Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by Fede » Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:39 am

cooran wrote:......it is not mice or rats which I catch in a non-harming trap and release a couple of kilometres away in bushland near a creek - it is Termites/borers in the roof timbers.

with metta
Chris
Chris, if it's any consolation, A Buddhist Monastery in the USA had an infestation of cockroaches which they eventually had to eliminate by calling a company of exterminators to do it.
They ruminated, meditated, and sought counsel from their 'Mother Monastery' before they did so. But in the end, it was their only option.
I can't give more detail, but I know I read it in one of Lama Surya Das' Awakening trilogy books..... (not everyone's cup of tea, but he has his good points!)
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

chownah
Posts: 7474
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by chownah » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:53 am

We have alot of termites in Thailand and what they do here is to remove the infested wood and then maybe spray the remaining wood in the vicinity and replace what was removed sometimes with treated wood....treated wood doesn't kill termites...they know from the flavor to not eat it I think........using treated wood is prevention in that you will not get the infestation so no need to kill. Ground floors are all concrete and the soil is treated with poison before the concrete floor is poured...again this keeps the bugs out so it is prevention...at least I think this is how it works...
chownah

Moggalana
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:31 am
Location: Germany

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by Moggalana » Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:51 am

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
A very important point!
Bhante Dhammika wrote: The Buddha says: ‘I say that intention is kamma, because having first intended one acts with body, speech or mind’ (A.III,415). According to the Buddha, every intentional action modifies our consciousness, thus building our character and thereby influencing our behaviour, our experience and consequently our destiny. Positive intentional actions (motivated by generosity, love and wisdom) tend towards consequences that are experienced as positive while intentional negative actions (motivated by greed, hatred and delusion) tend towards consequences that are experienced as negative.
Kamma and Natural Disasters 3
Let it come. Let it be. Let it go.

whynotme
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Killing, what should be considered killing? Bacteria, virus?

Post by whynotme » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:48 am

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.
TMingyur wrote: 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,..

Regards
Please stop following me

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests