The idea that a mosquito has been a human being in a previous birth, or that a mosquito has been a mosquito, or a human being a human being in previous births... is completely at odds with the concept of Punarbhava as found in the Suttas.TMingyur wrote:I concur.cooran wrote:Hello DeeHarry, all,
There isn’t any wiggle room in Buddhism … the deliberate knowing killing another being is just that, and will have its results. The mosquito in this re-becoming, may well have been a human in a previous birth….
The only thing to do is to regret form the depth of one's heart, openly admit one's misdeed, practice the teachings as never did before and consequently abstain from any further killing in the future.
The worst thing to do is to justify or seek justifications.
It is in fact a variation of the idea of an atta.
The kammic implications of intentional killing are not made more clear by an over simplistic presentation of kamma vipaka and punarbhava. Neither are the moral aspects which underpin the First Precept. And it is vital that the morality which underpin the precepts is understood in their complexity. Not reduced to easily digested formulae.
The subtle teachings of the Buddha are ill served by reducing them to nursery tales.