Killing precept

[asahi]

For lay people , does it only refers to not killing human ? What if killing animals , does one break the killing precept or just committing bad deeds ?
For monk , does it meant not killing human also ? What if monk kill animal , what are the verdict ?

[DiamondNgXZ]

For lay people, it includes animals. As small as the eye can see. So viruses don't count.

For monks, no killing human is a parajika rule, break it, no longer a monk. Cannot even advice someone to get an abortion, or to encourage euthanasia.

No killing animals is a less serious rule. Entailing confession.

There's also no cutting plants, for monks.

[asahi]

For lay people, it includes animals. As small as the eye can see. So viruses don't count.

For monks, no killing human is a parajika rule, break it, no longer a monk. Cannot even advice someone to get an abortion, or to encourage euthanasia.

No killing animals is a less serious rule. Entailing confession.

There's also no cutting plants, for monks.

Lay people killing a human is breaking precept and cannot retake precept ?
If lay people killing animals that is also breaking the precept but not that serious ?
Does eating meats a kind of unwholesome kamma ?

[DiamondNgXZ]

For lay people, it includes animals. As small as the eye can see. So viruses don't count.

For monks, no killing human is a parajika rule, break it, no longer a monk. Cannot even advice someone to get an abortion, or to encourage euthanasia.

No killing animals is a less serious rule. Entailing confession.

There's also no cutting plants, for monks.

Lay people killing a human is breaking precept and cannot retake precept ?
If lay people killing animals that is also breaking the precept but not that serious ?
Does eating meats a kind of unwholesome kamma ?

There's no distinction of different precepts for lay people. Regardless the kamma of killing humans is of course much more than animals, as well as legally speaking, the consequences of killing human is very bad.

Meat eating by itself is neutral kamma, however, there could easily be greed, lust for taste of meat, which itself generates bad kamma. If one causes an animal to die for one to eat the meat of that animal, then it's breaking the no killing precept. This means no live seafood restaurant, no eating living insects, octopus etc. In view of global warming, it's better to go vegan too, as the normal cause and effect operation still works, even if you eat meat blamelessly from karmic point of view. Meat industry contributes heavily to global warming, so out of compassion for you and the world, as well as animals, it's good to go vegan.

[Disciple]

I was told first precept does not include animals. Maybe someone with more knowledge can clarify.

[DooDoot]

I was told first precept does not include animals. Maybe someone with more knowledge can clarify.

The word in the precept is "pāṇātipātī", which means "killing breathing things":

It’s when a certain person kills living creatures. They’re violent, bloody-handed, a hardened killer, merciless to living beings.

Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco pāṇātipātī hoti, luddo lohitapāṇi hatapahate niviṭṭho adayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtesu.

https://suttacentral.net/an10.211/en/sujato

pāṇa
masculine
life; breath; a living being

https://suttacentral.net/define/p%C4%81%E1%B9%87a

atipāti
adjective
transgressing; attacking, injuring

https://suttacentral.net/define/atip%C4%81ti

[DooDoot]

Meat industry contributes heavily to global warming

The above sounds like superstition.

so out of compassion for you and the world, as well as animals, it's good to go vegan.

In Australia, we try to grow crops (for vegans) but kangaroos compete so now there is an industry of kangaroo meat to protect the crops (for the vegans). Your idea above does not sound logical.

Australia's kangaroo meat trade could be the most sustainable in the world, despite welfare concerns

On top of the animals killed by farmers to protect crops and reduce competition, more than a million of those kangaroos will be professionally shot for human and animal consumption and to make leather. It is, depending who you talk to, the most sustainable and ethical meat trade in the world, or a monstrous violation of animal welfare that involves the murder of joeys. The weight of the evidence is on the former, but there are welfare concerns.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... in-cruelty

[SarathW]

I was told first precept does not include animals. Maybe someone with more knowledge can clarify.

The word in the precept is "pāṇātipātī", which means "killing breathing things":

It’s when a certain person kills living creatures. They’re violent, bloody-handed, a hardened killer, merciless to living beings.

Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco pāṇātipātī hoti, luddo lohitapāṇi hatapahate niviṭṭho adayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtesu.

https://suttacentral.net/an10.211/en/sujato

pāṇa
masculine
life; breath; a living being

https://suttacentral.net/define/p%C4%81%E1%B9%87a

atipāti
adjective
transgressing; attacking, injuring

https://suttacentral.net/define/atip%C4%81ti

So abortion is not killing?
Is it wholsome to kill a baby in the woomb?

