Theravada view vs secular view on killing

[Bundokji]

Is there a difference between the two?

[Mr. Seek]

Lay and especially monastic practitioners try to not kill plants and animals. Usually civilians don't care much about plant and animal life--and although that has been changing lately, I doubt that there are a lot of secular folks out there who think that killing an insect or plant on purpose is bad. There's also topics such as abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc., where traditional Theravada conflicts with secular, modern-day (and even olden day) values. I imagine that, for example, to some civilians, aborting is like popping a zit or getting your tooth fixed. The same can be said about killing animals and destroying plant life. Most civilians--secular, worldly people--don't give a damn about any of that stuff.

Or by secular do you mean Buddhist practicioners who practice in a more secular kind of way, versus ones that adhere to traditional Theravada? That's a complicated one; depends heavily on the secular person and what his interests are.

[Bundokji]

Or by secular do you mean Buddhist practicioners who practice in a more secular kind of way, versus ones that adhere to traditional Theravada? That's a complicated one; depends heavily on the secular person and what his interests are.

Secular tend to rely on reason as a universal tool of knowledge and ethics, while Theravada is doctrinal view that can be explained through reason, but in case of a contradiction, doctrine is of a higher authority than reason.

[cappuccino]

…

Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

Vipaka Sutta: Results

[Bundokji]

Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

Vipaka Sutta: Results

Thank you

In your understanding, the taking of life in the Buddha's teachings has exceptions? the examples that Mr Seek provided such as euthanasia and/or abortion are treated differently in the secular mindset. Would this be inline with the Buddha's teachings?

It seems intuitive to most people that euthanasia or killing an insect is not as bad as shooting someone in the street. Many Buddhists would agree that the karmic consequences of such actions, even if bad, would not and should not be equated with the intentional killing of another human.

[Ceisiwr]

Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

Vipaka Sutta: Results

Thank you

In your understanding, the taking of life in the Buddha's teachings has exceptions? the examples that Mr Seek provided such as euthanasia and/or abortion are treated differently in the secular mindset. Would this be inline with the Buddha's teachings?

It seems intuitive to most people that euthanasia or killing an insect is not as bad as shooting someone in the street. Many Buddhists would agree that the karmic consequences of such actions, even if bad, would not and should not be equated with the intentional killing of another human.

If you are asking for the Theravādin view, by which I mean that of the Abhidhamma and commentaries, it is impossible for killing to ever be wholesome as it’s always motivated by an unwholesome root in that system.

[SteRo]

Is there a difference between the two?

Yes. Religious theravada view has non-evident consequences of killing whereas secular consequences are evident and laid down in law.

[cappuccino]

has exceptions? such as euthanasia and/or abortion

either would cause eternal regret

[Bundokji]

If you are asking for the Theravādin view, by which I mean that of the Abhidhamma and commentaries, it is impossible for killing to ever be wholesome as it’s always motivated by an unwholesome root in that system.

Do the Abhidhamma and commentaries define life as a faculty in order to determine killing? such issues seem relevant to abortion for example where people argue about the point of time at which abortion becomes an act of killing.

I am asking to understand to what extent the elders addressed technicalities to determine right action, or if the unwholesomeness of killing in Theravada is rooted in the desire to annihilate regardless of the technicalities.

[Bundokji]

Yes. Religious theravada view has non-evident consequences of killing whereas secular consequences are evident and laid down in law.

Evidence is needed to organize behavior and to deter. I am not sure if the purpose of the doctrinal view is similar. The focus of the doctrinal view seems to be more concerned with the truth value of the law of kamma rather than its specific applications and implications.

[Ceisiwr]

[Do the Abhidhamma and commentaries define life as a faculty in order to determine killing? s

Yes. They recognise both a mental life faculty and a physical life faculty.

[Bundokji]

In the orthodox view, more attention is often paid to the vipaka of the killer. The act of killing is associated with being reborn in lower realms either in this life (ending up in jail or capital punishment) or the next.

How about the victim? If being killed is a vipaka for past action, would that enhance the chances of being reborn in a higher realm? this should provide some consolation to the family of the victim (in case of humans). More often than not, punishment of the wrong doer serves to ease the anger of the victims.

[Zenny]

In the orthodox view, more attention is often paid to the vipaka of the killer. The act of killing is associated with being reborn in lower realms either in this life (ending up in jail or capital punishment) or the next.

