i went on to saySovatthika (salayatananirodha) wrote:Venerable Ajahn,
I want to discuss with you what I heard you say in one of your talks some time ago. It concerns parasites, such as intestinal worms, which do appear to be living beings, and how we as Buddhists should handle them.
[...] You said, to paraphrase, that you think if you were infected with parasites that you would kill them, giving your justification that they are dependent on harming you in order to live. (I can’t find the particular talk, but you might remember?)
[...]
I’ve argued this matter with many laypeople and found myself taking a very difficult position, that taking of life is never acceptable. And I have various sources to justify this, but I know you are no stranger to the suttas, so I will just share this:
But there are lay people who abide by this rule and would not transgress it so deliberately. I might have harmed or killed a tick somewhat recently out of fear, but I think this is still different, from holding a view that killing is morally acceptable or that it will produce a result that is in any way pleasant.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.05.than.html wrote:"[2] And furthermore, just as the ocean is stable and does not overstep its tideline; in the same way my disciples do not — even for the sake of their lives — overstep the training rules I have formulated for them… This is the second amazing & astounding quality of this Dhamma & Vinaya because of which, as they see it again & again, the monks take great joy in this Dhamma & Vinaya.
Bhante, do you not recall bāla-paṇḍita sutta? Killing and maiming lead to bad destinations [...] you would still have to bear the fruit of that kamma. I think it is difficult to reverse the mind that has developed to such a degree that it will kill and will defend killing [...]
Signed, [my real name and where i am from]
he responded & said he would address this in his workshop. i went on:https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/index.html wrote:"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans…Granting life to other beings causes a long lifespan; taking life causes a short lifespan.https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato wrote:They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from bad conduct of body, speech, and mind. But it is possible for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from bad conduct of body, speech, and mind.’
They understand: ‘It’s impossible for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from good conduct of body, speech, and mind. But it is possible for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from good conduct of body, speech, and mind.’
he responded with this talk, indicating that he responded beginning at 1:02:18 (i've linked this with timestamp)[...] I understand I may not be grasping something properly, however nuanced, and I need much improvement in even basic matters, but I still think the teachings against killing apply universally and without exception. For example, in the simile of the saw he says we should not harbor thoughts of ill will against our would-be murderers. He also teaches a group of boys that if you fear and dislike pain, do not do any evil deed openly or secretly. Cruelty is still cruelty, even when our lives are threatened. I’m not certain I would be able to uphold this standard if my life were under threat but I at least want to have the correct view in order to get a foot in the door.
I’d like to share this with you; I think you translated it. [...]
I look forward to hearing from you if you have time. May the fruit of this discussion benefit my relatives. May all beings be at ease and may you be well and be happy, Bhante!https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-bu-vb-pj1 wrote:Then Venerable Mahāmoggallāna approached the Master, bowed down to him, and sat down to one side. He then said,
“At present, Venerable Sir, Verañjā is short of food and afflicted with hunger, with crops blighted and turned to straw. It’s not easy to get by almsfood. Venerable Sir, the under-surface of this great earth is abounding with food, which tastes just like pure honey. It would be good if I could invert the earth so that the monks may enjoy the nutrition in those water-plants.”
“But what will you do, Moggallāna, with those creatures who are living there?”
“I’ll make one of my hands broad, like the great earth, and I’ll make those creatures go there. and I’ll make those creatures go there. Then with the other hand I’ll invert the earth.”
“Please don’t invert the earth, Moggallāna. Those creatures might lose their minds.”
“In that case, Venerable Sir, it would be good if the whole Order of monks could go to Uttarakuru for alms.”
“No, Moggallāna, please don’t pursue this.”
i listened and wasn't satisfied with his answer. i thought it was different if you were killing beings invisible to the naked eye, although its not clear to me. i think 'compassion for yourself' is a modern idea. i dont want to give off the idea that i am trying to condemn him or anything. he seems great but this isn't the first time a monk has disappointed me when they talked about killing bugs. if he hadn't said this i would have more confidence - is it me?