Does Harming A Large Animal Generate More Bad Karma Than Harming A Small One?

[camerata]

There seems to be a general belief in Buddhism that killing a large animal is worse karma than killing a smaller one. But is this based on anything in the Pali Canon?

If not, what's the logic? That would mean it would be better to kill a chimp than a buffalo. If the criteria is intelligence (difficult to assess), there would be less bad karma harming a buffalo than a chimp. If the criteria is lifespan (i.e. curtailing a short lifespan is better than a long one) it should be preferable to kill a chimp than a tortoise.

Or is this just a traditional belief?

[harrry]

There seems to be a general belief in Buddhism that killing a large animal is worse karma than killing a smaller one. But is this based on anything in the Pali Canon?

If not, what's the logic? That would mean it would be better to kill a chimp than a buffalo. If the criteria is intelligence (difficult to assess), there would be less bad karma harming a buffalo than a chimp. If the criteria is lifespan (i.e. curtailing a short lifespan is better than a long one) it should be preferable to kill a chimp than a tortoise.

Or is this just a traditional belief?

I have often wondered about people who embrace Budhism reaching for the isect spray or the electric tennis racquet.

[rockyysdt]

I have often wondered about people who embrace Budhism reaching for the isect spray or the electric tennis racquet.

Not to mention killing at an amoebic level millions of organisms every second.

I always try to avoid running over ants on my motorcycle but often fail at times.

Edited April 15, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Two points that just came to mind:

1. The precept is against harming sentient beings, so bacteria don't count. There is no holocaust when you take Penicillin.

2. I read somewhere that the Buddha talked about harming beings at least the size of a bedbug, i.e. that you can see with the naked eye

[fabianfred]

I would tend to say that all animals are not equal... in intelligence... so i would class an elephant or a whale as superior to a dog..... a tiger as superior to a sheep. So killing a sheep for food the tiger creates karma for itself and may be reborn as a tiger for several lives...then later maybe as a sheep. Animals create karma mostly with other animals, which is why it is so hard for them to return to the human realm.

As animals are different, so are people... the karma from killing a man breaking into our home to rape would be less than for killing an ordinary man....but if that man was a practising Buddhist or even was on the path to fruition by practising meditation the resulting karma would be huge....to say nothing of killing a Sotapanna or arahant.

[bina]

friends say: warm blooded vs. birds/reptiles etc.... and elephants are a big no no and my husband also includes buffalo and pet animals.

we recently had to fix a roof problem with pigeons that have lived here for years, but i am sick of them even coming in to my house... so we put up a grate. a small hole was still there so they managed to get in a nd out, and recently laid eggs, anon almost decided not to close off the hole until the eggs hatched and the young could fly on their own. this time round, i just moved the eggs to a friend who raises tumblers so they can brood them.... so anon was satisfied. we also recently released a pa deuk that had been in a large tub in our salon that we had bought for food (one out of three)... but in the past month, he refused to turn it into dinner so we released it in a local garden pond large enough to support it.

my husband eats meat, and will, if he has to, slaughter a chicken or duck, but wont physically slaughter a pig for instance but will eat one once slaughtered. and he doesnt kill insects if he can pick them up and move them outside including bees and spiders. i am quick draw magraw with some insects however, ticks being on my list.

bina

israel

[phetaroi]

and he doesnt kill insects if he can pick them up and move them outside including bees and spiders. i am quick draw magraw with some insects however, ticks being on my list.

Yes, even here in the States once when I was living with a Thai roommate for a while, we were having a dinner party and a wasp got in the house. I went to kill it and they all went crazy because of needing to not take a sentient life. So they managed to rescue the wasp, after which we continued to eat our chicken, pork, and shrimp.

[camerata]

So killing a sheep for food the tiger creates karma for itself and may be reborn as a tiger for several lives...then later maybe as a sheep. Animals create karma mostly with other animals, which is why it is so hard for them to return to the human realm.

Do you have a scriptural reference for animals creating karma? I don't think I've ever seen one.

Anyway, my question was more about humans killing animals. In Thailand there is definitely an idea that killing bigger animals is worse, but I don't know if this is from any doctrine or just instinctive/traditional.

[Goshawk]

friends say: warm blooded vs. birds/reptiles etc....

birds are warm blooded..

