Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

*splat*

As I was driving to help out some wildlife tonight, I noticed how sad and counterproductive my mission was. How so? Well, as I was driving to save one life, I was also witnessing numerous bugs splat against my windshield. Is this why monks/nuns don't drive (at least I haven't seen them do so ever)? I've even heard of many practitioners not even walk on grass. It just seems like such a hopeless situation... there's this parasitic never-ending circle of life feeding off of another entity's death-- even if it's not intentional. How is enlightenment ever to be achieved if we're unknowingly squishing bugs and purchasing items that contribute to others' demise? If one is truly enlightened does that mean their karma is forever-more perfect and that they don't even accidentally kill the tiniest of insects?
«1

Comments

  • which would you rather be killed by...the mindless person running away from a fire or a bodhisattva fireman?
    shanyin
  • But what if you know that driving the car kills bugs almost certainly each time you drive it? Is that not a form of intention because you're choosing a method that you know causes harm most times if not all times?
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    Thats the problem with living in samsara or rather having samsaric vision.

    Inevitably no matter what you do or don't do something or someone is harmed.

    The first noble truth is that life is suffering.

    And that is true on all fronts. Its something that should pierce our hearts and make us weep. Everything we do and try is hopeless, trite, and truly not going anywhere unless it is found in the dharma of our hearts/minds & practice.

    There are infinite ways we can deconstruct and interpret the issue of killing a bug. People argue morality and ethics all the time. They justify their action based on the bias held by their subtle views be it material or non material. There is not a shred of objectivity when it comes to this kind of stuff.

    So really what it comes down to in any practical/pragmatic sense is how can this help you for your liberation so that you can benefit beings?

    And my answer to that is that suffering is unavoidable. We must refrain from harm as much as we can but we will harm beings. And if we do we should honor them by doing practices to benefit them, to hold them in our minds and hearts and strengthen our resolve to attain Buddhahood. Then we will be able to project infinite wisdom to all those beings who you created a connect with. Esoteric enough? Don't underestimate the perfection of compassion and wisdom. Anything is possible.

    Hell if I could go back in time I would even slap the Buddha in the face just to create a stronger connection and karmic bond with him. Haha just kidding.

    This is all meaningless quibble. What you need to do is digest the act of harm in the heart. Feel the tenderness, the saddness. Feel how vulnerable things are. We truly are no different than the insects. We too will be hit by a car be it metaphorical or physical. Death approaches all of us. Suffering is unavoidable. This perfect human body and opportunity we waste. Karma is real and unvoidable. We need to use all the resources to motivate and propel our practice so that we can truly benefit this burning world.

    Use your experience and life as a conduit for the expression of understanding samsara with true knowledge. The burning tender heart that weeps yet responses.

    Good luck.
    riverflowSillyPuttyDavid
  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited June 2013

    But what if you know that driving the car kills bugs almost certainly each time you drive it? Is that not a form of intention because you're choosing a method that you know causes harm most times if not all times?

    The Buddha said:
    Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect. (AN 6.63)
    Knowing that driving may lead to bugs being killed is still different to having an intention to kill those bugs. For example, Person X sees a bug and squashes it with a piece of paper. In that case, it is clear that the act of squashing the bug is done with an actual intention to kill and the state of mind is one of ill-will/aversion. However, when you are driving the car, you aren't doing so thinking, "Woo hoo, die bugs! die!". If that was the case then it could be said that there was an intention to kill.

    So let's say you drive and simply think that you are driving in order to get to your destination so you can help some wildlife and there is no desire to kill bugs along the way whatsoever. Then in such case, what is your state of mind while driving? It is in a state of compassion and there is lack of ill-will/aversion. So compare that with squashing the bug with a piece of paper where the state of mind is one which is full of ill-will/aversion.

    In the Mula Sutta, the Buddha said:
    Aversion itself is unskillful. Whatever an aversive person fabricates by means of body, speech, or intellect, that too is unskillful... Lack of aversion itself is skillful. Whatever an unaversive person fabricates by means of body, speech, or intellect, that too is skillful.

    Another way of looking at it is this, which is what the Buddha said in the Dhammapada:
    Phenomena are preceded by the heart,
    ruled by the heart,
    made of the heart.
    If you speak or act with a corrupted heart,
    suffering follows you
    ,
    as the wheel of the cart,
    the track of the ox that pulls it.

    Phenomena are preceded by the heart,
    ruled by the heart,
    made of the heart.
    If you speak or act with a calm, bright heart,
    then happiness follows you
    ,
    like a shadow that never leaves.
    So, in the case of squashing a bug with a piece of paper, that is something done with a "corrupted heart", ie. a heart corrupted by ill-will/anger/aversion which will therefore lead to suffering, whereas driving in order to go help some wildlife and without any desire to kill bugs is done with a "calm, bright heart" ie. a heart that lacks ill-will/aversion and is also full of compassion which will therefore lead to happiness.

