Good And Bad

[JurgenG]

^

Thanks

[JurgenG]

Thanks for your help rockyysdt but it seems I won't get an answer this time.

I'm going to look for a better way to say what I wanted to say and will post it later

Thanks

[rockyysdt]

Thanks for your help rockyysdt but it seems I won't get an answer this time.

I'm going to look for a better way to say what I wanted to say and will post it later

Thanks

I think you'll find the answer goes something like this:

1. We should obey the precept not to kill or harm.

2. One can eat meat as long as it wasn't killed specifically for oneself or killed by ourselves.

3. Carnivorous animals have had such re births due to their karma.

4. Such animals may be subject to countless lifetimes stuck in animal form.

5. The natural animal kingdom with its inherent killing is a reflection of the depth of accumulated karma in the world.

If I was a tiger or lion l would hope that l was born in captivity and lived in a progressive zoo in which food would be provided.

This way l could expend karma whilst not accumulating any by killing.

Edited February 8, 2011 by rockyysdt

[AYJAYDEE]

i would come to terms with it in pretty much the same way you described below. if we are forced to kill to live, i expect that is our karma to do so

a purpose? whose? without an owner , how can there be a purpose?. and im not sure i agree with the staement that plants are creatures?

Maybe designed is not the right word (I don't believe in god if it is your question)

Just let's say it's the way it is, facts.

Is there a purpose in the way things are ? I don't know. It's just the way things are and that's what we have to deal with.

This might detail what I suspect Jurgen was getting at:

We find ourselves in a world where natural selection and evolution has culminated in a raft of plant and animal species which fit into each other in a food chain.

Generally plants are eaten by herbivorous animals which are then eaten by carnivorous animals and so on up the food chain.

Although man is thought of as being an omnivore our ancestors included sub species which were either exclusively herbivore, some carnivore and others omnivorous.

Although mans gene pool has integrated over millenia, you'll find many individuals living today, who would not thrive on an exclusively vegetarian diet.

I suspect what Jurgen is asking is:

How do we come to terms with Buddhism, living in a world where killing is required to sustain our lives, especially for those whose genes preclude living on an exclusively vegetarian diet.

Not to mention all living animals which find themselves in a world where killing is performed daily for survival.

[camerata]

But when you think about it, it' the way it should be. We can't survive on light or other basic chemicals. We need other living creatures to process this energy, then we eat them. It's the way things have been designed.

How does it fit with Buddhism philosophy ?

It's not so much the way things "should be" as the way things are. We can also say that most of the time we humans act out of self-interest - that's the way it is. But Buddhism is about radically changing the way things are in our mind. So, we try our best not to kill. Many of us try our best not to eat much meat too. From the Buddhist perspective, it's the killing that produces unwholesome mind states, not so much the eating - but it depends on the individual.

[lungmi]

Swatting a little bloodsucker is 100% unskillfull and ignorant too..

Why?

They are bloodsuckers and sharks. You kill one and the other cannibals come on the trail for blood.

Your special sweat (killing and/or Angst-Adrenalin) atttract them and more you kill more come to suck your blood.

Western science (apiarist research) and Adjahn Akasit, my preceptor, jungle monk, confirmed by my experience in a Malaria area.

[lungmi]

You have access to a weapon and your intention is to stop the slaughter of innocent children.

Do you allow the carnage to continue or do you act to stop it?

Is it correct intention?

People ask monks these hypothetical questions all the time. Ajahn Sumedho answered by saying he didn't know what he would do (because until it happens one doesn't know all the factors and options involved), but he would "take the appropriate action at the time." There is always an option other than killing the gunmen. You could hold the gunman off until help came, you could try and incapacitate him, you could cover the children while they escaped, you could sacrifice yourself. The Buddha said don't kill, so presumably intentional killing never leads towards nibbana.

You never know the reality of a situation. What if your gunman had just shot two kids with tranquilizer darts and you thought they were dead from bullet wounds, so you kill him? What if he was a really nice guy who'd just had a nervous breakdown, or someone had spiked his drink with LSD? An arahant would take a course of action that would benefit everyone involved, including himself and the gunman.