[fabianfred]

It is said that rebirth in a hel_l realm...... although the suffering is more extreme.... is preferable to rebirth in the animal realm.... because it is difficult to escape from.....

animals live by killing and being killed.... they cause suffering to other beings....so accumulate karma.

The five conditions required to accrue the full karmic potential of an act of killing....if incomplete....still suffering is caused and does not imply innocence and getting off scot-free....but a reduced potential and result

[canuckamuck]

It is said that rebirth in a hel_l realm...... although the suffering is more extreme.... is preferable to rebirth in the animal realm.... because it is difficult to escape from.....

animals live by killing and being killed.... they cause suffering to other beings....so accumulate karma.

The five conditions required to accrue the full karmic potential of an act of killing....if incomplete....still suffering is caused and does not imply innocence and getting off scot-free....but a reduced potential and result

By what you are saying, it would be impossible for any carnivore to lose karma unless it simply refused to eat. Reincarnation as a carnivore is a guarantee to continue lower down then. Seems kinda pointless. On the other hand herbivores would be able to shed great loads of karma, so it would be good to be a cow. Much better than a human IMO

[Brucenkhamen]

There seems to be a general belief in Buddhism that killing a large animal is worse karma than killing a smaller one. But is this based on anything in the Pali Canon?

If not, what's the logic? That would mean it would be better to kill a chimp than a buffalo. If the criteria is intelligence (difficult to assess), there would be less bad karma harming a buffalo than a chimp. If the criteria is lifespan (i.e. curtailing a short lifespan is better than a long one) it should be preferable to kill a chimp than a tortoise.

Or is this just a traditional belief?

I don't know if there is any scripture to back up the idea that killing and smaller animal carries less kamma than killing a larger one. I don't think it's so much an issue of tradition but one of practicality and common sense, while in theory it's not ok to kill any sentient being in reality one has to do the best one can.

As teachings on kamma pre-date Buddhism it wouldn't surprise me that this idea came from pre-Buddhist cultures.

Also consider it takes much more effort to kill and elephant or Buffalo than it does to kill an ant, it's hard to do it by mistake, it's usually premeditated, and this is a big factor in the law of kamma.

[clausewitz]

the Commentaries explain that to kill an elephant takes more planning, skill, effort and violence than to kill a mosquito.

[phetaroi]

the Commentaries explain that to kill an elephant takes more planning, skill, effort and violence than to kill a mosquito.

The more I read through this thread, the more it proves to me that simply reading scriptures (including the Pali canons) or interpretive works about them cannot give us all the answers.

For example, the above statement. I can see the logic that killing an elephant requires definite intent, and how important that is.

On the other hand, my African grey parrot can say well over 25 words and phrases and has the intelligence level of a 2 year old human child. But he would be of less karmic value because he is smaller than an elephant? And of course, we would also be of less karmic value because we are smaller than an elephant.

Isn't that really what we find attractive about Buddhism? That it is about seeking answers? That we are freed from the "law" of scriptures that some religions have?

I'm not referring here to 'clausewitz', but sometimes in this forum on Buddhism I see the same close-mindedness that I find so distressing in other religions.

[rockyysdt]

I don't know if there is any scripture to back up the idea that killing and smaller animal carries less kamma than killing a larger one.

Just a minor point regarding the use of the word "scripture" when referring to Buddhist writings.

I thought scripture refers to religious text & that Buddhism isn't a religion as are Christianity, Judaism, Islam & others (except for animism etc).

Is it right or wrong to refer to Buddhas teaching as scripture?

Also phetaroi's concern that some suggest killing less intelligent beings/animals produces less khamma is valid, as this would imply that killing intellectually handicapped people would be reasonably OK.

My thoughts are that the answer can only come from within, a personal experience which seeps into us through deep meditation & self awareness over time.

Edited April 16, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

As teachings on kamma pre-date Buddhism it wouldn't surprise me that this idea came from pre-Buddhist cultures.

Good point.

the Commentaries explain that to kill an elephant takes more planning, skill, effort and violence than to kill a mosquito.

If it's in the commentaries, that could well be how it got into Thai Theravada tradition.

[camerata]

I thought scripture refers to religious text & that Buddhism isn't a religion as are Christianity, Judaism, Islam & others (except for animism etc).