    So whenever you are doing something and unsure whether it is right/skillful or wrong/unskillful look deeply into your heart with honesty. Are you doing something with a corrupted heart or a calm, bright heart? In this particular case, while you are driving, if you look into your heart and you know that it is somehow corrupted then you should think about what you need to do to make it truly calm and bright. If you feel that the only way you can make it truly calm and bright is to choose a different mode of transportation then by all means do so. But that is something only you can know and decide.
    SillyPuttyperson
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    edited June 2013
    I hit a bird on the highway while driving home the other night. I was, obviously, very upset and thought about it for a long time after. A few things occurred to me... These things always happen so suddenly and I WAS paying attention, but the bird veered right in front of me, then left, then back in front of my car. My foot had been hovering over the brake because, not only did I think the bird was going to veer back off the road (and would have been safe if the bird had continued that direction), but the highway was busy and there were cars all around me, I definitely would have been risking an accident if I had actually braked. Assessing all of this in a moment, I don't know that I could have made any other decision.

    But as it is, it all happened in the blink of an eye and I could sit here with could haves and would haves but decided to forgive myself instead... Pay attention another day... Still try to do my best to ease suffering.

    Intention is what matters. You cannot prevent all suffering. Even running is likely to crush insects beneath your feet. Inevitably, the building you live in once broke the ground and countless insects and animals along with it. How far would you like to take it? Don't discourage yourself. @taiyaki gives great advice above me.
    riverflowSillyPutty
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013

    Intention.

    Intention Intention... Intention
    Incidentally that is one of the main differences between Buddhadharma and Jainadharma..The Jains teach that even unintentional actions create karma.
    Which why their monks wear masks and carry soft brooms to sweep the ground in front of them.

    NB Many Vajrayana and other Mahayana monks do drive.
    I am not sure that Theravadin monks do though.
    riverflowSillyPutty
  • @SillyPutty - the precept to not kill doesn't work the same way as a Biblical commandment because everything we do ultimately and inescapably connects to some new cause of suffering somewhere, somehow, no matter how large or small. No one can keep the precepts absolutely.

    Rather, the precept functions as a lens, to raise your awareness of the suffering around you-- not in order to feel bad about it, but to help purify your intentions. The things we normally take for granted lessen because of this raised awareness, and we act compassionately out of that lucidity.
    Straight_ManCittaSillyPutty
  • You're always killing, all the time, even right now while you're reading this you are killing - or at least your immune system is. My point being that you have no more control over killing bugs when you travel (by car or by foot, you'll inevitably squish someone) than you do over your white blood cells gobbling up bacteria.
    Just try to minimise your intentional killing and you're doing well. Although it might not hurt to drive the minimum you have to too, if not for the bugs then for air quality reasons.
  • Karma is intention, but that doesn't mean because you act with "good intention" you are causing good karma.

    People have "good intention" all the time yet cause suffering by their actions. In fact, people almost always justify their actions as necessary. Suicide bombers will tell you theirs is a noble act, sacrificing their lives for a noble cause. People picketing against gay marriage right now believe theirs is a noble action, defending the sanctity of marriage against "those deviants and their gay agenda". So how can you use intention as a guide?

    riverflow
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Buddhadharma in all its forms has always added an additional framework to intention.
    Right intention will always be a source of harmlessness and goodwill to others.
    Suicide bombers do not act in a way consistent with doing no harm to others.
    Those picketing gay weddings are not acting in goodwill to the individuals who have made that choice.
    In both cases the wider intention is inconsistent to the actuality of the actions.
    person
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I think truly believing with full honesty that you have good intentions is different than those who justify their actions. People often would rather not be accountable for their actions and feelings.
    If the people picketing against gay marriage actually dug through their feelings on the matter they should come to realize that they can still live by their ideal morals without inflicting them on other people. That they do so and feel they are doing right doesn't excuse the behavior. They use very little personal reflection and instead just spout the same words they hear from church leaders. Sometimes it is easy to see that you are truly using honest introspection to realize intention. Other times it is less clear and requires more investigation. Other times yet we realize the intention and choose the less pure path anyhow. All the people who don't even know how to investigate themselves are already living in hell. Funny that they worry about going there if they don't hold up signs.
    Citta
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    SOME church leaders karasti. In the UK at least some of the most eloquent pleas for inclusivity , including same- sex marriage, have been coming from other church leaders.

    Sorry for the detour..

    _/\_
    vinlynriverflow
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    I am a killer.

    Now what?
    lobster
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Cinorjer said:

    Karma is intention, but that doesn't mean because you act with "good intention" you are causing good karma.

    People have "good intention" all the time yet cause suffering by their actions. In fact, people almost always justify their actions as necessary. Suicide bombers will tell you theirs is a noble act, sacrificing their lives for a noble cause. People picketing against gay marriage right now believe theirs is a noble action, defending the sanctity of marriage against "those deviants and their gay agenda". So how can you use intention as a guide?

    Excellent post. And I will add that I think intention must be good and intelligent. If you're driving 90 miles an hour in a school zone at dismissal time, even though you have no intention of hurting anyone, you are not acting wisely.
    karmabluesriverflow
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    genkaku said:

    I am a killer.

    Now what?

    Milarepa was killer.

    There is no karma that cannot be purified.

    Invincible_summer
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    edited June 2013
    @Chaz

    Responsibility first.

    Purification later.
    vinlynInvincible_summerlobster
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    @Citta, Yes, some. I wasn't very clear in my post. I didn't mean to single out gay marriage in that part of my comment, it was more an observation that most Christians seem to not want to investigate teachings themselves, and will take whatever their leaders tell them as gospel because they are called by God to teach people who cannot understand the teachings without their leadership and guidance. Obviously churches and their followers are different, I didn't mean to lump them together. In my experience, this is what happens. I always say such things with the understanding that other people, and other churches are different.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    _/\_
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    The Jains used to sweep the road ahead of them as they walked, to avoid stepping on bugs. Buddhists don't go that far, though they share some beliefs/teachings. If you're really concerned about it, you could ride your bike next time....?
  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Cinorjer said:

    Karma is intention, but that doesn't mean because you act with "good intention" you are causing good karma.

