Questions About The Precept Against Killing

[leolibby]

From the Buddhist perspective, I would think everything depends on the person's intention.

So killing wild game to eat and survive is moral, but not killing for sport. Iv'e always believed that

[rockyysdt]

From the Buddhist perspective, I would think everything depends on the person's intention.

So killing wild game to eat and survive is moral, but not killing for sport. Iv'e always believed that

I came across a Christian gentleman who would travel to Africa to shoot wild animals.

He would sit in a camouflaged vantage point and wait for Buffalo to come to the watering hole.

He'd then shoot them (obviously for sport).

Upon questioning him and his religious values he replied: "Every ounce of the game is then butchered and used for meat".

He had the excuses but his intent was clear.

Edited July 27, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

So killing wild game to eat and survive is moral, but not killing for sport. Iv'e always believed that

No. If you intend to kill, you violate the precept. If you don't intend to kill, you don't violate the precept. If you accidentally step on an ant you don't violate the precept... for example.

And please try and stay on topic, guys. We are discussing Buddhist ethics and morality here.

[leolibby]

What if you die as a result of your unwillingness to kill? and do plants count? why or why not?

[camerata]

If you die accidentally, you don't violate the precept. Plants don't count because they aren't sentient beings, although there are some restrictions (apparently owing to Jainism) on what monks can do to plants.

[leolibby]

If you die accidentally, you don't violate the precept. Plants don't count because they aren't sentient beings, although there are some restrictions (apparently owing to Jainism) on what monks can do to plants.

Assume you don't have the luxury of supermarkets or civilization--you have to hunt to survive and also feed your family.. and it's winter so crops aren't an option. Would it be better to die?

[rockyysdt]

Assume you don't have the luxury of supermarkets or civilization--you have to hunt to survive and also feed your family.. and it's winter so crops aren't an option. Would it be better to die?

This can be answered in two parts.

1. To be born in such a time/environment is the fruit of your past Kharma. Much suffering to work through.

2. If you eat meat someone else has killed, this is OK.

[leolibby]

#1 does not answer the question: is it best to die?

And addressing #2: if you are a buddhist, and ask someone else to hunt for you... aren't you asking them them to incur the karma you dont want? Isn't that selfish? remember; there is no supermarket or market

Edited July 27, 2012 by leolibby

[rockyysdt]

#1 does not answer the question: is it best to die?

And addressing #2: if you are a buddhist, and ask someone else to hunt for you... aren't you asking them them to incur the karma you dont want? Isn't that selfish? remember; there is no supermarket or market

I can't answer your first question, "Is it better to die"?

I personally would kill game to survive and cop the fruits of Karma if there are any.

The trick with the other part is not to ask someone to kill for you?

For example, you're a hunter female member in a hunter gatherer community.

Your role is to gather berries and roots, suckle the young, and cook.

You can eat the meat safely.

Edited July 27, 2012 by rockyysdt

[leolibby]

For example, you're a hunter female member in a hunter gatherer community.

Your role is to gather berries and roots, suckle the young, and cook.

You can eat the meat safely.

So the key is to have other people do the dirty work. if you saw a $100 bill fall out of someones pocket, just make your husband take it. You can spend it free of any karmic ramification. is that right or am i missing something?

[leolibby]

I can't answer your first question, "Is it better to die"?

I personally would kill game to survive and cop the fruits of Karma if there are any.

That's good to hear. even if there are other people who will hunt, wouldn't a true person of compassion do all the kiling themself just to save their neighbors from incuring karma? Is the spititual path so selfish that you would rather have a 3rd party suffer for you?

Now, what about all the germs and virises your immune system kills everyday? "they are not sentient" is a double standard. life is life.

[fabianfred]

Virus and other such tiny creatures are not considered sentient.

It would be better karmic wise to die rather than break a precept in order to live...such as stealing food instead of starving to death...or getting food by immoral means.

[camerata]

An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics is a good place to get answers about the First Precept.

[leolibby]

Virus and other such tiny creatures are not considered sentient.

It would be better karmic wise to die rather than break a precept in order to live...such as stealing food instead of starving to death...or getting food by immoral means.

Humanity would have gone extinct millions of years ago if we hadn't hunted. Buddha would have never existed. What is immoral about killing for food? a quick, painless death is a humane end... most animals face a slow painful death if left to natural causes. Do not accept a religious rule as self- evident, as though it is gospel. who gets to say what is sentient or not? life is life.. is anyone here brave enough to call your beliefs into question?

[camerata]

Leolibby, you're just not getting it. This is the Buddhist Forum, where we discuss ethics and morals from the Buddhist perspective. The Judeo-Christian and secular perspectives are largely irrelevant. What's relevant is what the Buddha said in the Pali Canon, and it is based on the idea of actions resulting in good or bad karmic consequences. Only sentient beings are reborn and experience the results of good/bad actions - according to the Buddha.

