Questions About The Precept Against Killing

[Several]

Morality is also Buddhist. Sila. Right thought, speech, action, livelihood are heavily based on morality. Also seem to recall Buddha saying he was not a dietician. Living on alms is enough without putting pressure on Dana givers for specific things. One caveat was that the meat was not killed specifically for monks. As far as harming plants the reason, I am told, was that monks were helping themselves to farmers goods. Mangoes and such. Same with vassa, instituted to stop monks walking through rice paddies just after planting and ruining crops. Some vinaya is just practical rather than deeply moral.

[leolibby]

Morality is also Buddhist.

Well in Hinduism, there is no sin.. not like Christian sin/ damnation. The closest is just "ignorance." But even Hindu demons will eventually reach spiritual liberation. so if I refer to morality, i mean the buddhist equivalent.

[rockyysdt]

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.

This is why I stick to practice and in time hope to develop concentration, wisdom, and compassion.

I see keeping the precepts (broadly) as a way of not harming others whilst keeping out of trouble.

Anything which harms others decensitizes you, or is selfish and will either inflate the ego or attract possible issues which will detract from practice.

Imagine if you were involved in the killing of a human.

You can either lock it in the back of your mind (opposite of mindfulness and awareness), or live with its implications (unsettling, traumatic).

I wouldn't overly worry about killing of animals low in the chain if this can't be avoided, but don't go out of my way to unneccarily kill either.

Do you practice?

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.

Each of us is heavily conditioned.

Try as we might to change, we eventually slip back to being controlled by our conditioning.

Eventually people follow superficially because it is easier (not in conflict with conditioning).

Greed, aversion, and delusion:

• Greed causing us to devote our resource to the things we desire.
  
• Aversion to work, dedication, study, practice, missing out on all manner of luxury, laziness, sloth and torpor.
  
• Delusion causing us to doubt and to follow what we already believe as the truth.
  

I suppose there are three issues here.

1. What the Buddha actually taught (difficult to fully determine).

2. What scholars have interpreted Buddhism to be.

3. How people practice it.

There are those who discount Buddhism by judging it on how some practice it or based on misinterpretation.

Contemporary scholars specialising in Pali and Sanskrit launguages are suggesting the Buddha, living in a time when Brahmanism ruled and defiance would lead to death, disguised his teachings using prevailing belief (re birth, kharma, and others) but was really sending it up and getting people to think.

Theravadans took everything literally, but perhaps the Buddha was pulling their leg (Brahmans).

I'm sure the Buddha packaged his teachings for the prevailing times.

One example was to place the Gods (Devas) in Samsara with the test of us, not only demoting Devas below the level of awakening (even Brahma himself), it's said he was taking the mickey out of them.

He was laughing at the Gods whilst appearing to go along with Brahmanism and relms.

If you want to study the interpretation of early Buddhist Suttas, google John Peacock.

Edited July 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Yeah, same for Devas and Asuras in Buddhism. Any being in the Lokas, demon, ghost, angel, human or animal will exhaust whatever Kamma put them there and be reborn elsewhere. If thats the right way of putting it.

Angulimara is an example of what I was on about before. He killed around 1000 people to repay a debt, and he was about to do in his mum when Buddha intervened. Angulimara, if I recall, attained Nibbana.

Jain monks have a serious take on ahimsa but they can also be proactive about it. There are a couple of stories about them assasinating kings who were planning to wage war, the rationale being its better to whack one king than allow thousands to die. Not sure about the fate of the monks as Jains have a slightly different view of Karma.

Does this mean that killing itself is not a hinderance to enlightenment (Angulimaras case, killing his mum would have been too much), and is killing sometimes justified (food, tyrannical despots)?

[rockyysdt]

Angulimara is an example of what I was on about before. He killed around 1000 people to repay a debt, and he was about to do in his mum when Buddha intervened. Angulimara, if I recall, attained Nibbana.

Does this mean that killing itself is not a hinderance to enlightenment (Angulimaras case, killing his mum would have been too much), and is killing sometimes justified (food, tyrannical despots)?

If the story is true, he had the advantage of having the Buddha as his teacher, a very powerful advantage.

[leolibby]

I had a period where I was into Vaishnavism (Hare Krishna). Hindus, (or at least Srila prabhupada) believe that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu, and that the buddhist teachings were meant to correct some aspects of Hindu practice that had gone astray.. like animal sacrafices. he was advocating against outward beliefs, practice, and advocating for turning inward.

[Several]

If the story is true, he had the advantage of having the Buddha as his teacher, a very powerful advantage.

Absolutely. What extraordinary Kamma, to be required to perform such a horrific task in collecting 1000 right index fingers, and meeting and being liberated by The Buddha in the same life. Milarepa from Tibet also killed through sorcery (at his mothers request), and was liberated by Marpa. He was required to perform many arduous tasks to exhaust his Kamma nearly dying in the process. But both these men were killing on the orders of others who they felt they must obey. They then found Nibbana on the advice of greater superiors, realising the Buddhist message was the end to their suffering. I'm seeing a message of hope for even the worst of humankind. Nibbana is stronger than murder. Regardless how low we fall, the highest is never completely unattainable.

[camerata]

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.

This sounds like the demented writing of supposed "enlightened masters" and others that you can read in Zen at War. Compare the above with:

"The case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For it is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He had no desire to harm anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is though the sword automatically performs its function of justice, which is the function of mercy…. the swordsman turns into an artist of the first grade, engaged in producing a work of genuine originality." - D.T. Suzuki

I think one can arrive at faulty conclusions about non-duality.