What we do know is that the longer we practise/meditate, the more likely we are to make a decision based on the Dhamma rather than some other reason.

Wow, this really is good. Thanks Camerata

The question, what would you do if a Russian soldier (Cold War at this time) is ready to kill your family, I heard in my trial as conscientious objector in a German court (18 years old). I didn't go in the trap to answer. I sit down on my knees,

I made by intuition something like this and waited for the sentence of the court.

Vitarka Mudra

Intellectual argument, discussion. The circle formed by the thumb and index finger is the sign of the Wheel of Law.

I was acquitted to serve in the German Army. (crazy boys like me no army wants, in western countries)

[sabaijai]

Another view, from P A Payuttho:

We are now ready to summarize our standards for good and evil, or good and bad kamma, both strictly according to the law of kamma and also in relation to Social Preference, both on an intrinsically moral level and on a socially prescribed one.

1. In terms of direct benefit or harm: are these actions in themselves beneficial? Do they contribute to the quality of life? Do they cause kusala and akusala conditions to increase or wane?

2. In terms of beneficial or harmful consequences: are the effects of these actions harmful or beneficial to oneself?

3. In terms of benefit or harm to society: are they harmful to others, or helpful to them?

4. In terms of conscience, the natural human reflexive capacity: will those actions be censurable to oneself or not?

5. In terms of social standards: what is the position of actions in relation to those religious conventions, traditions, social institutions and laws which are based on wise reflection (as opposed to those which are simply superstitious or mistaken beliefs)?

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma.htm

[rockyysdt]

In regard to swatting/killing mosquitoes?

Another view, from P A Payuttho:

We are now ready to summarize our standards for good and evil, or good and bad kamma, both strictly according to the law of kamma and also in relation to Social Preference, both on an intrinsically moral level and on a socially prescribed one.

1. In terms of direct benefit or harm: are these actions in themselves beneficial? Do they contribute to the quality of life? Do they cause kusala and akusala conditions to increase or wane?

We see benefits (disease, skin irritation, parasite spread), but how significant is the impact on kharma by breaking a precept.

2. In terms of beneficial or harmful consequences: are the effects of these actions harmful or beneficial to oneself?

We can't really answer this as we don't know how serious such action is in terms of kharma accumulation, but benefit in guarding against disease can be measured.

3. In terms of benefit or harm to society: are they harmful to others, or helpful to them?

Again we can't really answer this as we don't know how serious such action is in terms of kharma accumulation, but to teach others by example can magnify this many times over.

4. In terms of conscience, the natural human reflexive capacity: will those actions be censurable to oneself or not?

Directly going against a major precept can play on ones conscious and lead to agitation.

5. In terms of social standards: what is the position of actions in relation to those religious conventions, traditions, social institutions and laws which are based on wise reflection (as opposed to those which are simply superstitious or mistaken beliefs)? It breaks a precept but how serious is it. Does killing a human attract 10,000 points while killing a mosquito attract 1 point, or are these actions equal?

http://www.buddhanet...cmdsg/kamma.htm

Without the insight of enlightenment or high levels of attainment, none of us can ever know how serious the act of killing mosquitoes is to the level of kharma we would reap.

So much so that even some Monks, sworn to keep the precepts, will indulge.

Is it a ratio of 1,000,000 to 1 when measured against killing a human, or is the precept nonnegotiable.

We do know the precept of not harming/killing, but was it too broadly worded?

Edited February 12, 2011 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

In regard to swatting/killing mosquitoes?

Another view, from P A Payuttho:

We are now ready to summarize our standards for good and evil, or good and bad kamma, both strictly according to the law of kamma and also in relation to Social Preference, both on an intrinsically moral level and on a socially prescribed one.

1. In terms of direct benefit or harm: are these actions in themselves beneficial? Do they contribute to the quality of life? Do they cause kusala and akusala conditions to increase or wane?

We see benefits (disease, skin irritation, parasite spread), but how significant is the impact on kharma by breaking a precept.