    People have "good intention" all the time yet cause suffering by their actions. In fact, people almost always justify their actions as necessary. Suicide bombers will tell you theirs is a noble act, sacrificing their lives for a noble cause. People picketing against gay marriage right now believe theirs is a noble action, defending the sanctity of marriage against "those deviants and their gay agenda". So how can you use intention as a guide?

    Suicide bombers have an intention to kill. They purposely blow themselves up with the desire that those around them get killed. Although they do think that their actions are noble that is a wrong view produced by their delusional minds. So while they may subjectively believe that they have "good" intentions, but that is their own delusion which is inconsistent with the Dhamma. Therefore, they will accrue bad karma for their murderous actions which was done with an intention to kill.

    Same with people picketing against gay marriage. They may subjectively believe that theirs is a noble action but that too is their own delusional thinking which is inconsistent with the Dhamma. In fact, it is most likely that they are also acting out of aversion/ill-will towards gay couples and this would be another cause for them to accrue negative karma.
    person
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    You still kill bugs on the bike, not as many, though. It's just impossible to avoid. Not only do you still run them over, but the flying ones go up your nose and into your mouth so not only do you still kill them but you end up eating them, lol. Not to mention if you are rescuing wildlife it makes it hard to carry them while you ride a bike.
    SillyPutty
  • SillyPuttySillyPutty Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Dakini said:

    The Jains used to sweep the road ahead of them as they walked, to avoid stepping on bugs. Buddhists don't go that far, though they share some beliefs/teachings. If you're really concerned about it, you could ride your bike next time....?

    Well, it isn't a matter of choosing a different method of transportation or not. The place I had to go was an hour away by car. Don't think I would have been able to ride my bike there, let alone transport the wildlife there I was assisting.

    Obviously for a lay person it's not realistic to think that everyone can do what they need to do in their daily life without a car/bus/train/plane/bike. Some people do live in cities/towns where everything is in walking distance and it's great. But I'm sure they still step on bugs and kill things unintentionally.

    So the point of this wasn't really asking how to avoid unintentional killing, because I know killing is unavoidable (even as someone pointed out, our own bodies are killing bacteria every moment of the day). My question really was two-fold:

    1. Is (trying to) save one life more important than the possible hundreds that I'm killing on the way to my destination?

    2. How does unintentional killing relate to "enlightened" beings? I read somewhere that supposed enlightened beings don't even accidentally/unintentionally kill things... they don't have the karma to do so.

    I guess this all just relates back to the idea of, "What is needed/necessary for our happiness and existence on this planet?" Do we really need to live the lives we do? Doesn't all this excess "stuff" complicate matters and create conditions for more suffering and killing? For example, the wildlife I was trying to help yesterday, wouldn't have it been okay if we didn't have all the cars and roads and appointments and stress and selfish attitudes in the first place? But, as human beings, we've added these extra conditions to our lives that just complicate the hell out of everything. That's why I find traditions like Theravada Buddhism quite beautiful... specifically Thai forest tradition. They go back to a philosophy of less is more and are so aware and respectful of everything and everyone around them. They own like 3 things and that's all they need to get by. They don't impose themselves on other sentient beings/nature-- they co-exist with them.

    I feel that's how it should be in this world... but then that's not how we are raised to think. We are raised to think that we and our families are more important than everything else out there... except for a few things we show a preference towards (i.e. "we like dogs and flowers and that's all we will defend since that's all our egos are attracted to"). I mean, the fact that someone hit this poor animal yesterday and kept on driving and didn't want to take responsibility for it even though it was still alive just made me so upset. I mean, do you honestly think I wanted to drive an hour away to a facility to help this animal instead of going home to make dinner for me and my family? I didn't want to be inconvienced either, but I chose to try to help the poor animal as best as I could since no one else would. My thinking is everyone and everything deserves a helping, caring hand. To me, a person is a dog is a pig is a rattle snake is a bird is a bug is a spider, you know? We're all the same. Even if you don't believe in that, why not just believe in the ol' idea that, "If that was me or someone I loved lying in the middle of the road helpless, I'd want someone to stop and help me."

    I'm just sad because I'm always finding myself in these situations where I'm cleaning up other peoples' irresponsible choices, which leads me to feel really bitter about humanity and I know I shouldn't (i.e. the woman drove away and no one else stopped, but at least there *was* a nice human to take the animal to who volunteers their time to helping out). But still... I don't understand how someone could just drive off and not take responsibility. I don't get it. Unless you have an emergency of your own, do you not feel the least bit horrible that you left a poor defenseless creature in the middle of the road who needs help? And this doesn't just apply to the woman who hit the animal-- but also to the dozens of people speeding by the animal who could see that it was still alive and needed help. Why don't people care? Why is everything they are doing more important than the animal in distress or the homeless person on the street or the dirty air/drinking water in their town, etc.?

    And then my sadness morphed into more sadness because then as I'm driving to the wildlife rehab place I keep hearing/seeing *SPLAT!* on my windshield. And I just thought to myself, "What's the point? I'm trying to save something that's probably going to have to be euthanized anyway, and in the process of it all, I'm killing more sentient beings." It was just a very upsetting revelation and I started to think that my driving and hitting bugs was just as bad as the woman in the mini-van who drove off after hitting the animal instead of stopping to help the animal. Isn't it the same thing? Isn't it just as bad? Then I realize that my expectations are just too high and it all relates back to my own ego and it's so difficult for me to not feel such sadness and disappointment.

    Anyway... don't mind me... I'm very hormonal/emotional right now and my mind is totally out there today. Once I start getting into these existential depressions it takes a while to snap out of it.
    Dakini
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    Even though we tend to question so many things, when we really are in a situation where we don't know what to do, but we are doing something, then I think that is just how it's supposed to be. We never know why the lady didn't stop. Maybe at the time it wasn't safe to, or whatever. I've hit many animals in my life, living in the woods, and very few times was it safe to stop and check on the animal. Probably less than 10% of the time. It most certainly wasn't that I didn't care, and if it was safe to stop for an obviously injured animal I certainly would. But I also can't be in a position to get hit by a lunatic driver myself and many of our roads don't have shoulders or safe stopping points, especially at night. So, try not to judge too harshly the woman who hit the animal. For all you know she had kids with her and didn't think it was safe to stop, and felt really bad about it. You can only worry about yourself and your decisions. There are people who don't care, many people here intentionally run turtles over on the road for "fun" but if I spend too much time thinking about it, I put myself in a bad emotional state and that's not good for me, or the people around me. But there are also a whole lot of people who do care, who just don't know what to do, or don't feel safe to stop, or assume the animal died.

    Now, I'm not saying one being is better than another, but maybe it helps in a way to remember that bugs have a really short lifespan, compared to many other animals, and by saving one, they may go on to produce many babies over their lifetime. Mosquitoes live only about 2 weeks. Large butterflies, 9 months. Flies, 2-4 weeks. This doesn't make them less of a being, of course. But chances are they have already laid eggs and carried out their mission in furthering their species.

    Every 12-13 years we have an influx of what are called tent caterpillars, or army worms. They come by the millions, you cannot walk, drive, nothing without stepping on tons of them. You run over so many you can hear them pop on the road, it's just horrendous. But there isn't much to be done about it, and at the same time if so many didn't die, they would continue to multiply and would eventually cause harm to the ecosystem because of the vast acreage of plants they eat. For all you know some of the bugs you killed were carrying diseases that would have harmed animals or people. It's just good to keep things in perspective.
    riverflowSillyPuttylobster
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    Nature is profligate.
    Each oak tree produces hundreds of acorns that will never grow. Each May in England sees millions of Mayflies hatching from the rivers whose only raison d'etre is to breed. Most don't. Turtles lay scores of eggs, most of the minature turtles that emerge never make it to adulthood.
    Whether by car windscreen or by bird predation most insects have brief lives.
    Fortunately our job is to cultivate a benign attitude to them if possible.
    ( If they are malaria bearing mosquitos even that might be too much. )
    Nothing else..
    To start thinking of ants as little future Buddhas thwarted by the sole of our flip-flop is in my view, taking things too far.

    riverflow
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran

    Cinorjer said:

    Karma is intention, but that doesn't mean because you act with "good intention" you are causing good karma.

    People have "good intention" all the time yet cause suffering by their actions. In fact, people almost always justify their actions as necessary. Suicide bombers will tell you theirs is a noble act, sacrificing their lives for a noble cause. People picketing against gay marriage right now believe theirs is a noble action, defending the sanctity of marriage against "those deviants and their gay agenda". So how can you use intention as a guide?

    Suicide bombers have an intention to kill. They purposely blow themselves up with the desire that those around them get killed. Although they do think that their actions are noble that is a wrong view produced by their delusional minds. So while they may subjectively believe that they have "good" intentions, but that is their own delusion which is inconsistent with the Dhamma. Therefore, they will accrue bad karma for their murderous actions which was done with an intention to kill.

    Same with people picketing against gay marriage. They may subjectively believe that theirs is a noble action but that too is their own delusional thinking which is inconsistent with the Dhamma. In fact, it is most likely that they are also acting out of aversion/ill-will towards gay couples and this would be another cause for them to accrue negative karma.
    I don't think it works like this. You cannot look at the action and draw a conclusion about the intention behind it. People who fight for gay marriage may 'subjectively believe that theirs is a noble action' while it is actually a product of a delusional mind, and suicide bombers may have spent long hours talking to their charioteer about the morality of their action before proceeding. It is not as simple as saying that the side you agree with is well intentioned and the side you disagree with is suffering from delusions.

    Suppose in 1940 Hitler had been attacked by a suicide bomber. The morality of the act would be a complex issue. Suppose some lobby group argued for a more liberal attitude to rape. Would objectors be guilty of suffering from a delusional mind?
  • SillyPuttySillyPutty Veteran
    edited July 2013
    So are you implying that no one should help nor care about an animal in distress in the road or even a person for that matter? I mean, there are billions of us too, right? Survival of the fittest perhaps?

