Contradiction of Buddhism on the value of human and non-human suffering?

[DNS]

Good responses from all posters above.

I'd just add that although all killing is certainly bad and violates the First Precept, there is still a sort of hierarchy, something like:

1. Arahants - very grievous crime to kill or injure an arahant.
2. Parents
3. Other humans
4. Large, Royal animals, such as elephants, lions, tigers (not allowed to be eaten even if offered)
5. Other, smaller animals (still violates First Precept, but lesser offense)
6. Very small animals and insects that one accidentally kills (no intention)

If a monk kills a human being, it is a defeat (parajika) and he is disrobed. If a monk kills an animal, it is an offense entailing confession, but is not a defeat.

[Joe.c]

For example, while walking in the forest or working the land, the monk will regularly intentionally (edit : unintentionally) unin crush or mow down living beings, even while being careful. However, the monk could very well kill far fewer living beings if he decided to commit suicide.

This above is Nigantha/jain teaching concept. A foolish idea. Commit suicide doesn't end the problem. You will comeback again and again because no wisdom to end it.

But, Buddha teaching is practice to abandon the world and go to the other shore by wisdom.

Do you know just by breathing, one cause much harm to others?

But are you going to stop breathing too? That is just silly. Instead one should develop path/wisdom to abandon all of this dukkha.

I wonder how Buddhists resolve this.

By hear true dhamma, then develop N8FP. Cross to other shore. Then, problem is solved.

But difficult for majority of regular human to do that.

[Goofaholix]

and puts the suffering of human beings on an equal footing with the suffering of other beings (deities, animals, starving beings, hellish beings, etc.).

I don't think this is correct, while we do try to refrain from harming other living beings it is generally understood that harming humans is much worse than harming lower forms of life, insects etc.

The Buddha taught that as far as Kamma is concerned intentioniality is what matters, even so Monks have rules the reduce the likelihood of them unintentionally harming insects etc, like filtering water and not gardening etc.

Suggesting that someone should intentionally kill themselves in order to avoid unintentionally harm microscopic beings is not only ridiculous but ignores the obvious, that killing yourself is a much weightier act that unintentionally harming microscopic beings.

[Bundokji]

Unlike some religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), Buddhism does not believe that human suffering is more unacceptable than the suffering of other living beings. In other words, Buddhism is not anthropocentric, and puts the suffering of human beings on an equal footing with the suffering of other beings (deities, animals, starving beings, hellish beings, etc.).

If what you say is true, then good kamma would have no meaning. Good kamma means less exposure to suffering within higher realms within kama loka. Humans in general suffer less than animals, but more than deities. As such, the offense is in accordance with this natural hierarchy, which allows not only for possible escape, but for good and bad actions to bear fruits in a way that corresponds to the nature of the offense. If you kill a human, who is endowed by nature to suffer less than an animal, then you worked against nature to a higher degree, and your actions will bear fruits accordingly.

[Pondera]

Hi

Unlike some religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), Buddhism does not believe that human suffering is more unacceptable than the suffering of other living beings. In other words, Buddhism is not anthropocentric, and puts the suffering of human beings on an equal footing with the suffering of other beings (deities, animals, starving beings, hellish beings, etc.).

However, by the simple fact of living, Buddhist monks kill (unintentionally) a lot of lives. For example, while walking in the forest or working the land, the monk will regularly intentionally (edit : unintentionally) unin crush or mow down living beings, even while being careful. However, the monk could very well kill far fewer living beings if he decided to commit suicide. But the Buddha did not encourage monks to commit mass suicide in the name of the reduction of suffering that this would create. So, finally, isn't there a contradiction in Buddhism? Indeed, how can one consider that human suffering has an equal value to animal suffering AND not encourage the massive suicide of monks (and other humans) killing living beings?

I wonder how Buddhists resolve this.

Thanks in advance

Nope. This is EXACTLY the extreme asceticism practiced by the Jains.

Wearing a mask to not inhale microorganisms, etcetera, etcetera.

The Buddha basically stopped at destroying seeds.

The rest is impractical. On the bright side … wouldn’t you want to be stepped on by an Arahant if you were an ant?

Imagine the rebirth?

[Milinda]

I think that overestimate and over-worry about all "souls" (in muslim or christian midnset; humans) it's main root from having today the planet converted in a total dump.
According to christians for example, animals have no souls (when the word betray themselves because anima means soul in latin), so, ok let's cut all the forest, they are just threes or they're just animals, let's kill them.

So the main question would be; what does human "superior" to any other beings.
In fact the animal kingdom that they suffer from ignorante they are more "pure" than modern humans that they live in over-contaminated cities, they act and think in a very un-natural way.

[seeker242]

However, the monk could very well kill far fewer living beings if he decided to commit suicide.

They would not kill far fewer as they would simply be reborn over and over again. The person would kill FAR fewer beings by practicing properly, getting enlightenment and stopping rebirth.

[samsarayoga]

I don't even understand the question. Please use common sense.