How to Get Rid of Pests and Bugs the Buddhist Way

[VincentRJ]

On 10/9/2017 at 10:04 PM, dick dasterdly said:

"How can killing by proxy be more acceptable than personally killing?"

 

Agree 100%, killing by proxy is more often than not even worse IMO.

 

These statements need some clarification. As I mentioned in post #26:

 

"One should also bear in mind that the monk does not really kill by proxy because the monks' teachings advise the laypersons not to kill. However, the monk is caught between a rock and a hard place because the teachings also advise the monks to accept whatever food is freely offered by the Buddhist lay people, and that he does not have the right to pick and choose. "

 

'Killing by proxy' means to authorize, approve, or arrange for the killing to be implemented by someone else.
Clear examples of 'killing by proxy' would apply to the owners of abbatoirs who employ people to kill cows or goats whilst they sit in offices managing their financial accounts; and the farmers who raise the animals with the full intention of sending them to the slaughter house at some time in the future; and the people who buy the processed meat in the market because without the demand for such meat, abbatoirs could not exist.

 

However, Buddhist monks express no demand for meat, therefore 'killing by proxy' does not apply to them.

 

Hope I've managed to clarify this issue for the unenlightened. 

[oldhippy]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

These statements need some clarification. As I mentioned in post #26:

 

"One should also bear in mind that the monk does not really kill by proxy because the monks' teachings advise the laypersons not to kill. However, the monk is caught between a rock and a hard place because the teachings also advise the monks to accept whatever food is freely offered by the Buddhist lay people, and that he does not have the right to pick and choose. "

 

'Killing by proxy' means to authorize, approve, or arrange for the killing to be implemented by someone else.
Clear examples of 'killing by proxy' would apply to the owners of abbatoirs who employ people to kill cows or goats whilst they sit in offices managing their financial accounts; and the farmers who raise the animals with the full intention of sending them to the slaughter house at some time in the future; and the people who buy the processed meat in the market because without the demand for such meat, abbatoirs could not exist.

 

However, Buddhist monks express no demand for meat, therefore 'killing by proxy' does not apply to them.

 

Hope I've managed to clarify this issue for the unenlightened. 

the teachings also advise the monks to accept whatever food is freely offered by the Buddhist lay people, and that he does not have the right to pick and choose. "

AND

Buddhist monks express no demand for meat, therefore 'killing by proxy' does not apply to them.

 

 

 

 

Are you sure that most monks regularly and explicitely remind their followers to not kill and to not bring dead animals as offerings to them?

If they do, why would they still be offered dead animals against their teachings?

If they don't, we are back to killing by proxy.

My wife has never heard such a thing being taught at the wat. The monks in her wat only sing and occasionally talk in a language that is latin to her (...).

 

I admit though, my wife also says "there is no buddha in the wat, budddha is in the heart" - she believes in a non monk version of buddhism, and uses the wat only as a community centre - and because of social pressure.

Admirable for a non educated farmer's daughter.

 

I would love to hear the views of the Dalai Lama on this - I have the deepest respect for his opinions - do you think his opinions are shared by most Thai monks?

 

PS.

While I disagree with some basic principles of buddhism, I would never attack these principles, as I do not claim to know the absolute truth (if such a thing exists).

Thai buddhism however,......

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

These statements need some clarification. As I mentioned in post #26:

 

"One should also bear in mind that the monk does not really kill by proxy because the monks' teachings advise the laypersons not to kill. However, the monk is caught between a rock and a hard place because the teachings also advise the monks to accept whatever food is freely offered by the Buddhist lay people, and that he does not have the right to pick and choose. "

 

'Killing by proxy' means to authorize, approve, or arrange for the killing to be implemented by someone else.
Clear examples of 'killing by proxy' would apply to the owners of abbatoirs who employ people to kill cows or goats whilst they sit in offices managing their financial accounts; and the farmers who raise the animals with the full intention of sending them to the slaughter house at some time in the future; and the people who buy the processed meat in the market because without the demand for such meat, abbatoirs could not exist.

 

However, Buddhist monks express no demand for meat, therefore 'killing by proxy' does not apply to them.

 

Hope I've managed to clarify this issue for the unenlightened. 