[Several]

Demented, then beheaded! Duality in action! En garde!

[khaowong1]

Pretty much good questions and answers by all. This is my favorite sunday morning activity.

[khaowong1]

The debate about the pro's and con's of the 1st precept has probably being going on for 2600 years and probably will until the end of time.

example: is it alright to kill to protect your family? is it alright to kill to protect your life? is it alright to kill to protect your country ( military service) and home,

is it alright to kill to provide food for yourself and family? etc. and etc.

There are many stories of the Buddha is his past lives giving up his life in order not to kill. However, we're talking about the Buddha.

I for one don't have his compassion or wisdom.

Having said that. I believe that anyone who kills any sentient being ( for any reason) will have to pay their karmic debt somewhere down the road.

[Asianbloke]

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.

This sounds like the demented writing of supposed "enlightened masters" and others that you can read in Zen at War. Compare the above with:

"The case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For it is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He had no desire to harm anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is though the sword automatically performs its function of justice, which is the function of mercy…. the swordsman turns into an artist of the first grade, engaged in producing a work of genuine originality." - D.T. Suzuki

I think one can arrive at faulty conclusions about non-duality.

I fail to understand why are people here considering Lord Krishna's message to Arjuna in Bhagvad Gita as replete with dual meanings. One needs to look at the larger picture to understands why did Krishna preach so since Bhagvad Gita is only a chapter/part from the epic of Mahabharata.

Arjuna along with his brothers (together known as Pandavas) was fighting against Kauravas (yes, their relatives).

We need to look at the reasons that initiated this epic war that included several conspiracies by the Kauravas to kill the Pandavas (like burning Pandavas alive by playing 'gracious' hosts to the Pandavas & housing them in a palace designed to go up in flames in an instant); tricking them off their possessions & the entire kingdom in a game of dice and compelling them to live in a secluded forests filled with wild beasts for several years & that too with a condition that if their presence is discovered, their period of exile will be 'renewed'; disgracing a woman of the Pandava family in the royal court in front of several men - amongst several other atrocities)

Finally, when the epic battle broke out, Arjuna trembled seeing his own relatives, the Kauravas as the fighting enemy, not due to fear but because of his inherent goodness and love.

It was then that Krishna, who has Arjuna's cousin asked him to forget that they were his kith/kin and wage a battle against them otherwise he would be slayed forever by the evil Kauravas.

[Jawnie]

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

Plants don't count because they don't have a central nervous system or anything similar therefore they don't experience suffering when they are killed.

The are a number of Jataka stories (stories of Buddha's previous lives when he was a bodhisattva} in which he actually allowed himself to be eaten by wild animals or gave his life in some manner for the sake of others or so that others would like. Ultimately, each individual will need to abandon killing in order to stop accumulating negative karma. There a many, many practicing Buddhists of all sects who scrupulously follow this tenet. Life release of animals of all kinds is the 'flip-side" of this tenet. Some Tibetan monasteries still practice animal releases, releasing 100,000s of fish into rivers, ransoming sheep, goats, yak, even horses, from butcheries and are then set free. A Tibetan friend said his monastery used to perform life releases "for months." It's really a matter than the world and humans havie given up trying to follow this tenet even though every major religion in the world teaches it. It's a glaring hypocrisy.

[ChrisB87]

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.

Sorry, i must disagree with your 2nd point: if we create a market for animals to be killed this is not okay.

[AYJAYDEE]

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.

you certainly do not have to be omnipotent or divine to be all knowing or awakened. and because some buddhists may think they worship a god does not mean all buddhists follow buddhism superficially.

[rockyysdt]

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

Plants don't count because they don't have a central nervous system or anything similar therefore they don't experience suffering when they are killed.

The are a number of Jataka stories (stories of Buddha's previous lives when he was a bodhisattva} in which he actually allowed himself to be eaten by wild animals or gave his life in some manner for the sake of others or so that others would like. Ultimately, each individual will need to abandon killing in order to stop accumulating negative karma. There a many, many practicing Buddhists of all sects who scrupulously follow this tenet. Life release of animals of all kinds is the 'flip-side" of this tenet. Some Tibetan monasteries still practice animal releases, releasing 100,000s of fish into rivers, ransoming sheep, goats, yak, even horses, from butcheries and are then set free. A Tibetan friend said his monastery used to perform life releases "for months." It's really a matter than the world and humans havie given up trying to follow this tenet even though every major religion in the world teaches it. It's a glaring hypocrisy.

The Dalai Lama has been quoted as saying:

You must focus on the fundamental equality between yourself and all other sentient beings.

Just as you have the instinctive natural desire to be happy and overcome suffering, so do all sentient beings.

Just as you have the the right to fulfil this innate aspiration, so do all sentient beings.

So on what grounds do you discriminate?

Sadly, if all humans switched to vegetarianism a vast number would not thrive.

Genetic difference in human body types dictate ones ability to remain healthy without meat.

A classic catch 22.

Fortunately there have been great advances in the production of Invitro (test tube) Meat.

Within 10 years scientists will have developed the large scale production of muscle tissue for the purposes of producing non sentient meat.

People will be able to balance their diet without the need to slaughter animals.

Edited August 22, 2013 by rockyysdt