    To me, once we start justifying why we shouldn't help or care for another sentient being, it starts a slippery slope of only caring about ourselves, or judging who and what is worthy of compassion and a fighting chance at life-- no matter how short or insignificant it may come across to our human minds. Yes, birds eat bugs, fish eat other fish, lions ravage antelopes... but does that mean as human beings we should do these things just because we can? We should squish a bug just to squish it? Hunt a deer just for sport? Just because it has happened in the past and most likely will continue to happen in the future doesn't make it right. After all, children die every day from neglect and people kill people in a psychotic rage, too, right? Doesn't make it any more "normal" in my eyes.
    Citta said:

    Nature is profligate.
    Each oak tree produces hundreds of acorns that will never grow. Each May in England sees millions of Mayflies hatching from the rivers whose only raison d'etre is to breed. Most don't. Turtles lay scores of eggs, most of the minature turtles that emerge never make it to adulthood.
    Whether by car windscreen or by bird predation most insects have brief lives.
    Fortunately our job is to cultivate a benign attitude to them if possible.
    ( If they are malaria bearing mosquitos even that might be too much. )
    Nothing else..
    To start thinking of ants as little future Buddhas thwarted by the sole of our flip-flop is in my view, taking things too far.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I don't think you can equate happening to step on an ant while you are walking home with am armful of groceries to squishing a bug just because you can. There's a big difference between doing your best, but sometimes shit happens, and going out with a mindset intending to purposely cause harm to the ant, get a magnifying glass and burn it to death.
    It means, keep things in perspective. What good does it to you, or your family to get completely bent out of shape out of something you cannot change? The only thing you can do is reflect yourself if attempting to save one life is worth the cause of death of all the bugs. No one can tell you 100% for sure that one way is better than the other. We kill bugs every day in buying our food to keep ourselves alive, too. Just accepting that there are things we cannot control doesn't mean it is the same as not caring.

    The things that @citta listed about nature, happen for a reason. Because nature just works that way. Humans are a part of nature, and while it is ideal for us to do *what we can* to be cautious with the beings and the world around us, we also have needs to survive that matter, too. Foxes eat turtle eggs and babies because it's what they do. At this point in time, humans drive cars to get to the grocery store or to bring an injured animal to rehab and bugs, worms, slugs, caterpillars, and sometimes deer, moose, bear, cougars, rabbits, squirrels and other things die as a result. We are a part of that web of life, with our cars, with our shoes and everything else the same as the fox is part of the web of life. People seem to get this belief in their minds that nature works perfectly...and then there is us, on the outside, intruding and causing all these problems. We are PART of the web, not outside of it.Yes, we changed the planet drastically when we developed agriculture and our population exploded. But plenty of tragedy happens in nature because that's just how things are Even if you never leave your house, you kill things. You step on ants you never see, you wash spiders down the drain and drown them that you didn't know were there. It just doesn't serve us to become distraught at that. It happens. It's good to reflect and see if there is something we can change to lessen our impact. But we cannot make it disappear. No being on the planet lives without causing the deaths of other beings. There is no other way, not on Earth. As I said lessening it as much as we feasibly can, is good. Being depressed and distraught because we are not gods who can simply make things be a certain way does not help anyone.
    riverflow
  • CittaCitta Veteran

    So are you implying that no one should help nor care about an animal in distress in the road or even a person for that matter? I mean, there are billions of us too, right? Survival of the fittest perhaps?

    To me, once we start justifying why we shouldn't help or care for another sentient being, it starts a slippery slope of only caring about ourselves, or judging who and what is worthy of compassion and a fighting chance at life-- no matter how short or insignificant it may come across to our human minds. Yes, birds eat bugs, fish eat other fish, lions ravage antelopes... but does that mean as human beings we should do these things just because we can? We should squish a bug just to squish it? Hunt a deer just for sport? Just because it has happened in the past and most likely will continue to happen in the future doesn't make it right. After all, children die every day from neglect and people kill people in a psychotic rage, too, right? Doesn't make it any more "normal" in my eyes.

    Citta said:

    Nature is profligate.
    Each oak tree produces hundreds of acorns that will never grow. Each May in England sees millions of Mayflies hatching from the rivers whose only raison d'etre is to breed. Most don't. Turtles lay scores of eggs, most of the minature turtles that emerge never make it to adulthood.
    Whether by car windscreen or by bird predation most insects have brief lives.
    Fortunately our job is to cultivate a benign attitude to them if possible.
    ( If they are malaria bearing mosquitos even that might be too much. )
    Nothing else..
    To start thinking of ants as little future Buddhas thwarted by the sole of our flip-flop is in my view, taking things too far.

    No I am not implying any of that.
  • SillyPuttySillyPutty Veteran
    edited July 2013
    karasti said:

    I don't think you can equate happening to step on an ant while you are walking home with am armful of groceries to squishing a bug just because you can. There's a big difference between doing your best, but sometimes shit happens, and going out with a mindset intending to purposely cause harm to the ant, get a magnifying glass and burn it to death.
    It means, keep things in perspective. What good does it to you, or your family to get completely bent out of shape out of something you cannot change? The only thing you can do is reflect yourself if attempting to save one life is worth the cause of death of all the bugs. No one can tell you 100% for sure that one way is better than the other. We kill bugs every day in buying our food to keep ourselves alive, too. Just accepting that there are things we cannot control doesn't mean it is the same as not caring.