"However, Buddhist monks express no demand for meat, therefore 'killing by proxy' does not apply to them.

 

Hope I've managed to clarify this issue for the unenlightened. "

 

 

And yet 'ordinary'vegetarians always manage to politely decline/not eat any meat offered them....

 

You make a better point with "However, the monk is caught between a rock and a hard place because the teachings also advise the monks to accept whatever food is freely offered by the Buddhist lay people, and that he does not have the right to pick and choose. "  But surely a genuine Buddhist wouldn't be offering a monk meat?  Not to mention (as oldhippy points out) the monks should make it clear to their 'followers' that killing animals is not acceptable - and even less acceptable as an 'offering'?

 

But it's always interesting to hear from someone who consider themselves "enlightened"  compared to the lay person who has the temerity to mention the 'do no harm' aspect of genuine Buddhism.

Edited October 13, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[dick dasterdly]

But this is all going way off topic.

 

As a non-Buddhist who viewed the topic looking for ways to get rid of pests and bugs without killing - pretty much all I've found is a thread arguing/discussing viruses etc and excuses as to why it's OK for Buddhist monks to eat meat!

[oldhippy]

dick dasterdly said:

 

And yet 'ordinary'vegetarians always manage to politely decline/not eat any meat offered them....

 

knock out!

[dick dasterdly]

38 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

dick dasterdly said:

 

And yet 'ordinary'vegetarians always manage to politely decline/not eat any meat offered them....

 

knock out!

No doubt the self-declared "enlightened" Buddhist (vincentvj) will post shortly to point out the failures in our un-enlightened posts - whilst still not coming up with any tips as to how to get rid of pests and bugs the Buddhist way..... 

Edited October 13, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[KarenBravo]

"Ants

If you have an ant infestation, use your vacuum to quickly get rid of the invaders, and then immediately empty the vacuum bag in the outdoor compost pile or at some distance from your house".

 

Oh dear. More humane to stomp on them. The ants cannot find their way back to the nest as there is no chemical trail to follow. They will wander around until they die a slow death by being attacked by other ants who will view them as outsiders.

Edited October 13, 2017 by KarenBravo

[oldhippy]

"Discussions" on this sub forum remind me so much of the discussions I tried to have way back in the sixties.

 

Whenever I wanted to discuss an idea or a practice, the believers would answer something like "Marx said that...." or "Adam Smith pointed out that...." or "according to Lenin.....".

 

Believers do not discuss ideas or facts. They only refer to their sacred old texts that have totally no relevance for the non believers.

 

But I will keep trying. The truth is out there, no?

 

Yes I would like to know how today's buddhists think about killing animals. Their thoughts could be inspirational.

No I am not interested in what some holy book says.

[oldhippy]

This thread will be closed in   10     9      8     7     6 .......

[dick dasterdly]

22 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

"Ants

If you have an ant infestation, use your vacuum to quickly get rid of the invaders, and then immediately empty the vacuum bag in the outdoor compost pile or at some distance from your house".

 

Oh dear. More humane to stomp on them. The ants cannot find their way back to the nest as there is no chemical trail to follow. They will wander around until they die a slow death by being attacked by other ants who will view them as outsiders.

My first thought on reading this 'advice' was that surely the ants would be injured by being sucked into a vacuum cleaner?  But you make an even better point.

[dick dasterdly]

21 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

"Discussions" on this sub forum remind me so much of the discussions I tried to have way back in the sixties.

 

Whenever I wanted to discuss an idea or a practice, the believers would answer something like "Marx said that...." or "Adam Smith pointed out that...." or "according to Lenin.....".

 

Believers do not discuss ideas or facts. They only refer to their sacred old texts that have totally no relevance for the non believers.

 

But I will keep trying. The truth is out there, no?

 

Yes I would like to know how today's buddhists think about killing animals. Their thoughts could be inspirational.

No I am not interested in what some holy book says.

Even when young, I realised that discussing religion/politics and ethics was only likely to result in an argument - so refrained unless severely provoked.

 

One of the good things about the internet is that we can have these discussions PROPERLY.

 

Even so, this promising thread about how to get rid of pests and bugs the Buddhist way (or any way) has turned into a complete failure....