How about the victim? If being killed is a vipaka for past action, would that enhance the chances of being reborn in a higher realm? this should provide some consolation to the family of the victim (in case of humans). More often than not, punishment of the wrong doer serves to ease the anger of the victims.

So,if a person is killed its a cleansing for past Karma? An opportunity for rebirth in a better realm?
How can you learn from Karma if you can't even remember your alleged past crimes?

[Bundokji]

So,if a person is killed its a cleansing for past Karma? An opportunity for rebirth in a better realm?

It appears so considering that one main difference between the secular view and the orthodox view is the model of one life vs endless lives unless one escapes through Arahantship. Here, two examples might be relevant:

Then Venerable Aṅgulimāla robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, entered Sāvatthī for alms. Now at that time someone threw a stone that hit Aṅgulimāla, someone else threw a stick, and someone else threw gravel. Then Aṅgulimāla—with cracked head, bleeding, his bowl broken, and his outer robe torn—went to the Buddha.

The Buddha saw him coming off in the distance, and said to him, “Endure it, brahmin! Endure it, brahmin! You’re experiencing in this life the result of deeds that might have caused you to be tormented in hell for many years, many hundreds or thousands of years.”

So, kamma seems to be a moral law that persists even for Arahant. One difference between Arahants and Buddha is that a Buddha cannot be killed, but can be injured:

At that time, Maha-Moggallana lived alone in a forest hut at Kalasila. After his encounter with Mara he knew that the end of his days was near. Having enjoyed the bliss of liberation, he now felt the body to be just an obstruction and burden. Hence he had no desire to make use of his faculties and keep the body alive for the rest of the aeon. Yet, when he saw the brigands approaching, he just absented himself by using his supernormal powers. The gangsters arrived at an empty hut, and though they searched everywhere, could not find him. They left disappointed, but returned on the following day. On six consecutive days Moggallana escaped from them in the same way. His motivation was not the protection of his own body, but saving the brigands from the fearsome karmic consequences of such a murderous deed, necessarily leading to rebirth in the hells. He wanted to spare them such a fate by giving them time to reconsider and abstain from their crime. But their greed for the promised money was so great that they persisted and returned even on the seventh day. Then their persistence was "rewarded," for on that seventh day Moggallana suddenly lost the magic control over his body. A heinous deed committed in days long past (by causing the death of his own parents) had not yet been expiated, and the ripening of that old Kamma confronted him now, just as others are suddenly confronted by a grave illness. Moggallana realized that he was now unable to escape. The brigands entered, knocked him down, smashed all his limbs and left him lying in his blood. Being keen on quickly getting their reward and also somewhat ill as ease about their dastardly deed, the brigands left at once, without a further look.

But Moggallana's great physical and mental strength was such that his vital energies had not yet succumbed. He regained consciousness and was able to drag himself to the Buddha. There, in the Master's presence, at the holiest place of the world, at the source of the deepest peace, Moggallana breathed his last (Jat. 522E). The inner peace in which he dwelt since he attained to sainthood, never left him. It did not leave him even in the last seven days of his life, which had been so turbulent. But even the threat of doom was only external. This is the way of those who are finally "healed" and holy and are in control of the mind. Whatever Kamma of the past had been able to produce a result in his present life, nevertheless, it could affect only his body, but no longer "him," because "he" no longer identified himself with anything existing only impermanently. This last episode of Moggallana's life, however, showed that the law of moral causality (Kamma) has even greater power than the supernormal feats of this master of magic. Only a Buddha can control the karmic consequences acting upon his body to such an extent that nothing might cause his premature death.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... .html#ch10

How can you learn from Karma if you can't even remember your alleged past crimes?

The story of Ven. Moggallana indicates that knowledge of past crimes does not necessarily affect kamma-vipaka. It probably prevent repeating them.

[Zenny]

In the orthodox view, more attention is often paid to the vipaka of the killer. The act of killing is associated with being reborn in lower realms either in this life (ending up in jail or capital punishment) or the next.

How about the victim? If being killed is a vipaka for past action, would that enhance the chances of being reborn in a higher realm? this should provide some consolation to the family of the victim (in case of humans). More often than not, punishment of the wrong doer serves to ease the anger of the victims.

So,if a person is killed its a cleansing for past Karma? An opportunity for rebirth in a better realm?
How can you learn from Karma if you can't even remember your alleged past crimes?

So basically anything bad that happens to a person is their own fault.
Abused children is their own fault?