The precepts are not inviolable "religious rules," they are training rules for the purpose of mental cultivation. A practitioner does his best, but no one except an arahant (enlightened one) can follow them perfectly.

[leolibby]

Then why do Tibetan Buddhists follow different traditions? do you consider them buddhists?

My appologies, I thought debate was welcome here. And I consider Christanity to be utter nonsense.

Edited July 27, 2012 by leolibby

[rockyysdt]

So the key is to have other people do the dirty work. if you saw a $100 bill fall out of someones pocket, just make your husband take it. You can spend it free of any karmic ramification. is that right or am i missing something?

The example identifies a person who by her circumstance escapes a role involving killing.

Neanderthal women were a fraction of the size and strength of their male counterparts and would have been mostly useless in a hunting party.

It would have been circumstance (good Kharma) that one would have found themselves in that situation.

In terms of those having others do their dirty work, I'm like you.

Such detail was never explained.

Importantly I don't think it matters that much.

Much has been said about eating meat and Buddhism at this forum.

I personally eat meat but refrain from killing.

If I had to, I would kill game for survival, no problem.

But as I don't have to I avoid killing (its not my thing).

The important thing is not to kill other humans (except in self defence - and even that is nasty if you find yourself in such a situation) and don't kill animals for sport.

As intention is a major part, I don't believe killing for survival will have the same degree of negative fruit as would killing due to hatred/desire.

Edited July 27, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Humanity would have gone extinct millions of years ago if we hadn't hunted. Buddha would have never existed. What is immoral about killing for food? a quick, painless death is a humane end... most animals face a slow painful death if left to natural causes. Do not accept a religious rule as self- evident, as though it is gospel. who gets to say what is sentient or not? life is life.. is anyone here brave enough to call your beliefs into question?

There are many important roles in life.

These might include executioner, soldier, slaughterman, hunter, exterminator, and others.

Most of these roles are vital to the smooth functioning of society.

Those unlucky enough to be involved in them will be considerably affected.

If you have a choice, you should avoid them.

That doesn't mean you're getting someone else to do your dirty work, as there'll always be someone to fill the vacancies.

Naturally if there was ever a shortage you might step up to the plate (sacrifice).

Early man generally suffered far more than we could ever imagine.

As man has evolved there are more options not involving going out and killing.

I personally view killing (hunting) as a de-sensitizing process.

1. to lessen the sensitiveness of.

2. to make indifferent, unaware, or the like, in feeling.

This is the opposite of where we want to be with our practice of awareness.

Edited July 27, 2012 by rockyysdt

[leolibby]

There are logical flaws in most things... karma seems like nonsence... just a way to explain good and bad fortune to child-minded people. No offense.. if you had a son who was born with some terminal disease, would you tell him its because of karma? would you honestly believe it? It's amusing that indians (and thais too) have such great religious traditions-- karma-- yet they continue to be born marginalized and impoverished. I was raised lacto-ovo vegetarian, but we require vitamin B12 which is only in meat or dairy. One f the things that turned me off of vaishnavism ... i read a book by a guru.. he said if a woman has a abortion.. she will be aborted 7 times as a fetus... that's mathmatically impossible because in a few generations, like 400% of babies would be aborted. abortion is not necissarily wrong.. the body does it all the time.

[leolibby]

These might include executioner, soldier, slaughterman, hunter, exterminator, and others.

I was a soldier.

[leolibby]

That doesn't mean you're getting someone else to do your dirty work, as there'll always be someone to fill the vacancies.

But is buddhism a selfish religion? Is it more important to lessen other's suffering than your own? You must admit, people do lets others suffer for them.

I've never hunted, but i think it could show oe how precious life is.. I have some native american friends. They were also quite spiritual. I heard sometimes they would ask permission of a tree before cutting it down. i dont know if its true

[camerata]

Then why do Tibetan Buddhists follow different traditions? do you consider them buddhists?

What has that got to do with the first precept?

My appologies, I thought debate was welcome here.

It isn't "debate" when you are just bashing people over the head with your personal views and ridiculing Buddhist beliefs without understanding them.

[rockyysdt]

These might include executioner, soldier, slaughterman, hunter, exterminator, and others.

I was a soldier.

I'm sorry to hear.

I think, to be an active soldier (battle) would be one of the most unfortunate things one could experience.

[leolibby]

bye

[rockyysdt]

There are logical flaws in most things... karma seems like nonsence... just a way to explain good and bad fortune to child-minded people. No offense.. if you had a son who was born with some terminal disease, would you tell him its because of karma? would you honestly believe it? It's amusing that indians (and thais too) have such great religious traditions-- karma-- yet they continue to be born marginalized and impoverished. I was raised lacto-ovo vegetarian, but we require vitamin B12 which is only in meat or dairy. One f the things that turned me off of vaishnavism ... i read a book by a guru.. he said if a woman has a abortion.. she will be aborted 7 times as a fetus... that's mathmatically impossible because in a few generations, like 400% of babies would be aborted. abortion is not necissarily wrong.. the body does it all the time.

