Hanzze wrote:I do not think that that catches the point. Taking life is taking life. Harming is harming. Do not look if it is a good being or a bad, an animal or something else. A plant or a ghost. Killing is killing. To think about if the being is sentient is dangerous.Annapurna wrote:
Well, all these thoughts are clever, but redundant, when you look at the categories Buddha marked as sentient:
Humans and animals.
Is a mosquito an animal?
Therefore, it is sentient.
If it is sentient, killing it is breaking the first precept.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Reduce your killing and harming. That is the practice at the very first beginning. Nothing else. As more complication are coming with the keeping of it you need to work on the roots of killing and harming. Mind. There is where you can handle it real. If they are uprooted, you will not need to decide anymore
Of course it does.I do not think that that catches the point.
I think you could use a bit more information on what constitutes sentience in Buddhism and what doesn't.
Plants are not sentient, in Buddhism, -and we're not Jains.
And so far I haven't met a ghost yet, have you? ...
No, it's not.To think about if the being is sentient is dangerous.
It's helpful and pivotal, -because you know that you can eat plants, and take antibiotics, and that you shouldn't kill animals and humans.
It really doesn't have to be any more complicated.
Yes. With the facilities of the mind we can distinguish between plants and animals.Mind. There is where you can handle it real.
It would be killing an animal, but it would not be killing a plant, according to Buddhist understanding of sentience.
Or what would be left to eat???