    The things that @citta listed about nature, happen for a reason. Because nature just works that way. Humans are a part of nature, and while it is ideal for us to do *what we can* to be cautious with the beings and the world around us, we also have needs to survive that matter, too. Foxes eat turtle eggs and babies because it's what they do. At this point in time, humans drive cars to get to the grocery store or to bring an injured animal to rehab and bugs, worms, slugs, caterpillars, and sometimes deer, moose, bear, cougars, rabbits, squirrels and other things die as a result. We are a part of that web of life, with our cars, with our shoes and everything else the same as the fox is part of the web of life. People seem to get this belief in their minds that nature works perfectly...and then there is us, on the outside, intruding and causing all these problems. We are PART of the web, not outside of it.Yes, we changed the planet drastically when we developed agriculture and our population exploded. But plenty of tragedy happens in nature because that's just how things are Even if you never leave your house, you kill things. You step on ants you never see, you wash spiders down the drain and drown them that you didn't know were there. It just doesn't serve us to become distraught at that. It happens. It's good to reflect and see if there is something we can change to lessen our impact. But we cannot make it disappear. No being on the planet lives without causing the deaths of other beings. There is no other way, not on Earth. As I said lessening it as much as we feasibly can, is good. Being depressed and distraught because we are not gods who can simply make things be a certain way does not help anyone.

    No one said I am trying to be a god. I don't understand where your frustration is coming from. If my questions frustrate you, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

    What I have been trying to ask for the past couple of posts is where do you draw the line? When is it useless to help, and when should it be expected? As humans we can make a conscious decision every day to help lessen the suffering of another sentient being or contribute to it. So was it pointless to stop and help the wildlife? Did it do more harm than good? Where do you draw the line between helping another sentient being and letting nature take its course? It's the age old question of: Is one life worth more than the rest? I guess I find difficulty answering this question because I'm seeing all sentient beings as deserving an equal chance at life. Just like the horrible scenario of choosing who to save if your house catches on fire and you can only save one person out of the 3 left behind. Who do you choose? And why? I think my questions are more rhetorical than anything, so if you find yourself getting upset with what I'm asking then it's probably best not to answer just yet. I keep asking one question but everyone keeps answering with the same bottled response of "this is life-- get over it and deal with it." I find it quite interesting, really.
  • Citta said:


    No I am not implying any of that.

    Maybe it was this passive-aggressive thread you posted after you posted the above response that made me think that. :)
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    But you are not talking about which people to rescue from a burning house SillyPutty are you ?
    You are talking about bugs splatting into your windscreen.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited July 2013

    Citta said:


    No I am not implying any of that.


    Maybe it was this passive-aggressive thread you posted after you posted the above response that made me think that. :)
    How is quoting the words of a well known modern teacher on an entirely different subject' passive/aggressive ' and what has it to do with THIS thread ? I promise you that when I posted the thread about Dzongscar Khyentse Rinpoche your concerns about the bugs on your windscreen did not feature in my thinking at all.
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    edited July 2013
    I think the problem is that there isn't just one blanket answer for this. Your questions are valid, however, they're hard ones and speaking for myself anyways, I don't claim to know the answer. I think it just depends on circumstances and it is uniquely a human problem. Carnivores in the animal kingdom do not have the "luxury" of contemplating whether or not killing is "moral" or "skillful" and instead rely on nature and instinct. As humans, at what point do we accept and nod to nature and at what point do we defy it because of our fortunate abilities? I really just don't know...
    SillyPutty
  • I think the problem is that there isn't just one blanket answer for this. Your questions are valid, however, they're hard ones and speaking for myself anyways, I don't claim to know the answer. I think it just depends on circumstances and it is uniquely a human problem. Carnivores in the animal kingdom do not have the "luxury" of contemplating whether or not killing is "moral" or "skillful" and instead rely on nature and instinct. As humans, at what point do we accept and nod to nature and at what point do we defy it because of our fortunate abilities? I really just don't know...

    :clap:

    You nailed in on the head, zombiegirl. Thanks. That's all I was looking for. Your response has renewed my faith in humanity. :lol:
  • Citta said:

    Citta said:


    No I am not implying any of that.


    Maybe it was this passive-aggressive thread you posted after you posted the above response that made me think that. :)
    How is quoting the words of a well known modern teacher on an entirely different subject' passive/aggressive ' and what has it to do with THIS thread ? I promise you that when I posted the thread about Dzongscar Khyentse Rinpoche your concerns about the bugs on your windscreen did not feature in my thinking at all.
    *sigh* Whatever, Citta.
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran

    I think the problem is that there isn't just one blanket answer for this. Your questions are valid, however, they're hard ones and speaking for myself anyways, I don't claim to know the answer. I think it just depends on circumstances and it is uniquely a human problem. Carnivores in the animal kingdom do not have the "luxury" of contemplating whether or not killing is "moral" or "skillful" and instead rely on nature and instinct. As humans, at what point do we accept and nod to nature and at what point do we defy it because of our fortunate abilities? I really just don't know...