Do a search and you'll find we've been over this in detail before, so let's not get into it here. Buddhism can be classed either as a religion or a philosophy, depending on how you define the terms.

The "Buddhist scriptures" for Theravadins are typically the Pali Canon. But it can also include later commentaries. "Scriptural references" (i.e. Pali Canon) are important because then we generally assume it's not just someone's opinion - it's the word of the Buddha or his known disciples.

But there is a lot that simply isn't explained in the Pali Canon that was explained in later commentaries, and that stuff finds its way into traditional Buddhism. The question is, is it valid?

[camerata]

Isn't that really what we find attractive about Buddhism? That it is about seeking answers? That we are freed from the "law" of scriptures that some religions have?

Well.... the law is you don't ever deliberately kill a sentient being. We know that's the ideal, the goal, and the behaviour of an arahant. The seeking of answers is because being a lay person is always a compromise.

[bina]

just to let everyone know: the pigeons refused to accept that their home over the closet was closed off, they got in, couldnt get out, and so anon opened the grate and thats that. the pigeons stay, to annoy me and drive the dogs mad.. but he (my husband) refuses to do anything more about them. they wont get killed (no isaan slingshots here), their eggs wont get removed and there u go. a thai's way of dealing with karma actions and intentions. he hadnt really wanted to grate off the closet in the first place cause it would interfere with the birds in question. so he did it to please me, but not thoroughly, and now we are back to square one.

his way of pleasing everyone and still not harming anything.

bina

israel

[Sheryl]

I think it is more of a conventional belief/attitude than something grounded in Buddhgist teachings. Possibly derived, in part, from what the Buddha said with respect to it having to be a visible being to be a sin...this may have led to a general sense that the larger/more visible, the greater the bop.

But to my understanding that is not at all the original intent. What the Buddha was getting at was the practice, common in his time and still prevalent among some members of the Jain religion today, of going to the extreme of wearing a mask to avoid accidentally inhaling invisibkle organisms, worrying about inadvertently stepping in insects while walkibg, etc. What the Buddha was explaining was that this extreme is to be avoided; what is important is to refrain from intentional killing of beings that are capable of suffering/not wanting to be killled. And thus he elaborates that the being must be sentient, one must be able to see it, etc...

In Buddhist teaching, it is the mental volition that is all important. Killing is unwholesome because the mental state that precedes it is unwholesome (and actions tend to strengthen the mental state that precedes them)

So to my understanding, if anything makes killing more unwholesome, it would be:

- the degree of sentience of the being killed

- the degree of anger/aversion in the mind of the killer, i.e. thoughtlessly crushing an insect would be less unwholesome than intently going after a mosquito in anger

[fabianfred]

Also killing people of differing types brings an unequal amount of karmic result.

Suppose I killed a man intent on breaking into my home and raping my children.... we could imagine a demerit of 10 points.

Killing a normal man, some good and some bad ....100 points

killing a good man intent upon keeping the five precepts .... 1000 points

killing a man intent upon the path to nirvana and one who practises meditation with that goal....... 1,000,000 points

killing a Sotapanna........ 1 billion points

killing an Arahant ........... incalculable points

[Brucenkhamen]

Also killing people of differing types brings an unequal amount of karmic result.

Suppose I killed a man intent on breaking into my home and raping my children.... we could imagine a demerit of 10 points.

Killing a normal man, some good and some bad ....100 points

killing a good man intent upon keeping the five precepts .... 1000 points

killing a man intent upon the path to nirvana and one who practises meditation with that goal....... 1,000,000 points

killing a Sotapanna........ 1 billion points

killing an Arahant ........... incalculable points

This is called the Pinballayana school.

[rockyysdt]

Also killing people of differing types brings an unequal amount of karmic result.

Suppose I killed a man intent on breaking into my home and raping my children.... we could imagine a demerit of 10 points.

Killing a normal man, some good and some bad ....100 points

killing a good man intent upon keeping the five precepts .... 1000 points

killing a man intent upon the path to nirvana and one who practises meditation with that goal....... 1,000,000 points

killing a Sotapanna........ 1 billion points

killing an Arahant ........... incalculable points

Unless we have an "unconditioned & permanent" component which has always been there but we are just not aware of it.

We're all capable of being Arahants, or Buddha's, & can be enlightened in this or some far off lifetime.

Everyone is equally important, from the most impoverished beggar in the street to the most successful practitioners of the dhamma.

You should attempt to wound the potential burglar/killer/rapist.

Aim for a limb, not the chest or head.

[fabianfred]

"Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced." - Master Kan

[fabianfred]

Also killing people of differing types brings an unequal amount of karmic result.

Suppose I killed a man intent on breaking into my home and raping my children.... we could imagine a demerit of 10 points.

Killing a normal man, some good and some bad ....100 points

killing a good man intent upon keeping the five precepts .... 1000 points

killing a man intent upon the path to nirvana and one who practises meditation with that goal....... 1,000,000 points

killing a Sotapanna........ 1 billion points

killing an Arahant ........... incalculable points

This is called the Pinballayana school.

and in reverse...one can gain more merit giving dana to an Arahant than an ordinary monk.... which is why Thais prefer donating alms food to monks instead of novices or nuns... and flock to visit famous monks thought to have attainments...

[canuckamuck]

and in reverse...one can gain more merit giving dana to an Arahant than an ordinary monk.... which is why Thais prefer donating alms food to monks instead of novices or nuns... and flock to visit famous monks thought to have attainments...

I have heard this before and it baffles me. Why is giving to one who already gets a lot, or giving to one who is already doing well, credited with more merit than say giving to one knows nothing of your faith and learns through your action? Or even why not give to the monk no one likes? Wouldn't this have a larger merit? Wouldn't giving to one with a lot be a big waste of time?

[rockyysdt]

and in reverse...one can gain more merit giving dana to an Arahant than an ordinary monk.... which is why Thais prefer donating alms food to monks instead of novices or nuns... and flock to visit famous monks thought to have attainments...

I have heard this before and it baffles me. Why is giving to one who already gets a lot, or giving to one who is already doing well, credited with more merit than say giving to one knows nothing of your faith and learns through your action? Or even why not give to the monk no one likes? Wouldn't this have a larger merit? Wouldn't giving to one with a lot be a big waste of time?

I think that if you are fortunate enough to become enlightened you'll learn that donating to those of a higher station for the purpose of gaining more merit will have the opposite effect.

In fact if the only purpose of your actions is to maximize your personal merit then you're driven by attachment to selfishness and will probably reap negative khamma.

Edited April 25, 2009 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

A fully ordained monk keeping the 227 rules of training is considered more worthy than a novice who keeps 10 precept or a nun who keeps the eight precepts...

but if a monk is lax and unworthy then the merit would be lessened.....

The first person to give alms to a newly enlightened arahant has an especially great benefit...

The carrot and stick of merit/heaven/hel_l is good for beginners to the Dhamma...who need the rites and rituals etc. ....but as we progress we should do good for the love of good rather than to gain merit.....trying in effect to make only neutral karma...the kind which an arahant makes...

[rockyysdt]

So killing a sheep for food the tiger creates karma for itself and may be reborn as a tiger for several lives...then later maybe as a sheep. Animals create karma mostly with other animals, which is why it is so hard for them to return to the human realm.

Do you have a scriptural reference for animals creating karma? I don't think I've ever seen one.

Anyway, my question was more about humans killing animals. In Thailand there is definitely an idea that killing bigger animals is worse, but I don't know if this is from any doctrine or just instinctive/traditional.

An American hunter is flying to Africa to shoot wildebeest, kudu, gemsbok, mountain zebra, and warthog.

He also hunts dangerous game, but I'm not sure if it includes lions.

These hunters lay in wait in camouflaged dugouts strategically placed near watering holes waiting for wild animals to come to drink.

The hunter dismissed protests against his hobby by indicating that the meat doesn't go to waste.

Even though he justifies the slaughter by indicating it's for food, his intention differs.

The primary reason is the thrill of killing wild animals & collecting their hide and horns as trophies.

Is he off the hook or very misguided in a karmic sense?

Edited April 25, 2009 by rockyysdt

[Samuian]

Well what karma commands the taking of Antibiotics and the a

dministering of them, is the doctor prescribing them also effected by it

?

I think it's a lot of blown up BS!

Sorry guy's isn't meant to offend - my view of these things...