[DooDoot]

So abortion is not killing?
Is it wholsome to kill a baby in the woomb?

Babies do not exactly “breathe” in the womb; at least not by inhaling air they way they do after delivery. Instead, oxygen travels through the mother's lungs, heart, vasculature, uterus, and placenta, finally making its way through the umbilical cord and into the fetus.

[TRobinson465]

I was told first precept does not include animals. Maybe someone with more knowledge can clarify.

The word in the precept is "pāṇātipātī", which means "killing breathing things":

It’s when a certain person kills living creatures. They’re violent, bloody-handed, a hardened killer, merciless to living beings.

Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco pāṇātipātī hoti, luddo lohitapāṇi hatapahate niviṭṭho adayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtesu.

https://suttacentral.net/an10.211/en/sujato

pāṇa
masculine
life; breath; a living being

https://suttacentral.net/define/p%C4%81%E1%B9%87a

atipāti
adjective
transgressing; attacking, injuring

https://suttacentral.net/define/atip%C4%81ti

So abortion is not killing?
Is it wholsome to kill a baby in the woomb?

I believe the literal translation is actually causing an "end of breath" or something like that. Although i could be wrong. Either way, that is just what the word killing is in pali. it is pretty clear from the suttas that abortion is a violation of the precept even tho they dont breath in the conventional sense. As with all languages do not take the word roots too literally. There is no ham in hamburger for instance but who knows if 2000 years from now ppl will be debating if the relatively primative people of our time had literal ham in our hamburgers.

[DooDoot]

I believe the literal translation is actually causing an "end of breath" or something like that.

Hi. What is the point of re-quoting another's large post when it is not even read, i.e., when what is written in the post is repeated as though it was never mentioned in the post quoted?

it is pretty clear from the suttas that abortion is a violation of the precept

Where do the suttas mention abortion? Where is it "pretty clear"?

even tho they dont breath in the conventional sense.

Why did you re-quote my entire post when giving the impression you did not even read it? Also, where did i ever say a fetus does not breathe?

As with all languages do not take the word roots too literally.

Are you talking to yourself above? Also, are you actually fluent in all languages?

There is no ham in hamburger for instance but who knows if 2000 years from now ppl will be debating if the relatively primative people of our time had literal ham in our hamburgers.

[Gwi]

For lay people , does it only refers to not killing human ? What if killing animals , does one break the killing precept or just committing bad deeds ?
For monk , does it meant not killing human also ? What if monk kill animal , what are the verdict ?

An animate creature, if killed, is a violation.
However, killing an ant is a minor offense.
It is easy to fix it. The Buddhå said,
"Avoid (as much as possible)."

Stop to call monk, using "bhikkhu".
Even though it's not wrong (using monk).

[TRobinson465]

I believe the literal translation is actually causing an "end of breath" or something like that.

Hi. What is the point of re-quoting another's large post when it is not even read, i.e., when what is written in the post is repeated as though it was never mentioned in the post quoted?

it is pretty clear from the suttas that abortion is a violation of the precept

Where do the suttas mention abortion? Where is it "pretty clear"?

even tho they dont breath in the conventional sense.

Why did you re-quote my entire post when giving the impression you did not even read it? Also, where did i ever say a fetus does not breathe?

As with all languages do not take the word roots too literally.

Are you talking to yourself above? Also, are you actually fluent in all languages?

There is no ham in hamburger for instance but who knows if 2000 years from now ppl will be debating if the relatively primative people of our time had literal ham in our hamburgers.

1 I didn't repeat anything. Read it again.

2. first parajika rule

3. My post wasn't a direct response to u. I was just quoting u and then discussing with the ppl on the thread in general. I shoulda made that more clear

4. That is like saying u can't say anything about the dhamma unless u have read every single sutta and all the variations (since there r different versions of the same suttas with some differing details, as with all historical documents)

[DooDoot]

3. My post wasn't a direct response to u.

If your post was not a direct response to me, then why did you re-quote my entire lengthy post? We started a topic for this, here.

[TRobinson465]

3. My post wasn't a direct response to u.

If your post was not a direct response to me, then why did you re-quote my entire lengthy post? We started a topic for this, here.

I didnt see that as I only go on here casually. But thank you for the info. i will be more mindful about not doing that from now on.