    :clap:

    You nailed in on the head, zombiegirl. Thanks. That's all I was looking for. Your response has renewed my faith in humanity. :lol:
    LOL. What a compliment! I guess my work for the day is done... :D
    vinlynSillyPutty
  • Okay, well, I'll end (at least my portion) this thread with this:

    I'm not enlightened, but I surely hope the day comes when I will be. I hope I can be like one of those lovely monks/nuns who sits and smiles and accepts the good and bad as one entity and embrace it all. They really don't cry over dead animals in the road, and if they do, it doesn't haunt them for days on end at least. I hope I can bless every blade of grass and insect as I walk and not become anxious over their fate. Hopefully one day I'll get to that point of acceptance and zen. But considering I've been super sensitive ever since I was a child, I know it's going to take a lot more work. It's just who I am. Don't know why I am that way, but I'm sure karma has something to do with it somewhere. But until that moment where it all clicks, I guess I'm just going to keep on having to do what I feel compelled in my heart to do, even though it may come off counterproductive in the long run.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    @SillyPutty why do you assume that I am frustrated? I'm not. I don't have any feeling about it whatsoever. It's kind of pointless to try to assume what someone is feeling, especially if the reader is emotionally caught up in the discussion (which you said you were the other day, whether you still are or not, I'm not sure) That is just how I think of things because I grew up so in the thick of nature and everything that it has to offer, good and bad. We all have to decide for ourselves. Do I think you caused more harm in helping? No. I think it's worthy to stop and help whenever we can, even if it causes the death of the bugs. Why do I feel that way? I really don't know. I probably step on bugs on the road when I help turtles across. I just don't think about it because if I did, I would have a hard time participating in life. So I do the best I can with whatever situation I'm presented with. I wouldn't hesitate to save a squirrel, owl, fox, raccoon or whatever because of the bugs that might die. Actually, we are working with our vet to bring an orphaned raccoon to the rehab center, which is going to mean LOTS of dead bugs and butterflies (hopefully nothing else) and plenty of gas use to save one little raccoon that doesn't make a difference in the big picture. But it makes a difference to that raccoon who would prefer not to starve to death without it's mother.
  • SillyPuttySillyPutty Veteran
    edited July 2013
    karasti said:

    @SillyPutty why do you assume that I am frustrated?

    Mainly because you said I was getting "bent out of shape" and insisting that I had a god-complex in so few words. To me, that is language of someone who might be a bit annoyed, that's all. I personally wouldn't have used a lot of the phrases/language that you used. To me, it came across as "you're annoying; get over it." But again, that's how I interpreted your language. Someone else may not have. To each his own. But thanks for clearing things up.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    My choice of words was meant to be a summary of the many things you said. I didn't mean it as an insult or anything. You said:
    I'm just sad because I'm always finding myself in these situations where I'm cleaning up other peoples' irresponsible choices, which leads me to feel really bitter about humanity
    And then my sadness morphed into more sadness because then as I'm driving to the wildlife rehab place I keep hearing/seeing *SPLAT!* on my windshield. And I just thought to myself, "What's the point? I'm trying to save something that's probably going to have to be euthanized anyway, and in the process of it all, I'm killing more sentient beings." It was just a very upsetting revelation and I started to think that my driving and hitting bugs was just as bad as the woman in the mini-van who drove off after hitting the animal instead of stopping to help the animal.

    For *me* I would define myself as bent out of shape if that is how I was feeling. I don't think you are annoying, nor do I think your situation, or your questions, were annoying. Not even a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that you had a god complex. It was just a general comment. We can't control everything, and we aren't meant to. It's ok to let things go sometimes.
    SillyPutty
  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited July 2013
    Florian said:

    It is not as simple as saying that the side you agree with is well intentioned and the side you disagree with is suffering from delusions.

    Suppose in 1940 Hitler had been attacked by a suicide bomber. The morality of the act would be a complex issue. Suppose some lobby group argued for a more liberal attitude to rape. Would objectors be guilty of suffering from a delusional mind?

    Florian, I pointed out that suicide bombers have an intention to kill. This was to distinguish their case from someone who kills unintentionally eg. stepping on a bug without seeing it. Then I said that while they may believe their action is noble, ie. that killing other people for some political/religious purpose is justified and noble, that is wrong view based on a delusional mind, because to say that killing is justified/noble as it was done in order to achieve a political/religious purpose is inconsistent with the laws of nature (Dhamma). The point is their subjective view that their action is justified/noble and their intentions being good isn't in accordance with the laws of nature(Dhamma) which is why it is delusional. Kamma works in accordance with the Dhamma and thus the actions of the suicide bombers will lead to negative kamma ie. they killed with an intention to kill and such killing cannot be justified by the fact that it was done with a desire to achieve some political/religious purpose. Even in the case of someone who kills Hitler by suicide bomb, I believe that person too will incur some negative kamma from the act of intentional killing even if the killing was done to stop Hitler from committing his crimes. So this is not about which side one agrees with, it is about what is in accordance with the Dhamma and what is not. This has to be assessed objectively rather than subjectively.

    As for picketing against gay marriage, this case is more difficult than the suicide bombers as the latter involves the issue of killing which I think is rather clear cut. Picketing as an action in and of itself is neither inherently skillful or unskillful I would say. So after some reconsideration with regard to the issue picketing, I do believe we should be more focused on whether the intention of the picketers are corrupted by ill-will/aversion rather than focusing on whether the cause being fought for is objectively worthy or not or based on delusions. Basically in these situations, in terms of kamma, even if you are fighting for an objectively good cause, if you do so with a state of mind that is full of ill-will/aversion then negative kamma would still be accrued.
    maarten
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    Cinorjer said:

    Karma is intention, but that doesn't mean because you act with "good intention" you are causing good karma.

    People have "good intention" all the time yet cause suffering by their actions. In fact, people almost always justify their actions as necessary. Suicide bombers will tell you theirs is a noble act, sacrificing their lives for a noble cause. People picketing against gay marriage right now believe theirs is a noble action, defending the sanctity of marriage against "those deviants and their gay agenda". So how can you use intention as a guide?