 

The only other tip I can offer (re. mossies) is to make sure you're covered in repellent when there are mossies about.

[VincentRJ]

21 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

And yet 'ordinary' vegetarians always manage to politely decline/not eat any meat offered them....

 

Ordinary vegetarians are not usually living on charity and bound by rules that discourage them from making choices. The situations are different. It's also very doubtful that anyone always does something without exception. That's fanatical. Those who are on a diet might occasionally break the diet during a particular meal, when with certain company, in order to be social, just like those who have stopped drinking alcoholic beverages might occasionally take a glass of wine to be sociable.

 

But surely a genuine Buddhist wouldn't be offering a monk meat? Not to mention (as oldhippy points out) the monks should make it clear to their 'followers' that killing animals is not acceptable - and even less acceptable as an 'offering'?

 

I imagine it's probably the case that the most genuine Buddhist lay people, and those who are more knowledgeable regarding the Buddhist teachings, probably don't offer the monks meat. The following article provides a good explanation of the situation.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#meat

 

"If a bhikkhu is given meat on alms round and he has no knowledge about how the animal died he has to 'receive it with attentiveness.' He should be grateful and recollect that the food he is given is what enables him to continue to live the bhikkhu life, and that as a mendicant he is not in a position to choose what he gets. If he later comes to know the family and they ask him about Dhamma, he will be able to explain the precept about not killing. This may cause them to reflect on their attitude to meat eating."

 

"Finally it comes down to the lay people who go to the market to buy food to give to the bhikkhus. If they are vegetarian themselves or like to give vegetarian food, then the bhikkhu should receive that food with 'appreciation' — especially if it means that fewer animals are being slaughtered. Nevertheless, it should not become a political issue where other people are attacked for their behavior."
 

[VincentRJ]

We should also bear in mind, for the benefit of those who think the issue of eating meat is off topic, that the same fundamental issue of practicality applies to both the killing of mosquitoes and pests, and the killing of larger animals for food.

 

This is especially relevant for those who think that killing by proxy is as bad, or even worse, than killing directly. For example, the vegetarian food that most of us eat on a regular basis has been grown using farming practices that apply modern pesticides to crops, and which actually kill any pests in the vicinity, as well as discouraging other pests from nibbling the crop at a future time.

 

Growing truly organic food without the use of deadly, artificial pesticides, is of course possible, but very expensive because it's more labour intensive and requires considerable planning and knowledge of alternative methods. The cosmetic appearance of fruit and vegetables in the market is also very important for sales.

 

If an individual is prepared to take the trouble to humanely get rid of pests using the techniques described in the first post of this thread, which is very admirable from a Buddhist perspective, then a reasonable argument can be made that the person should extend his concern by becoming a true vegan and doing his best to choose only 'organically grown' food to eat.

 

However, imagine how restrictive, impractical and expensive that situation would be for most people, especially when travelling. It's really not practical to go to such extremes. The Middle Way is the best approach.

 

There is also the issue of whether a true vegan diet on a long-term basis is actually healthy. In the short term it can result in a healthy detoxification, but the over all evidence seems to support the view that a true vegan diet will eventually result in Vitamin B12 deficiency in particular, as well as likely deficiencies in other nutrients in the absence of a sound knowledge of dietary matters and what foods, in what quantities, will minimize the risks of deficiencies in certain essential nutrients.

 

If a Buddhist monk were to begin choosing the food offered to him, and rejecting all meat, then in the interests of his own health he would also have to start choosing the quantities and types of non-meat products offered. He would be advised to have a modern knowledge of dietary matters.

 

As I've mentioned before, the modern, rather controversial, Santi Asoke Buddhist movement in Thailand, tries to put such procedures into practice. I don't know how they deal with possible nutrient deficiencies, but I believe they do not impose strict veganism on pregnant women and young children, so they must be aware of the problem. Here's a description of one of the Santi Asoke communities.
http://www.newfarm.org/columns/Jason/2003/0303/thai_asok.shtml

 

And here's a summary of the  likely problems of long-term nutrient deficiency in a vegan diet.
http://www.thesweetbeet.com/vegan-diet/