acinteyyo wrote:Did someone ever thought about that it's not so much about whether or not a "being" suffers from being killed but rather that it is about (the killer who's going to suffer because of) the state of mind which happens to be when the intentional act of killing is carried out? Maybe what should be considered killing does not depend on WHAT will be killed but whether or not there is the intention of killing whatsoever... know what I'm trying to say?
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thank you acinteyyo for pointing it out,
Yes I agree that intention is thing determines killing.
But it is not like that, it is about don't want to harm other. When I have doubts, by doing this action, do I harm anyone? And I cannot have doubt then ignore it, by doing this or that maybe I would kill someone then still do it.
Like one could closed his eyes then he will not have bad intention, but I think that isn't the way the Buddha taught us. The Buddha taught about facing it with knowledge, not trying to evade our problems. By evade problems, we could have temporary peace, but we lose wisdom, while wisdom (panna) is the most important attribute.
Here is an example, a monk built a small house by using clay then heat it to porcelain. The Buddha commanded other monks destroy it because that action could harm small beings. The monk made porcelain didn't have intention to kill, but that action isn't allowable. We could still keep our eyes closed and trying to not know that our actions could harm other or not.
Principally there is no "absolution" through opinions of others. It is just about cause and effect. It is not about morality of a kind of "you must not do this or that" or "it is forbidden because the Buddha said this or that". Often people are asking others "what do you think?" but that is of no avail. Why? Because in case of conflict the answer can only be found through "investigating into oneself".
I don't agree with you.
Technically, what you said is right, but the problem is that most of us don't have the wisdom to investigating into oneslf so we must based on the Buddha's teachings or sometimes others' opinions. For me, "it is forbidden because the Buddha said this or that" is true. If the Buddha didn't allow, I am satisfy with it. I lay down my life on his teachings.
Did you read patimokkha? If you did then you would know that if the Buddha didn't allow one thing, it isn't just because "investigating into oneself" is enough, because sometimes arahants did things then the Buddha forbid it. Not because of oneself, but because of others' sake and believe,..