    What else is there? Intention combined with skillfulness/wisdom is all we have to go by, as Buddhists. It should be enough.

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited July 2013


    1. Is (trying to) save one life more important than the possible hundreds that I'm killing on the way to my destination?

    2. How does unintentional killing relate to "enlightened" beings? I read somewhere that supposed enlightened beings don't even accidentally/unintentionally kill things... they don't have the karma to do so.

    Thanks for sharing, OP. And I'm sure the Buddha still stepped on bugs as he walked around. But he probably didn't generate any negative karmic seeds from it.

    I avoided addressing the point that comes up in your Q. #1, before, just waiting to see if you'd put it squarely on the table, which you did.

    Actually, I'm pretty sure that in Buddhism, as grim and un-PC as this may seem, there is a hierarchy of value of different sentient beings, though I couldn't pinpoint the source of any teaching on that. But the higher in the consciousness-chain a being is, the closer to enlightenment-potential it is. So even though you're not supposed to kill anything at all, sacrificing some malaria-bearing mosquitos in order to save a Bodhisattva's life (the Dalai Lama, say) would possibly be justifiable from the standpoint of the "greater good" principle in how the precepts are put into practice (speaking of the Mahayana tradition. There is no "greater good" principle in Theravada, though, so maybe this isn't helpful to you, in the end). You squished some bugs on your way to save a deer, a possum, or someone's dog? Maybe that animal, if it survived after your intervention, went on to nurture its young, or to save a human's life.

    I think if we worry about every little bacterium (think about how many lives you eliminate when you take antibiotics), we'd become paralyzed, and unable to act altogether.

    Another question is: did you act skillfully? What were the chances of that animal's survival after your intervention? Did you act more out of emotion or some sort of hero complex, or anger at the callous world we live in, than out of compassion? Are you able to sort through all those feelings?

    I'm just sad because I'm always finding myself in these situations where I'm cleaning up other peoples' irresponsible choices, which leads me to feel really bitter about humanity and I know I shouldn't (i.e. the woman drove away and no one else stopped, but at least there *was* a nice human to take the animal to who volunteers their time to helping out).

    idk, OP. I think there's a lot of food for thought here, and a lot to meditate on. Maybe through meditation you'll come up with an answer. Please update us, if you do. :o
    There are no easy answers in life. You raise a lot of good questions.
    riverflowSillyPutty
  • SillyPuttySillyPutty Veteran
    edited July 2013
    Dakini said:


    Another question is: did you act skillfully? What were the chances of that animal's survival after your intervention? Did you act more out of emotion or some sort of hero complex, or anger at the callous world we live in, than out of compassion? Are you able to sort through all those feelings?

    No, not a hero complex at all. I did the right thing. It was out of compassion. The animal was very hurt yet very alive and cognizant and mobile. I was told if I had left the animal there, it would have went on another few weeks suffering terribly and eventually die from starvation and the elements. Even though it had to be humanely euthanized, the man said I did the right thing (at least I'm assuming they euthanized the animal b/c that's the last thing he told me might happen the next day... I didn't bother to call and ask because it seemed like the man knew what the vet was going to say and showed us various reasons as to why that was the case while examining the animal's wounds). This type of animal is extremely resilient and would have suffered for a long, long time unnecessarily. Would have been better if the woman ran it over fully so it was a quick death. If I had known then what I know now, I would have probably done it myself and saved everyone the trouble. But I learned a lot of new information and know (hopefully) what to do if the situation would ever (hopefully not) arise again.
    riverflow
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    OP, I think you have nothing to worry about karma-wise, and really, don't you feel pretty good about that ^^ part of it? It sounds like you really did do the right thing. And you learned a lot.
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    edited July 2013
    @karmablues - Yes, fair enough. In a past life the Buddha is said to have commited a murder for the best of motives, but not without karmic consequences.

    What I object to is the idea that any particular action, suicide bombing or whatever, is always right or always wrong. I don't think this is how it works. The context makes a difference, and the context for any two actions is never the same in any case.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited July 2013
    Cinorjer said:

    Karma is intention, but that doesn't mean because you act with "good intention" you are causing good karma.

    People have "good intention" all the time yet cause suffering by their actions. In fact, people almost always justify their actions as necessary. Suicide bombers will tell you theirs is a noble act, sacrificing their lives for a noble cause. People picketing against gay marriage right now believe theirs is a noble action, defending the sanctity of marriage against "those deviants and their gay agenda". So how can you use intention as a guide?

    I think that is why the Buddha made number 2 of the 8FP as "right intention" instead of just "intention". People may think they have good intention, but if the intention is not "right", it will still make bad karma.

  • CittaCitta Veteran
    The Pali is 'samma sankappa '...samma is more than ' Right ' it carries the implication of ' completeness ' sankappa can be translated as 'aspiration'...which would make the second of the 8FP ' complete aspiration '.
    Now this is not as snappy as ' Right Intention ' and I doubt it will catch on widely :)
    But this alternative translation does aid us in teasing out the meaning of 'samma sankappa'.
    The problem with translating samma as 'Right' is the implication that other intentions or aspirations are Wrong.
    What the second of the 8 FP is saying is that our actions should be informed by a complete aspiration towards Enlightened action. And complete aspiration has to be seen additionally in terms of both the rest of the 8FP and in general terms of sila.
Sign In or Register to comment.