How I look at it is that we don't really know how much of the Buddhas teaching has been taken out of context.

Kharma is one of those things.

So is re birth.

Remember that there are two schools of thought.

Re birth into many lives or rebirth moment to moment and no more once dead?

Is kharma, taking the mickey out of Brahmanism, whilst putting forward a basis for living a virtuous life within the model of the thinking of the day 2500 years ago, or something to be taken literally?

Whether your actions will lead to pay back down the line or not, whether you will give rise to re birth into many future lives or not, these are not important and have no bearing on the practice.

Forget the metaphysical.

Try to fault the practical.

Try to fault the practice.

Buddhism, regardless of what anyone will tell you, and regardless of peoples beliefs, is a practice towards a better life while you are still alive.

Free from conditioning and free from Dhukka.

The precepts are designed to diminish and minimise ones ego and to maximise ones focus on ones concentration and level of awareness.

Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñā, Pāli: paññā) Right view Right knowledge Right intention Right liberation

Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla) Right speech Right action Right livelihood

Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi) Right effort Right mindfulness Right concentration

No one here can give you the answers.

These can only be gained by personal experience.

If I was debating I'd focus on the practice.

If I wanted answers to the metaphysical I'd work on practice.

If there are answers to be had, this is the only way to find them.

Even those who are enlightened can never tell you as they can't impart personal experience.

Edited July 27, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Theres a line in the Bagavad Gita which goes; "...he whose mind dwells beyond attachment, beyond ego, no thought shall bind him nor any act. And though I slay these thousands, I am no slayer..."

Krsna is advising Arjuna to go apparently against everything he has been taught and wage war even though many of the enemy are relatives and friends.

If an Arahant does not aquire good or bad Kamma because he is 'beyond ego' is the precept against killing only relevant to the unenlightened? And if so is it the act itself or the attachment to outcomes that creates Kamma?

[leolibby]

SO, killing is only immoral if it harms us.. if it causes suffering in us? If we believe ourself to be enlightened, we can murder whatever we want.

Edited July 27, 2012 by leolibby

[Several]

Ah, no. I was asking if you were enlightened (rather than just believing it) if immoral actions had any Karmic effect. Kamma seems to be a result of samsara, its aquiring it that causes rebirth.

I used to believe the same as you, that Kamma was a carrot/stick device to keep the unknowing masses in line, but there's much more to it than that.

I also used to waste energy always looking for what was wrong with things and underestimating the wisdom of the ancients, because I was angry at the world.

The precept says not killing, but does not define humans. You could even extend it to killing time.

So really I'm trying to clarify if it is the action or the intent which is the cause of suffering.

[rockyysdt]

SO, killing is only immoral if it harms us.. if it causes suffering in us? If we believe ourself to be enlightened, we can murder whatever we want.

Everybody fears being struck by a rod.

Everybody fears death.

Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself,

Do not kill others or cause others to kill.

Everybody fears being struck by a rod,

Life being dear to all.

Therefore, knowing this, feeling for others as for yourself,

Do not kill others or cause others to kill.

(Maitreya, trans, 1995, 37)

Whoever withholds the rod from creatures

Both weak and strong,

Abstaining from killing and causing killing

Him do I call a Noble One.

(Maitreya, trans, 1995, 107)

For this reason many Buddhists are strict vegetarians.

Others choose to eat meat to sustain themselves (body type), but rely on others to kill.

As you point out, this is very contentious and one of the things which can't be answered.

Perhaps the awakened ones would know?

Maybe, if you can survive, the vegetarian with dairy path is playing it safe??!

PS: Morality is a Christian thing. I think in Buddhism we say "Unwise action".

PPS: What time do you retire?

Edited July 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[leolibby]

PS: Morality is a Christian thing.

I know. I'm just short on words. The precept was designed to apply to people in a state level society in Northern India, where plants grow. Is the word "sentience" anywhere in the precept? Sentience is a subjective thng.. it is impossible to know what has it. Buddha might have said plants don't have it, but Buddha was not an omnipotenemt divine being.. He simply came from a cultiure that believed we should eat plants.. because of Hindu teachings.. for example somewhere Krishna asks for a "leaf". It seems we should simply avoid unessissary killing. Karma is geing to accumilate no matter what you do or don't do.

Karma is a carrot-and-stick idea to keep the masses in line. ie. most people believe in this good/ bad 'reap what you sow' thing. it does go deeper, but most people don't... all religions are only superficcially followed. for example, Ive met buddhists who think they worship Buddha as a God.

Edited July 28, 2012 by leolibby