2. In terms of beneficial or harmful consequences: are the effects of these actions harmful or beneficial to oneself?

We can't really answer this as we don't know how serious such action is in terms of kharma accumulation, but benefit in guarding against disease can be measured.

3. In terms of benefit or harm to society: are they harmful to others, or helpful to them?

Again we can't really answer this as we don't know how serious such action is in terms of kharma accumulation, but to teach others by example can magnify this many times over.

4. In terms of conscience, the natural human reflexive capacity: will those actions be censurable to oneself or not?

Directly going against a major precept can play on ones conscious and lead to agitation.

5. In terms of social standards: what is the position of actions in relation to those religious conventions, traditions, social institutions and laws which are based on wise reflection (as opposed to those which are simply superstitious or mistaken beliefs)? It breaks a precept but how serious is it. Does killing a human attract 10,000 points while killing a mosquito attract 1 point, or are these actions equal?

http://www.buddhanet...cmdsg/kamma.htm

Without the insight of enlightenment or high levels of attainment, none of us can ever know how serious the act of killing mosquitoes is to the level of kharma we would reap.

So much so that even some Monks, sworn to keep the precepts, will indulge.

Is it a ratio of 1,000,000 to 1 when measured against killing a human, or is the precept nonnegotiable.

We do know the precept of not harming/killing, but was it too broadly worded?

My teacher would say that...all men are not equal...because of their past karma. In which case killing a bad man would earn less points, using the above example, than a good man, but killing a person who is practicing the dhamma with nibbana as goal, or already one of the four noble states, the points would be incalculable...

Although we are simply beings, all struggling in Samsara, those which have taken rebirth in the lower realms as a result of their karma will undoubtably experience suffering for a long time.

We must have compassion for them, and all beings.

I allow mosquitoes to bite, because to shoo them away without killing will just result in them returning, and it disturbs our meditation to do so. If I should suffer sickness or death because of it then let it be, it must be my own karmic result from past actions.

[rockyysdt]

My teacher would say that...all men are not equal...because of their past karma. In which case killing a bad man would earn less points, using the above example, than a good man, but killing a person who is practicing the dhamma with nibbana as goal, or already one of the four noble states, the points would be incalculable...

Although we are simply beings, all struggling in Samsara, those which have taken rebirth in the lower realms as a result of their karma will undoubtably experience suffering for a long time.

We must have compassion for them, and all beings.

If time is removed from the equation, then as we will all eventually practice and reach the ultimate goal, shouldn't all living things be considered equally?

Time is relative to gravity.

The more intense the gravity, the slower time goes.

I allow mosquitoes to bite, because to shoo them away without killing will just result in them returning, and it disturbs our meditation to do so. If I should suffer sickness or death because of it then let it be, it must be my own karmic result from past actions.

Have you considered wearing a mosquito head net?

Edited February 13, 2011 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

We are all beings, but not equal... otherwise killing an ant would be the same as killing an Arahant.

We are all in different stages of spiritual progress. Those who are 'lucky' enough to be born and meet a Buddha in person have earned that through much merit which bears fruit. We are lucky to be born and meet the Dhamma unlike many in other countries or religions who do not.

An elephant is a higher animal than an ant and the effort to kill it is far greater and so earns much more negative karma.

Mothers and Fathers are considered extremely worthy of honour and so killing them earns the same immense karma as killing an Arahant....a whole aeon in hell with no chance to gain Nibbana in that time.

[lungmi]

We are all beings, but not equal... otherwise killing an ant would be the same as killing an Arahant.

We are all in different stages of spiritual progress. Those who are 'lucky' enough to be born and meet a Buddha in person have earned that through much merit which bears fruit. We are lucky to be born and meet the Dhamma unlike many in other countries or religions who do not.

An elephant is a higher animal than an ant and the effort to kill it is far greater and so earns much more negative karma.

Mothers and Fathers are considered extremely worthy of honour and so killing them earns the same immense karma as killing an Arahant....a whole aeon in hell with no chance to gain Nibbana in that time.

I don't kill ants, specially the red ones. I know, there "poison" is antiseptic, their bites are a good medicament against arthritis. I don't invite them to bite me, but if it happens, I don"t kill them.