killing, and the mind moments that accompanied the act of killing, you will be able to identify different feelings and thoughts. For example the desire to get rid of the annoying bug or the desire to punish the !"!#"$!"% mosquito how deserves to die. In the latter there is anger and a desire to do harm and induce pain on the mosquito as a form of punishment, these are negative thoughts that have negative consequences on your mind and body.
With Metta
Re: About not kill any living being
Hi Retro,
Mike
Quite. Unfortunately, it seems like a rather common mistake to try to use teachings such as anatta to argue with conventional statements such as "killing living beings".retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
What a strange argument.MN 109 wrote:'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?'
Kamma can neither be tricked by strange arguments nor putthujana conventions.
Kamma is action, committed by mind, body and speech. It may be wholesome or unwholesome depending upon the mindstate in which it is rooted.
Metta,
Retro.
Mike
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27854
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: About not kill any living being
Greetings Mike,
I suspect you think I'm trying to make a point that I'm not.
My point is that the instruction regarding "not killing" is a training precept, designed to protect and benefit the person who takes it. The benefit to others (e.g. that "creature" not "deprived" of "its life", as if a life were one's property) is an indirect, rather than a direct consequence.
If others' benefit were fore in this, the Buddha would have told kings not to ride on chariots lest they inadvertently crush insects and people would be told to mindfully avoid stepping on insects wherever they go. In essence, they would have become like the Jains. The Buddha would also have condemned meat-eating, like the Mahayana Buddha did. People would be anxious and terrified to walk, eat, drink, breathe, or build a home, lest they damage another sentient creature and freak themselves out at the thought of being thrust into Virgo Hell for kappa. However, the Buddha didn't kick up a fuss about insects... in fact, compared to the attention the subject gets nowadays he was conspicuously silent on the matter. What he did say though was "do not kill", because that protects the mind from hate and aversion, and in turn from creating bad kamma. When one protects oneself they protect others - consider the simile of the acrobats.
The fact an ant is deprived of its life if you accidentally step on it is not relevant to the pursuit of the Dhamma. Conventionally, you deprived the ant of its life, but that's by-the-by if there was no intentional to kill. Anyone who objects to this last statement might do well to consider Jainism, Mahayana or political activism as an alternative endeavour.
In conclusion, focusing on who (conventionally) has been deprived (conventionally) of what is to miss the point and be lulled into conventional legal-thinking which has no bearing on things as they really are. The point is about growth of wisdom and the purification of the mind.
Metta,
Retro.
I suspect you think I'm trying to make a point that I'm not.
My point is that the instruction regarding "not killing" is a training precept, designed to protect and benefit the person who takes it. The benefit to others (e.g. that "creature" not "deprived" of "its life", as if a life were one's property) is an indirect, rather than a direct consequence.
If others' benefit were fore in this, the Buddha would have told kings not to ride on chariots lest they inadvertently crush insects and people would be told to mindfully avoid stepping on insects wherever they go. In essence, they would have become like the Jains. The Buddha would also have condemned meat-eating, like the Mahayana Buddha did. People would be anxious and terrified to walk, eat, drink, breathe, or build a home, lest they damage another sentient creature and freak themselves out at the thought of being thrust into Virgo Hell for kappa. However, the Buddha didn't kick up a fuss about insects... in fact, compared to the attention the subject gets nowadays he was conspicuously silent on the matter. What he did say though was "do not kill", because that protects the mind from hate and aversion, and in turn from creating bad kamma. When one protects oneself they protect others - consider the simile of the acrobats.
The fact an ant is deprived of its life if you accidentally step on it is not relevant to the pursuit of the Dhamma. Conventionally, you deprived the ant of its life, but that's by-the-by if there was no intentional to kill. Anyone who objects to this last statement might do well to consider Jainism, Mahayana or political activism as an alternative endeavour.
In conclusion, focusing on who (conventionally) has been deprived (conventionally) of what is to miss the point and be lulled into conventional legal-thinking which has no bearing on things as they really are. The point is about growth of wisdom and the purification of the mind.
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."